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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18026804 filed on 03/16/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application of National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/137464 , International Filing Date: 12/13/2021that claims foreign priority to CN 202110238053.7, filed 03/04/2021 (China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (hereafter Lin, of record see IDS dated 03/16/2023) CN 208795952 U (where attached English language machine translation is referenced).
In regard to independent claim 1, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) an optical element (lens 12 of projection module 10 of imaging device 100, of portable electronic device e.g. 1000, abstract, paragraphs [02, 06-20, 36-47, 50-60]), wherein the optical element comprises a diffractive optical element (diffractive optical element 18, microstructure 1822, paragraphs [45-56]), and a Fresnel lens connected to the diffractive optical element (Fresnel microstructure 1824 connected to 1822, paragraphs [45-56]), such that a light beam passing through the diffractive optical element through the Fresnel lens forms a preset pattern (i.e. as a result of the lens 10 structure with 1822, 1824, given that no light source is recited, e.g. laser light pattern, paragraphs [10, 13,16,38-39, 56-65], Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the diffractive optical element comprises a transparent substrate (18), and a diffractive layer (1822) disposed on the transparent substrate (i.e. as substrate DOE 18 with 1822, paragraphs [36-38, 45-56]) .
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the diffractive layer is filled with a filling layer for covering the diffractive layer, or a cover plate is arranged on the diffractive layer (i.e. as layer filled above 1822 between 1822,18 and cover plate 16, and as cover plate 16 is arranged on 1822, paragraphs [36-39, 48-53, 54,58]).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the Fresnel lens is disposed on the transparent substrate, or the Fresnel lens is disposed on the filling layer (i.e. as Fresnel microstructure 1824 is on filling layer between cover 16, and on other side 1824 is disposed on substrate DOE 18, paragraphs [50-56]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that a difference value between a refractive index n1 of the diffractive optical element and a refractive index n2 of the filling layer is: In1-n2|>0.2 (i.e. given that lens 10 and DOE 18 with diffractive microstructures 1822 are made of light transmitting material, e.g. glass or resin that diffracts light emitted from light source 14 has refractive index higher than the refractive index of air in filling layer in closed space between 186 of 18, 1822 and cover plate with stoppers 16, 162,164, see paragraphs [49-51, 54]).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that a material forming the diffractive optical element has a higher refractive index than a material forming the filled layer, or a material forming the diffractive optical element has a lower refractive index than a material forming the filled layer (i.e. given that lens 10 and DOE 18 with diffractive microstructures 1822 are made of light transmitting material, e.g. glass or resin that diffracts light emitted from light source 14 has refractive index higher than the refractive index of filling layer in closed space between 186 of 18, 1822 and cover plate with stoppers 16, 162,164, see paragraphs [49-51, 54]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the Fresnel lens comprises a substrate, and a collimating layer arranged on the substrate (i.e. as 1824 is set on lower substrate 18 surface 184, and Fresnel microstructures 1824 collimate (laser) light of the source 14, paragraphs [50-56]), such that light beams passing through the Fresnel lens are emitted in parallel, wherein the collimating layer is located on a side of the substrate facing away from the transparent substrate (i.e. as result of light collimation of 1824 Fresnel microstructures, placed on surface and facing away from 18, i.e. towards cover 16 and source 14, paragraphs [50-56]).
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that structure types of the diffractive layer and the collimating layer are any one of a stepped type or a continuous type, respectively (i.e. as 1822, and 1824 microstructures are step-type or continuous relief, paragraphs [47-56], as depicted in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) an optical module (10), wherein the optical module comprises the optical element (lens 12) according to claim1 and a light source (lens 12 is part of projection module 10, that includes light source 14, of imaging device 100, of portable electronic device e.g. 1000, abstract, paragraphs [02, 06-20, 36-47, 50-60]), wherein the light source is located at a focal plane of the Fresnel lens of the optical element, and a collimating portion of the Fresnel lens faces towards the light source (i.e. as 1824 Fresnel structure is collimating light from the source 14, and 1824 faces the light source, paragraphs [47-56], as depicted I Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the light source in the optical module is a vertical cavity surface emitting laser or a laser diode I14 is laser diode DFB or VCSEL, paragraphs [38-39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 3, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (hereafter Lin, of record see IDS dated 03/16/2023) CN 208795952 U (where attached English language machine translation is referenced) in view of Miyasaka US 20200110277 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the transparent substrate is made of transparent material (i.e. as 18 substrate transmits light from source 14 through lens 10, paragraphs [36-38, 45-56]), and the diffractive layer is patterned by micro-nano etching or imprinting process (i.e. 1822 produced by etching the substrate, e.g. paragraphs [42, 47], note that further limitations are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as embossing, using holographic technics, or plasma techniques. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)”. But Lin is silent that the substrate (18) is made of glass or resin.
However, glass or resin are known materials and known properties of light transmitting used in lenses and optical elements, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The benefits of glass and resin materials include light transmissivity, as evidenced by see noting that the transparent substrate 11 on which the diffractive portion 12 is disposed, is made of glass or resin, in order to and because it transmits light (see paragraphs 61, 79,109]), and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, the Lin-Miyasaka combination discloses the invention as set forth above and Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the diffractive layer is filled with a filling layer for covering the diffractive layer, or a cover plate is arranged on the diffractive layer (i.e. as layer filled above 1822 between 1822,18 and cover plate 16, and as cover plate 16 is arranged on 1822, paragraphs [36-39, 48-53, 54,58]).
Regarding claim 19, the Lin-Miyasaka combination discloses the invention as set forth above and Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) that the Fresnel lens comprises a substrate, and a collimating layer arranged on the substrate (i.e. as 1824 is set on lower substrate 18 surface 184, and Fresnel microstructures 1824 collimate (laser) light of the source 14, paragraphs [50-56]), such that light beams passing through the Fresnel lens are emitted in parallel, wherein the collimating layer is located on a side of the substrate facing away from the transparent substrate (i.e. as result of light collimation of 1824 Fresnel microstructures, placed on surface and facing away from 18, i.e. towards cover 16 and source 14, paragraphs [50-56]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (hereafter Lin, of record see IDS dated 03/16/2023) CN 208795952 U (where attached English language machine translation is referenced) in view of Miyasaka US 20200110277 A1, and further in view of Hosokawa US 5114513 A.
Regarding claim 17, the Lin-Miyasaka combination discloses the invention as set forth above and Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) the transparent substrate (18) but is silent that a transparent conductive layer is provided on one side of the transparent substrate. However, Hosokawa also teaches an optical device manufacturing method (e.g. diffractive optical element, Fresnel micro-lens, see Figs. 1,8-9, 17-22, abstract, col. 4 line 50 – col. 6 line 42, col. 10 lines 10-col. 12 line 43), and further teaches transparent conductive layer is provided on one side of the transparent substrate (i.e. as Fresnel lens or grating structure includes high refractive index material, and in which a transparent conductive substance (ITO) is employed as the material, providing conductivity, and antistatic function to the microlens, col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6, Figs. 17-22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the substrate (18) of Lin to include surface with transparent conductive substance (ITO) is employed as the material according to teachings of Hosokawa, in order to provide conductivity, and antistatic function to the microlens (see col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6).
Claims 8, 9, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (hereafter Lin, of record see IDS dated 03/16/2023) CN 208795952 U (where attached English language machine translation is referenced) in view of Hosokawa US 5114513 A.
Regarding claim 8, 9 and 18, and Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) the transparent substrate (18) but is silent that a transparent conductive layer is provided on one side of the transparent substrate, and transparent conductive layer is made of transparent metal oxide or metal doped oxide. However, Hosokawa also teaches an optical device manufacturing method (e.g. diffractive optical element, Fresnel micro-lens, see Figs. 1,8-9, 17-22, abstract, col. 4 line 50 – col. 6 line 42, col. 10 lines 10-col. 12 line 43), and further teaches transparent conductive layer is provided on one side of the transparent substrate, and that transparent conductive layer is made of transparent metal oxide or metal doped oxide (i.e. as Fresnel lens or grating structure includes high refractive index material, and in which a transparent conductive substance, as ITO that is employed as the material, providing conductivity, and antistatic function to the microlens, col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6, Figs. 17-22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the substrate (18) of Lin to include surface with transparent conductive substance, as ITO employed as the material according to teachings of Hosokawa, in order to provide conductivity, and antistatic function to the microlens (see col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6).
Regarding claim 12 and 20, and Lin teaches (see Figs. 1-5) the transparent substrate (18) or a light-transmitting surface of the filling layer (at surface of cover plate 16), but is silent that it is provided with at least one of an anti-reflective film layer, a wear-resistant layer, and a hydrophobic and oleophobic layer. However, Hosokawa also teaches an optical device manufacturing method (e.g. diffractive optical element, Fresnel micro-lens, see Figs. 1,8-9, 17-22, abstract, col. 4 line 50 – col. 6 line 42, col. 10 lines 10-col. 12 line 43), and further teaches that transparent substrate or a light-transmitting surface of the filling layer is provided with at least one of an anti-reflective film layer, a wear-resistant layer, and a hydrophobic and oleophobic layer (i.e. as Fresnel lens or grating structure of optical device substrate is provided with protective film layer e.g.44, col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6, Figs. 17-22, providing protection to surface including patterns of projections and depressions associated with functional sections of the optical device, col. 5 line 65-col. 6 line 3, col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6, Figs. 17-22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the substrate (18) of Lin to include protective film layer according to teachings of Hosokawa, in order to provide protection to surface including patterns of projections and depressions associated with functional sections of the optical device, col. 5 line 65-col. 6 line 3, col. 11 line 64-col. 13 line 6, Figs. 17-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al. US 20190264890 A1 also teaches features of instant invention (see Figs. 1-3, 6-7 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights