DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 6,092,728).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a microlens arrangement, comprising:
a microlens (See, e.g., micro-optical element 12 in Fig. 1B), and
a lens holder for the microlens (See, e.g., the combination of lens holder 13 and laser holder 11 and base 10 in Fig. 1B),
wherein the lens holder includes a holding tube with a tube slot (Note here this corresponds to laser holder 11, which has a slot corresponding to keyway 11a shown in Fig. 1A), and
wherein the microlens is arranged inside the holding tube (See, e.g., Fig. 1B which shows this), and
wherein the lens holder has a base plate which is arranged on one end of the holding tube (See, e.g., base 10 in Fig. 1B), closes the lens holder and has a base plate opening toward the tube interior of the holding tube (See, e.g., slots 19 in base 10 in Fig. 1B and note that “toward the tube interior” is broad for an opening, as one could say the opening faces toward and away from the interior based on which direction is chosen),
wherein the holding tube is configured as a slotted hollow cylinder (See, e.g., Figs. 1A-C which show laser holder 11 being a cylinder which is hollow insofar as it has elements inside it and having slots in the form of keyways 10a, 11a, and 13a), and
wherein the tube slot extends from a first end of the holding tube to an opposite second end of the holding tube (See, e.g., how keyways 11a and 10a are on the “left” side of the view shown in Fig. 1B and keyway 13a is on the “right” side of the view shown in Fig. 1B corresponding to a first and second end of the cited holding tube).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the microlens has a diameter which corresponds to an inner diameter of the holding tube (Note the claim does not require the diameters to be equal, so the fact that Fig 1C shows all the diameters as concentric circles meets this limitation as the diameters all correspond to the same axial center).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the device above and further teaches wherein the microlens is adhesively bonded to the holding tube (See, e.g., column 6 lines 30-43 which explain that the lens holder 13 and laser holder 11 are permanently fixed after achieving the desired focus, which is only possible if the lens is fixed to the lens holder. Thus, in this way the microlens is adhesively bonded to the cited holding tube via the lens holder).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the holding tube is made from brass, aluminum, or a plastic (See, e.g., column 5 lines 43-52 which explain this).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the tube slot runs parallel with respect to a cylinder axis of the holding tube (See, e.g., Figs. 1A-C which show this).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the base plate has a base plate slot which extends from the base plate opening to the tube slot of the holding tube (See, e.g., slots 19 in Fig. 1A which per column 6 lines 35-43 which explain that the slots may be aligned with the keyway 10a).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches a micro-optical device, comprising:
a carrier element (See, e.g., the combination of base 10 in Fig. 1B which supports laser diode 1 and lens holder 13 which supports the microlens arrangement),
a die arranged on the carrier element (See, e.g., laser diode 1 in Fig. 1B and note laser diodes necessarily have a die in order to produce light),
a light-emitting diode arranged on the die (See, e.g., laser diode 1 in Fig. 1B), and
a microlens arrangement configured as claimed in claim 1 of the preceding claims (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the lens holder of the microlens arrangement is arranged on the carrier element and an end section of the holding tube runs around the die (See, e.g., Figs. 1A-C which show this).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a bonding wire which is connected to the die and is guided through the tube slot of the holding tube (See, e.g., ground lead g which extends from the base 10 to the keyway 10a as explained in column 6 lines 17-25).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a base plate opening of the base plate corresponds to the die and is arranged around the die (See, e.g., slots 19 in base 10 which are arranged around the die and correspond to the die).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the lens holder of the microlens arrangement is adhesively bonded or soldered to the carrier element (Note that per column 6 lines 31-43, the cited lens holder (laser holder 11) is adhesively fixed to at least the lens holder 13, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a method for producing a microlens arrangement configured as claimed in claim 1 (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising:
clamping the microlens in the holding tube (See, e.g., column 5 lines 53-60 which explain a snap ring clamps the microlens into the lens holder) and subsequently adhesively bonding the microlens to the holding tube through the tube slot and/or directly on the tube slot (See, e.g., column 6 lines 30-43 which explain that the lens holder 13 and laser holder 11 are permanently fixed after achieving the desired focus, which is only possible if the lens is fixed to the lens holder. Thus, in this way the microlens is adhesively bonded to the cited holding tube via the lens holder).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 6,092,728) in view of Matikainen et al. (US 11,209,720 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the base plate is made from brass, aluminum, or a plastic.
However, in an analogous optical field of endeavor Matikainen teaches the use of 3D printing a plastic material to serve as all of the side walls of a lens barrel, which can include an end face/base plate (See, e.g., column 5 lines 17-25 which explain this).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate to be a plastic as taught by Matikainen, for the purpose of having more convenient processing during manufacturing (See, e.g., column 5 lines 17-25 of Matikainen which explain this).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the holding tube is made of plastic via 3D printing.
However, in an analogous optical field of endeavor Matikainen teaches the use of 3D printing a plastic material to serve as all of the side walls of a lens barrel, which can include an end face/base plate (See, e.g., column 5 lines 17-25 which explain this).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holding tube to be made of plastic via 3D printing as taught by Matikainen, for the purpose of having more convenient processing during manufacturing (See, e.g., column 5 lines 17-25 of Matikainen which explain this).
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the base plate is made of plastic via 3D printing.
However, in an analogous optical field of endeavor Matikainen teaches the use of 3D printing a plastic material to serve as all of the side walls of a lens barrel, which can include an end face/base plate (See, e.g., column 5 lines 17-25 which explain this).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base plate to be made of plastic via 3D printing as taught by Matikainen, for the purpose of having more convenient processing during manufacturing (See, e.g., column 5 lines 17-25 of Matikainen which explain this).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on August 27th, 2025 have been fully considered and are not found persuasive as they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITCHELL OESTREICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872