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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed May 10, 2023.
This application is also a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 for PCT international application number PCT/US2021/072415 filed November 16, 2021 and published April 27, 2023 as PCT publication no. WO 2022115829 A9.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as November 26, 2020, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/118,650) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
United States patent application serial number 63/261,468 filed September 22, 2021; and
United States patent application serial number 63/186,184 filed May 10, 2021.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as May 10, 2023, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s) (please note that redundancies are generally present):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
JP
2023532240
11/16/2021
JP 2023552130 A
JP 7600399 B2
12/14/2023
12/16/2024
KR
20237021438
11/16/2021
KR 20230124930 A
08/28/2023
EP
21899252
11/16/2021
EP 4252047 A1
EP 4252047 A4
10/04/2023
10/23/2024
CN
202180075965
11/16/2021
CN 116569085 A
08/08/2023
US
PCT/US21/72415
11/16/2021
WO 2022115829 A1
WO 2022115829 A9
06/02/2022
04/27/2023
The claims filed April 26, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the filing of the same date.
This action responds to the claims of April 26, 2026 and the remarks of December 30, 2025 due to the non-entry of the accompanying claims of December 30, 2025.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1, 4, 6-9, and 11-13
1, 4, 6-9, 11, & 12
Cancelled:
none
none
Withdrawn:
none
none
Added:
none
none
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 11-13 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-15 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the second action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150292948 of Goldring et al. (Goldring, cited by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5481385 of Zimmerman et al. (Zimmerman).
With respect to claim 1, Goldring discloses a light isolating array (Figs. 5-7, ¶ 155, "In many embodiments, each filter defines an optical channel of the spectrometer. The optical channel can extend from the filer through an aperture and a lens of the array to a region of the sensor array. The plurality of parallel optical channels can provide increased resolution with decreased optical path length."), comprising:
(a) a transparent material having a thickness, a light inlet face, a light outlet face, a side face (lens array 174, Fig. 7, ¶ 166),
a plurality of light conducting conduits (generally, the individual lenses of the lens array) and
a plurality of optical isolation channels (generally, the indentations between the individual lenses, such indentations associated with the upper end of the support structures 179), wherein,
the plurality of light conducting conduits have a horizontal light inlet surface that is substantially parallel to the light inlet face (upper surface of lens array 174 has both the light inlet face at the aperture array and the horizontal light inlet surface.), and
a horizontal light outlet surface that is substantially parallel to the light outlet face (per ¶ 159, "In many embodiments, the lenses of the array comprise substantially the same focal length such that the lens array and the sensor array are arranged in a substantially parallel configuration.” Such parallel nature is seen to apply to the individual lenses per the focal length.).
Goldring as set forth above does not disclose:
a vertical side wall that is substantially parallel to the side face, and
(ii) the plurality of optical isolation channels are openings in the transparent material between the plurality of light conducting conduits and extend from the light outlet face through about 5% to 100% of the thickness; and
(b) an optical isolation material applied to the vertical side wall of the plurality of light conducting conduits,
wherein the light isolating array transmits light through each light conducting conduit from the horizontal light inlet surface to the horizontal light outlet surface while the optical isolation material substantially prevents the light from traveling between the plurality of light conducting conduits.
Zimmerman discloses a direct view display device with array of tapered waveguide on viewer side that includes (Figs. 1-9):
[light conducting conduits with] a vertical side wall (sidewalls 32) that is substantially parallel to the side face (22 generally), and
(ii) the plurality of optical isolation channels (interstitial regions 33) are openings in the transparent material (col. 5, ll. 38 and adjacent, "The tapered optical waveguides 28 of the arrays shown in FIG. 2, FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 are formed from a transparent solid material having a higher index of refraction interstitial regions 33 between the waveguides.") between the plurality of light conducting conduits (tapered waveguides 28) and extend from the light outlet face (light output surface 31) through 5% to 100% of the thickness (per the figures); and
(b) an optical isolation material applied to the vertical side wall of the plurality of light conducting conduits (col. 8, ll. 27 and adjacent, "light absorptive black particulate material 41 is shown in FIG. 9"),
wherein the light isolating array transmits light through each light conducting conduit from the horizontal light inlet surface to the horizontal light outlet surface while the optical isolation material substantially prevents the light from traveling between the plurality of light conducting conduits (seen as inherently so as light transmitted from one conduit/waveguide would be absorbed by the black particulate material before reaching another conduit/waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light conduit/waveguide system along the lines of Zimmerman in a system according to Goldring as set forth above in order to enhance optical operation as by preventing crosstalk between conduits and enabling discrete light signals. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical channelling device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a vertical side wall that is substantially parallel to the side face, and
(ii) the plurality of optical isolation channels are openings in the transparent material between the plurality of light conducting conduits and extend from the light outlet face through about 5% to 100% of the thickness; and
(b) an optical isolation material applied to the vertical side wall of the plurality of light conducting conduits,
wherein the light isolating array transmits light through each light conducting conduit from the horizontal light inlet surface to the horizontal light outlet surface while the optical isolation material substantially prevents the light from traveling between the plurality of light conducting conduits.
With respect to claim 2, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, but not one wherein
the transparent material is comprised of single glass material or a single polymer material.
Zimmerman indicates "Preferred materials include transparent polymers, glass and fused silica" for the substrate 24. Such materials are also seen to provide appropriate waveguide materials as they all are "a transparent solid material having a higher index of refraction interstitial regions 33 between the waveguides".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use transparent materials such as transparent polymers, glass and fused silica along the lines of Zimmerman as waveguide / light conduit materials in a system according to Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above in order to materials of appropriate refractive index for light confinement and transmission purposes. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an optical channelling device) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the transparent material is comprised of single glass material or a single polymer material.
The foregoing obviousness analysis is referred to in summary fashion in the rejections below.
With respect to claim 3, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the light isolating array of claim 1, including one wherein
the light conducting conduits transmit at least 90% of light at a wavelength of 350 to 2,500 nm.
Goldring, ¶ 108, "The detector can be sensitive to one or more of ultraviolet wavelengths of light, visible wavelengths of light, or infrared wavelengths of light."
For product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties and/or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Consequently, because Goldring as set forth above as set forth above provides the claimed structure of claim 1, the combination is seen as also providing the same claimed properties or functions of claim 3.
Unsupported features are seen to directly result from the supported/claimed structures. No authority is known by which unsupported or “naked” functions/characteristics/features can be claimed and subject to exclusive protection.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “same product/same features”.
With respect to claim 4, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the light isolating array of claim 1, including one wherein
a damping of light leakage from each light conducting conduit is in a range of 10 to 150 dB.
Same product/same features.
With respect to claim 5, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the light isolating array of claim 1, including one wherein
the light isolating array comprises 0.25 to 5 light conducting conduits per square millimeter of the light isolating array.
Same product/same features.
With respect to claim 6, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the light isolating array of claim 1, but not one wherein
the plurality of light conducting conduits have a height of 100 pm to 50 mm and a diameter of 10 µm to 10 mm.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. 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). MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
As the scope of claim 6 departs from that of claim 1 only with regards to the relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Goldring as set forth above.
Any height providing optical integrity and signal preservation is seen to be available for the Goldring device.
The same is similarly true for the combination provided by Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above.
Herein, this analysis is referred to as “relative dimensions/size”.
With respect to claim 7, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
aspect ratio of the plurality of light conducting conduits is about 30:1 to about 5:1.
Same product/same features.
With respect to claim 8, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of optical isolation channels extend through 100% of the thickness of the transparent material.
Per claim 1, the interstitial regions 33 of Zimmerman are seen to run through 100% of the transparent solid material from which the tapered optical waveguides 28 of the arrays are formed.
With respect to claim 9, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of optical isolation channels extend through about 80% to 100% or less of the thickness of the transparent material.
Per claim 1, the interstitial regions 33 of Zimmerman are seen to run through 100% of the transparent solid material from which the tapered optical waveguides 28 of the arrays are formed.
With respect to claim 10, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the horizontal light outlet surface of each light conducting conduit is coplanar with the light outlet face.
Consonant with Applicant’s Fig. 2, the tapered optical waveguides 28 of Zimmerman have coplanar horizontal light outlet surface of each light conducting conduit with the light outlet face. Zimmerman Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 11, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the plurality of optical isolation channels do not extend completely from the vertical side wall of a first light conducting conduit to the vertical side wall of a second light conducting conduit.
Goldring Fig. 7, the farthest distal end portions of aperture array 172 beyond the distal row of apertures 194 do not extend from a vertical side wall of that row to another row of optical channels. Similarly, non-adjacent Zimmerman waveguides 28 have different optical isolation channels and so such channels "do not extend completely from the vertical side wall of a first light conducting conduit to the vertical side wall of a second light conducting conduit".
With respect to claim 12, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, but not one wherein
plurality of the optical isolation channels have a diameter of about 0.01 to about 10 mm,
a width of about 0.001 to about 5 mm, and
a depth of about 0.01 to about 30 mm.
Relative dimensions/size.
With respect to claim 13, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the optical isolation material comprises at least one of an opaque material, an absorptive material, and a reflective material.
Per claim 1, Zimmerman, col. 8, ll. 27 and adjacent, "light absorptive black particulate material 41 is shown in FIG. 9". Example II, col. 12, ll. 19-22, “lampblack powder”.
With respect to claim 14, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the optical isolation material comprises a light absorbing material (Zimmerman, light absorptive black particulate material 41) applied on a light reflective material (Zimmerman’s tapered optical waveguides 28 must be reflective internally to operate as a waveguide).
With respect to claim 15, Goldring in view of Zimmerman as set forth above discloses the transparent array of claim 1, including one wherein
the optical isolation material is also applied to an optical isolation channel bottom.
Zimmerman Fig. 9, light absorptive black particulate material 41 is seen to fill the interstitial regions 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 30, 2025 with respect to the outstanding claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection as different art is now applied to the rejected claims in light of Applicant’s amendment(s).
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240012197 A1 published January 11, 2024 was previously cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to optic isolation systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights