DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on May 23, 2025. In accordance with this amendment, claims 11-16 have been formally canceled, while new claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 1-10 and 17-26 remain pending, with claims 1, 17, and 21 in independent claim form. These pending claims are joined as Group I.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 17-20, in the reply filed on May 23, 2025 is acknowledged. Further, Applicant has formally canceled the non-elected claims of Group II, namely claims 11-16. The Examiner appreciates this convenience. New claims 21-26 have been added, and the Examiner has joined these claims (with claim 21 being independent) with Group I. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 17-26 are examined herein as Group I.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note that Applicant has formally canceled claims 11-16 and these method claims are eligible to be filed in a timely divisional (DIV) application.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that Applicant has not filed an Information Disclosure Statement. If Applicant becomes aware of any prior art that may be pertinent to the examination and analysis of the claimed subject matter, a PTO-1449 form should be filed.
Drawings
The original drawings (twelve (12) pages) were received on June 12, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 26, the typo “firs side wall” should read “first side wall.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al. US 2006/0067607 A.
Fang et al. US 2006/0067607 A (ABS; Figs. 2, 3, 4, 6E; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0022] – [0042]; Claims) an optical component (as in Figs. 2-4, 6E), comprising: a silicon-based body 402 (para [0039] discusses at least “silicon” based materials), comprising: a bottom wall (at left end feature of WG in Fig. 2 and 6E); a first side wall located on a first side of the silicon-based body and perpendicular to the bottom wall (lower wall in Figs. 2 and 6C where lens ultimately attached is the 1st “side” wall); a second side wall located on a second side of the silicon-based body opposite to the first side and forming an acute angle with the bottom wall (angled reflective wall at top, with reflective feature 704 is the 2nd “side” wall); and a micro lens structure 302 (no patentable weight given to “micro”, this is a frame of reference) formed on the first side wall; and a protection layer 102 formed over the first side wall and the micro lens structure (note “over” as a frame of reference because the component of Figs. 2 and 6E can be turned up-side down; note breadth of “protection” in a claim), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Note the frames of reference used in Fang, with “bottom” wall, “side” walls, and “formed over”, and also note the breadth of originally filed independent claims 1, 17, and 21. Fang meets all claimed structure presented by Applicant.
Regarding second independent claim 17, the “protection layer” 102 of claim 1 can also be interpreted to be a “dielectric layer” 102 (as the feature can be a substrate, at least silicon based, and/or Si02, which are dielectrics; para [0046], para [0039] implies that an oxide semiconductor type substrate can be used in manufacture), and this “dielectric layer” is formed over the first side wall and the micro lens structure, in which the lens is “embedded” (see Figs. 2 and 6E) within such layer by those touching / abutting features shown, and the dielectric layer 102 has a planar surface that is parallel to the first side wall (the bottom surface of 102 is planar), which meets all claimed structure of independent claim 17.
Regarding dependent claims, noting claim 2, Fang ‘607 teaches at least silicon and implies the features can be constructed as an oxide, Si02 (paras [0046] and in view of para [0039]), which meets the structural composition of material for 102.
Regarding claim 4, the acute angle of Fang’s reflector is approximately 45 degrees, which is in the claimed range of 30 – 60 degrees (Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 3-6, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bishop et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,644,618 B2 (which was published at least as early as August 26, 2021 as US PG Pub ‘216).
Bishop et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,644,618 B2 (ABS; Figs. 2A, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A-4F; corresponding text, in particular column 7, line 6 through column 15, line 19; Claims) an optical component (as in Figs. 2A, 3B, 4A, etc.), comprising: a silicon-based body 243 (can be “silicon or glass”, see column 8, lines 12-19), comprising: a bottom wall (at left end feature of element in Fig. 2A); a first side wall located on a first side of the silicon-based body and perpendicular to the bottom wall (upper wall in Fig. 2A where lens ultimately integrated on / into this 1st “side” wall); a second side wall located on a second side of the silicon-based body opposite to the first side and forming an acute angle with the bottom wall (angled reflective wall at right, with reflective feature 208/209 “mirror” as the 2nd “side” wall); and a micro lens structure 291 (no patentable weight given to “micro”, this is a frame of reference) formed in/on the first side wall; and a protection layer 245 formed over the first side wall and the micro lens structure (parts of the micro lens itself are parts of this side wall), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding 3rd independent claim 21, there is a “top wall” feature across from and opposite to the “first side wall”, see Fig. 2a for this surface (between reference number 244 and 208 in the drawing). Note “top” is upside down as the bottom most wall in these figures, but is a frame of reference.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the overall features can be considered “integral” and one-piece because it is formed as one piece during use, therefore all structure is met by Bishop.
Regarding claim 4, angles of 45 degrees and 54.7 are given for the acute nature of the reflective / mirror surface on the second side wall 208/209 (column 8, lines 28-41) of Bishop.
Regarding claims 5-6, see the plurality of micro lens features in Bishop Fig. 3B arranged in row and column configuration, and note that “a height” in claim 5 is met because any height can be selected for the micro lenses (in the “vertical direction”, does not claim the entire height for all element(s)), which meets all structure in claims 5-6.
Regarding dependent claim 22, the top wall could also be the far right of Fig. 2A and this wall, which meets all structure as this wall is parallel to the bottom wall.
Regarding claim 23, the top wall can connect (through other changed right angled shape, ultimately connects) the 1st and 2nd side walls, in a frame of reference.
Regarding claim 24, if the far right wall is the “top wall”, then the wall at the bottom of Fig. 2A can be the “third side wall”, which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 25, a light reflecting coating 208 (as a metal layer, to form the mirrored reflection) is formed over the second side wall (for 209), which meets all structure claimed.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liff et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,377,594 B2.
Liff et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,377,594 B2 (ABS; Figs. 1, 2, 6A-6C; corresponding text, in particular columns 3-5 and 8; Claims) an optical component (as in Fig 1, turn the element 110 so that lenses 114 are at the right side akin to Applicant’s Fig. 2 for the frame of reference used herein) comprising: a silicon-based body 110 (can be glass or other features that imply silicon / silica is used), comprising: a bottom wall (the wall where lenses 112/116 is the “bottom wall” in Fig. 1); a first side wall located on a first side of the silicon-based body and perpendicular to the bottom wall (the wall with lenses 114 / 118 in Fig. 1 is the “first side wall”); a second side wall located on a second side of the silicon-based body opposite to the first side and forming an acute angle with the bottom wall (angled reflective surface at 128, to reflect light path 122 at an acute angle); and a micro lens structure 114 / 118 (with lens array feature 130 on/at this wall, no patentable weight given to “micro” in this context) formed in/on the first side wall; and a protection layer 132 (note breadth of “protection”, as polymer layer 132 with inherently meet this function as forming some protection) formed over the first side wall and the micro lens structure, which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent claim 1.
Regarding 3rd independent claim 21, there is a “top wall” feature across from and opposite to the “first side wall”, see Fig 1 of Liff at the straight angled end of the “reflection surface” 128. Note “top” is on its side as the left most wall in these figures, but is a frame of reference.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the angle is about 45 degrees in Liff, which meets the broad range of 30 – 60 degrees.
Regarding claim 6, there are rows and columns of the micro lens in at least Liff Fig. 2, which show this formation of arrays, and meets all structure.
Regarding claims 22-23, see the same formation of Fig. 1 of Liff, if turned on its right side, to meet all such sides and surfaces (as Applicant’s Fig. 2), therefore those same shapes and sides as structure are met by Liff.
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 2, 7-10, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,644,618 B2, referencing independent claims 1 and 21, standing alone. Claims 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop ‘618, standing alone.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 21, Bishop et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,644,618 B2 (ABS; Figs. 2A, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A-4F; corresponding text, in particular column 7, line 6 through column 15, line 19; Claims) an optical component (as in Figs. 2A, 3B, 4A, etc.), comprising: a silicon-based body 243 (can be “silicon or glass”, see column 8, lines 12-19), comprising: a bottom wall (at left end feature of element in Fig. 2A); a first side wall located on a first side of the silicon-based body and perpendicular to the bottom wall (upper wall in Fig. 2A where lens ultimately integrated on / into this 1st “side” wall); a second side wall located on a second side of the silicon-based body opposite to the first side and forming an acute angle with the bottom wall (angled reflective wall at right, with reflective feature 208/209 “mirror” as the 2nd “side” wall); and a micro lens structure 291 (no patentable weight given to “micro”, this is a frame of reference) formed in/on the first side wall; and a protection layer 245 formed over the first side wall and the micro lens structure (parts of the micro lens itself are parts of this side wall). Noting independent claim 21, there is a “top wall” feature across from and opposite to the “first side wall”, see Fig. 2a for this surface (between reference number 244 and 208 in the drawing). Note “top” is upside down as the bottom most wall in these figures, but is a frame of reference.
Regarding dependent claim 7, there is no express and exact teaching found in Bishop ‘618 for the feature of forming an “anti-reflective coating” at an interface (between) the outer most protective layer and the first side wall / micro lens structure presented wall. However, for this interpretation of claim 7, note that Bishop ‘618 teaches (Fig. 2A) a “system interface” (at 280) and a lower “supporting layer” (at 240). Therefore, it may be implied that additional structural element(s) (which inherently will be “protective” in nature) are formed around the interior design in Fig. 2A. However, there is no exact discussion about what type of material may be used around the interior feature, or how it is formed in Fig. 2A. Notably, Fig. 2C of Bishop breathes some life into features that may be formed around the inner most discrete lens/reflector element 243/443. Fig. 2C shows an overmold layer, which can be formed over/atop the top surface of the discrete element. Such an overmold layer can serve to protect the overall lens and reflector from outside sources of error, and even though a lens is not exactly shown in Fig. 2C (under the overmold), one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have recognized that the overmold could be applied atop the lens with the same effective function. Finally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious that some additional layer/film/protection could be located around the discrete element 243 based on the teachings and drawings of Bishop, using common skill and implementing the “system interface” (at 280), lower “supporting layer” (at 240), and/or “overmold layer” 233 atop the discrete formation. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Therefore, the features of dependent claim 7 would have been obvious based on the teachings of Bishop, standing alone. Further regarding claim 8 (dependent from claim 7), Bishop teaches a reflective coating on the second side wall 208/209. Regarding claim 9 (dependent from claim 7), Bishop teaches another anti-reflective coating on the bottom surface (in Fig 2A at 244), which makes obvious all structure in this claim.
Further regarding dependent claims 2, 10, and 26, there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment that employs such features in Bishop (preferred materials in claim 2; measured widths about 770 um in claim 10; or defined radius of curvature about 80 um to 300 um in claim 26). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as selecting preferred materials such as an oxide for the protective layer, to use measured widths about 770 um, or to have preferred radius curvatures for the micro-lenses, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Bishop to perform equally well with such features as selectable design choices because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve the sizing constraints of the optical component. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with an optical micro lens and reflective components such as in Bishop. Further, the base structure of the independent claims are clearly and fully anticipated by Bishop and other references listed above. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Bishop to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 10, and 26. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Based on the discussion regarding dependent claim 7 above, and based on features taught by Bishop, claims 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop ‘618, standing alone. The same analysis for dependent claim 7, with features of independent claim 1, are found and make obvious independent claim 17’s “dielectric layer” of claim 1. The “system interface” (at 280), lower “supporting layer” (at 240), and/or “overmold layer” 233 atop the discrete formation 243 are obvious as a “dielectric layer” with such same configuration. KSR. Noting dependent claims 18-20, all such features are obvious design choices over Bishop, or would be found in the hypothetical combination presented, based on a combination of different embodiments of Bishop’s primary teachings standing alone. For these reasons, the features of independent claim 17, and further dependent claims 18-20, are derivable and obvious based on different embodiments and teachings found with Bishop ‘618 alone.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B and E-G, which pertain to the state of the art of optical micro-lens configurations that are located on opposite sides of a reflective mirror feature, with protection features over the micro-lenses.
Bishop US ‘618 is viewed as the single closest prior art to Applicant’s “inventive concept.” Although other prior art may clearly and fully anticipate some original independent claims, Applicant should consider the teachings and features of Bishop ‘618 when crafting an amendment for the independent claims 1, 17, and/or 21.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 January 7, 2026