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 1-12, in the reply filed on June 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “additive coating” In claim 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase is meant to refer to an additional or supplemental coating, a coating formed by additive manufacturing, or a coating containing an additive. The specification also does not provide clear guidance regarding this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2020/0355929).
Claim 1: Zhang discloses a device 1000 including an optical substrate 1010 (fig. 10; ¶ 113); electrical component 1020 coupled to the optical substrate (fig. 10; ¶ 113); and a polymer material 1030/1040 around the electrical component to encapsulate the electrical component and form an optical lens (¶¶ 113-122; fig. 10). Regarding the recitation “additively printed,” is a process limitation. “[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). Accordingly, the structure implied by this recitation, i.e., a polymer material disposed around the electrical component, is given patentable weight, the particular manner of deposition is not, absent evidence that the process imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bibl (US 2014/0339495).
Claim 1: Bibl discloses a device including an optical substrate 201 (figs. 4A-D; ¶¶ 51-52); electrical component 100 coupled to the optical substrate (figs. 4A-D; ¶ 51); and a polymer material additively printed around the electrical component to encapsulate the electrical component and form an optical lens (¶¶ 31, 36, 57, 60-63, 67-68).
Claim 2-3: Bibl discloses the electrical component including light-emitting micro LEDs (¶¶ 7, 32).
Claim 6: Bibl discloses an oxygen barrier coating deposited over the lens stack, and dielectric barrier coating (¶¶ 10, 56, 64).
Claim 7: Bibl discloses the lens printed to a predetermined dome/hemispherical/flattened profile (¶¶ 7, 31, 60).
Claims 8-9: Bibl discloses wavelength conversion layer at 30-50 microns thick (¶ 63).
Claim 10: Bibl discloses the lens is additively printed, and would have a reduced waviness compared to a lens intentionally produced with greater waviness. Moreover, the lens of Bibl is formed by additive printing of the same classes of polymer materials recited in the instant specification. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, the claimed properties are presumed to be present, and the burden shifts to Applicant to show an unobvious difference.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Melakari (US 2023/0097774).
Claim 1: Melakari discloses a device including an optical substrate (¶¶ 77, 79); electrical components coupled to the optical substrate (¶¶ 53-54, 90, 111); and a polymer material additively printed around the electrical component to encapsulate the electrical component and form an optical lens (¶¶ 101-106).
Claim 2: Melakari discloses the electrical component including an illumination device (¶¶ 56, 90).
Claim 4: Melakari discloses an imaging device (¶¶ 87-88).
Claim 6: Melakari discloses additive coatings (¶ 79).
Claim 7: Melakari discloses the lens printed to a predetermined CNC-machined recess profile (¶¶ 19, 77, 102, 110).
Claim 10: Melakari discloses the lens is additively printed, and would have a reduced waviness compared to a lens intentionally produced with greater waviness. Moreover, the lens of Melakari is formed by additive printing of the same classes of polymer materials recited in the instant specification. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, the claimed properties are presumed to be present, and the burden shifts to Applicant to show an unobvious difference.
Claim 12: Melakari discloses a device including an optical substrate (¶¶ 77, 79); illumination and imaging devices coupled to the optical substrate (¶¶ 53-54, 87-90, 111); and a polymer material additively printed around the illumination and imaging devices to encapsulate the electrical components and form an optical lens (¶¶ 101-106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl, as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 11: Bible discloses flattening the dome shape to set the viewing angle and beam profile. The claimed aspect ratio amounts to a substantially flattened, wide lens. Thus, the lens aspect ratio is a result effective variable recognized by Bibl as controlling the viewing angle and emission beam profile. The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lundberg (US 2020/0348753).
Claims 4-5: Bibl is silent as to the electrical components including an imaging device or camera. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lundberg discloses an optoelectronic assembly in which LED illuminators, including near-infrared LEDs, and an imaging module are provided together as co-embedded electrical components (figs. 1a-b; abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have included an imaging device/camera with the electrical components bonded to the substrate of Bibl and encapsulated by Bibl’s ink-jet-printed polymer layers, because Lundberg teaches that embedding light-emitting components and an imaging module together, without gaps, in a common encapsulating material produces a smaller, more robust, gap-free assembly with more precise and repeatable component placement.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibl (US 2014/0339495) in view of Lundberg (US 2020/0348753).
Bibl discloses a device including an optical substrate 201 (figs. 4A-D; ¶¶ 51-52); an illumination device coupled to the optical substrate (¶¶ 43, 48, 51, 55, 86); and a polymer material additively printed around the electrical component to encapsulate the electrical component and form an optical lens (¶¶ 31, 36, 57, 60-63, 67-68). Bibl is silent as to the electrical components including an imaging device. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lundberg discloses an optoelectronic assembly in which LED illuminators, including near-infrared LEDs, and an imaging module are provided together as co-embedded electrical components (figs. 1a-b; abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have included an imaging device/camera with the electrical components bonded to the substrate of Bibl and encapsulated by Bibl’s ink-jet-printed polymer layers, because Lundberg teaches that embedding light-emitting components and an imaging module together, without gaps, in a common encapsulating material produces a smaller, more robust, gap-free assembly with more precise and repeatable component placement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights