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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 9/18/2023 in which Applicant lists claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 18 as being original, and claims 1, 3, 6, 8-17 and 19-20 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-20 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups aren’t mutually exclusive, and there would not be a serious burden if restriction were not required. These arguments are not found persuasive, and are respectfully traversed.
First, as per M.P.E.P. 806.05(j), though the burden is on the Examiner to provide an example to support the determination of that the inventions are distinct, such examples need not be documented.
Second, the analysis for distinctness set forth in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 1/23/2026 did include an analysis for distinctness between individual inventions.
It is noted that under the criteria of M.P.E.P. 806.05(c)-806.06, the inventions need to be shown to be independent or distinct. The restriction requirement separated Groups I-IX into related products/related processes, as claimed. The requirement for restriction mailed 1/23/2026 clearly set forth that each group included separate claim limitations not included, or required, in the other groups and therefore are distinct and would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required (see at least section 2 of the action mailed 1/23/2026 for explicit examples of the claim limitations not required by the other groups). Therefore, it has been shown how the different groups have a materially different design, or mode of operation, and therefore contain non-overlapping subject matter, as claimed. It is not required that each group not be capable of use together as the groups were broken up by related products/related processes and are distinct.
Also, M.P.E.P. 806.05 specifically states that “Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention.” Due to the mutually exclusive subject matter present in each of the inventions, the Examiner fails to see how, for example, Group II may infringe on any of Groups III since an included angle between the second side face and the first surface being 45 degrees has no bearing on whether the silicon-based substrate is monocrystalline silicon with a target crystallographic orientation, and both groups would require differently evaluating prior art, and would likely result in prior art being found which is applicable to one invention but not the other invention (see for example the Chen, Wang and Zhang prior art references set forth below). Applicant has not provided any evidentiary support to show that each of the listed inventions are not distinct from each other (i.e. mutually exclusive), or that the listed inventions are obvious variants.
Finally, a serious burden has been shown since at least one or more of the following reasons apply to the requirement for restriction:
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries (see the Examiner’s search for this office action for search queries drawn to the elected group, and not necessarily drawn to other non-elected groups; It should further be noted that narrowing down the tens of thousands of prior art documents found in the searched class/subclass, group/subgroup areas requires evaluating the art for the claimed inventive features as claimed and described by Applicant. In this instance burden has been shown since at least the separately claimed features of the separate groups would require search queries and art evaluation drawn to different inventive features);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention (e.g. the prior art used to reject the elected invention does not read on some or all of the other inventions).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, it is noted that since the prior art relied upon for the rejection of the claims also reads on the claims of non-elected Groups I and IX, Groups I and IX (i.e. claims 2, 15, 16 and 20) are rejoined and examined below.
Claims 4-5, 7-13 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/10/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 11/13/2024, 6/2/2025, 9/5/2025, 2/6/2026 were considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/18/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanisaka, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0033528 A1, of record (hereafter Tanisaka).
Regarding claim 1, Tanisaka discloses a reflector (see at least figure 3B, element 15) comprising:
a silicon-based substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0059]), a first side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and a second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 3B, element 11); and
a reflective film located on the first surface (see at least figure 3B, element 23, para. [0125]), an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “first angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “second angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface being an obtuse angle (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039], wherein the second surface and second side face form an obtuse angle of 135 degrees).
Regarding claim 2, Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein an included angle between the second side face and the first surface is 45 degrees (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the reflective film may be dielectric film or metal film (see at least paragraph [0125] of Tanisaka).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 14-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0067335 A1 (hereafter Chen) in view of Tanisaka, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0033528 A1, of record (hereafter Tanisaka).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a reflector (see at least element 212, para. [0022]) comprising:
a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and a second side face (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]); and
a reflective film located on the first surface (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface being an obtuse angle (see at least element 212).
Chen does not specifically disclose that the reflector substrate may be silicon-based, that the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold.
However, Tanisaka teaches reflector (see at least figure 3B, element 15) comprising: a silicon-based substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0059]), a first side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and a second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 3B, element 11); and
a reflective film located on the first surface (see at least figure 3B, element 23, para. [0125]), an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “first angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “second angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface being an obtuse angle (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039], wherein the second surface and second side face form an obtuse angle of 135 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen to include the teachings of Tanisaka so that the reflector substrate may be silicon-based, wherein the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold, for the purpose of forming the substrate of the reflector of a material known in the optical arts so that the reflector may have desired physical properties such as rigidity and/or thermal stability, and for the purpose of forming the substrate and reflector to have a desired shape for the purpose of fitting the substrate and reflector to cavity of the apparatus and/or for achieving a weight reduction of the substrate and reflector by not including additional unnecessary material for the substrate and/or for achieving a desired orientation of the reflector for reflecting light in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflector substrate be silicon-based, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the reflector substrate be silicon-based, for the purpose of forming the substrate of the reflector of a material known in the optical arts so that the reflector may have desired physical properties such as rigidity and/or thermal stability. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape, size and/or dimensions of the substrate of the reflector, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; and since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component which is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art; and since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the optimum and workable size, shape, and/or dimensions for the substrate of the reflector to make it suitable for an intended purpose such that the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold, for the purpose of forming the substrate and reflector to have a desired shape for the purpose of fitting the substrate and reflector to cavity of the apparatus and/or for achieving a weight reduction of the substrate and reflector by not including additional unnecessary material for the substrate and/or for achieving a desired orientation of the reflector for reflecting light in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation of success. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein an included angle between the second side face and the first surface is 45 degrees (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039] of Tanisaka, as well as the combination set forth above).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Chen further teaches that the mirror is a mirror coating on a substrate, but does not specifically disclose that the reflective film may be dielectric film or metal film.
However, Tanisaka further discloses that the reflective film may be dielectric film or metal film (see at least paragraph [0125] of Tanisaka).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen to include the further teachings of Tanisaka so that the reflective film may be dielectric film or metal film, for the purpose of using a known optical structure to reflect light while having a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses a lens module (see at least element 150), comprising:
a reflector comprising a substrate and a reflective film (see at least figure 1, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]),
a lens set (see at least figure 2, element 250, para. [0022]), and
a photosensitive element (see at least figure 2, element 260, para. [0022]);
the lens set being located between the reflector and the photosensitive element (see at least figure 2), the reflective film of the reflector being closer to the lens set than the substrate (see at least figure 2, elements 212 and 250, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and the reflective film is configured to reflect incident light to the lens set (see at least figure 2);
the substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and a second side face (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]); and
the reflective film is located on the first surface (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface is an obtuse angle (see at least element 212).
Chen does not specifically disclose that the reflector substrate may be silicon-based, that the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold.
However, Tanisaka teaches reflector (see at least figure 3B, element 15) comprising: a silicon-based substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0059]), a first side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and a second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 3B, element 11); and
a reflective film located on the first surface (see at least figure 3B, element 23, para. [0125]), an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “first angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “second angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface being an obtuse angle (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039], wherein the second surface and second side face form an obtuse angle of 135 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen to include the teachings of Tanisaka so that the reflector substrate may be silicon-based, wherein the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold, for the purpose of forming the substrate of the reflector of a material known in the optical arts so that the reflector may have desired physical properties such as rigidity and/or thermal stability, and for the purpose of forming the substrate and reflector to have a desired shape for the purpose of fitting the substrate and reflector to cavity of the apparatus and/or for achieving a weight reduction of the substrate and reflector by not including additional unnecessary material for the substrate and/or for achieving a desired orientation of the reflector for reflecting light in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflector substrate be silicon-based, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the reflector substrate be silicon-based, for the purpose of forming the substrate of the reflector of a material known in the optical arts so that the reflector may have desired physical properties such as rigidity and/or thermal stability. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape, size and/or dimensions of the substrate of the reflector, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; and since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component which is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art; and since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the optimum and workable size, shape, and/or dimensions for the substrate of the reflector to make it suitable for an intended purpose such that the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold, for the purpose of forming the substrate and reflector to have a desired shape for the purpose of fitting the substrate and reflector to cavity of the apparatus and/or for achieving a weight reduction of the substrate and reflector by not including additional unnecessary material for the substrate and/or for achieving a desired orientation of the reflector for reflecting light in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation of success. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claims 15-16, Chen in view of Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 14, and Chen further teaches that the included angle between the reflective film and an optical axis of the lens set is 45 degrees (see at least paragraph [0023] of Chen).
Chen does not specifically disclose that an included angle between a second side face and a first surface of the silicon-based substrate is equal to an included angle between the reflective film and an optical axis of the lens set.
However, Tanisaka further discloses that an included angle between a second side face and a first surface of the silicon-based substrate is 45 degrees (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039] of Tanisaka, wherein the second surface and second side face form an obtuse angle of 135 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen to include the further teachings of Tanisaka so that an included angle between a second side face and a first surface of the silicon-based substrate is equal to an included angle between the reflective film and an optical axis of the lens set, for the purpose of forming the substrate to have a desired shape so that the substrate may be oriented to locate the reflector such that light is reflected in a desired direction.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses an electronic device (see at least figure 1, element 100), comprising:
a housing (see at least figure 1, element 100), and a lens module arranged in the housing (see at least element 150), wherein the lens module comprises
a reflector comprising a substrate and a reflective film (see at least figure 1, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]),
a lens set (see at least figure 2, element 250, para. [0022]), and
a photosensitive element (see at least figure 2, element 260, para. [0022]);
the lens set being located between the reflector and the photosensitive element (see at least figure 2), the reflective film of the reflector being closer to the lens set than the substrate (see at least figure 2, elements 212 and 250, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and the reflective film is configured to reflect incident light to the lens set (see at least figure 2);
the substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and a second side face (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]); and
the reflective film is located on the first surface (see at least figure 2, element 212, paras. [0031]-[0032]), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface is an obtuse angle (see at least element 212).
Chen does not specifically disclose that the reflector substrate may be silicon-based, that the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold.
However, Tanisaka teaches reflector (see at least figure 3B, element 15) comprising: a silicon-based substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to one another (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0059]), a first side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and a second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face (see at least figure 3B, element 11), and the second side face is connected to the second surface (see at least figure 3B, element 11); and
a reflective film located on the first surface (see at least figure 3B, element 23, para. [0125]), an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “first angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold (see at least figure 3B, element 11, wherein the various faces intersect at various angles and not “second angle threshold” has been defined by the claim), and an included angle between the second side face and the second surface being an obtuse angle (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039], wherein the second surface and second side face form an obtuse angle of 135 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen to include the teachings of Tanisaka so that the reflector substrate may be silicon-based, wherein the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold, for the purpose of forming the substrate of the reflector of a material known in the optical arts so that the reflector may have desired physical properties such as rigidity and/or thermal stability, and for the purpose of forming the substrate and reflector to have a desired shape for the purpose of fitting the substrate and reflector to cavity of the apparatus and/or for achieving a weight reduction of the substrate and reflector by not including additional unnecessary material for the substrate and/or for achieving a desired orientation of the reflector for reflecting light in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reflector substrate be silicon-based, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the reflector substrate be silicon-based, for the purpose of forming the substrate of the reflector of a material known in the optical arts so that the reflector may have desired physical properties such as rigidity and/or thermal stability. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape, size and/or dimensions of the substrate of the reflector, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; and since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component which is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art; and since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the optimum and workable size, shape, and/or dimensions for the substrate of the reflector to make it suitable for an intended purpose such that the substrate includes a first side face, wherein the first side face is connected to both the first surface and the second side face, an included angle between the first side face and the first surface being greater than a first angle threshold, and an included angle between the second side face and the first side face being greater than a second angle threshold, for the purpose of forming the substrate and reflector to have a desired shape for the purpose of fitting the substrate and reflector to cavity of the apparatus and/or for achieving a weight reduction of the substrate and reflector by not including additional unnecessary material for the substrate and/or for achieving a desired orientation of the reflector for reflecting light in a desired direction while having a reasonable expectation of success. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 19, and Chen further teaches that the included angle between the reflective film and an optical axis of the lens set is 45 degrees (see at least paragraph [0023] of Chen).
Chen does not specifically disclose that an included angle between a second side face and a first surface of the silicon-based substrate is equal to an included angle between the reflective film and an optical axis of the lens set.
However, Tanisaka further discloses that an included angle between a second side face and a first surface of the silicon-based substrate is 45 degrees (see at least figure 3B, element 11, para. [0039] of Tanisaka, wherein the second surface and second side face form an obtuse angle of 135 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen to include the further teachings of Tanisaka so that an included angle between a second side face and a first surface of the silicon-based substrate is equal to an included angle between the reflective film and an optical axis of the lens set, for the purpose of forming the substrate to have a desired shape so that the substrate may be oriented to locate the reflector such that light is reflected in a desired direction.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanisaka, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0033528 A1, of record (hereafter Tanisaka) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0097143 A1, of record (hereafter Wang) and Zhang, CN 103364859 A, of record (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 3, Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a further reflective film located on the second surface, a material of the further reflective film is the same as that of the first mentioned reflective film.
However, Wang teaches a reflector wherein a reflective element may be formed on both a first surface and a second surface of a substrate material (see at least figures 9-10, elements 26, 44, 54, para. [0032] of Wang).
Additionally, Zhang teaches that it is known in the optical arts to form films of the same material on opposite sides of a base material to balance surfaces stresses on the substrate (see at least figure 3, elements 10 and 30, as well as page 4 of the English machine translation provided by Applicant with the 2/6/2026 IDS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Tanisaka to include the teachings of Wang and Zhang so that a further reflective film may be located on the second surface, a material of the further reflective film is the same as that of the first mentioned reflective film, for the purpose of balancing the stresses on the substrate and achieving better adhesion of the reflective coating to the substrate.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0067335 A1 (hereafter Chen) in view of Tanisaka, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0033528 A1, of record (hereafter Tanisaka) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Wang, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0097143 A1, of record (hereafter Wang) and Zhang, CN 103364859 A, of record (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Chen in view of Tanisaka discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a further reflective film located on the second surface, a material of the further reflective film is the same as that of the first mentioned reflective film.
However, Wang teaches a reflector wherein a reflective element may be formed on both a first surface and a second surface of a substrate material (see at least figures 9-10, elements 26, 44, 54, para. [0032] of Wang).
Additionally, Zhang teaches that it is known in the optical arts to form films of the same material on opposite sides of a base material to balance surfaces stresses on the substrate (see at least figure 3, elements 10 and 30, as well as page 4 of the English machine translation provided by Applicant with the 2/6/2026 IDS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflector of Chen in view of Tanisaka to include the teachings of Wang and Zhang so that a further reflective film may be located on the second surface, a material of the further reflective film is the same as that of the first mentioned reflective film, for the purpose of balancing the stresses on the substrate and achieving better adhesion of the reflective coating to the substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/3/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights