Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/396,636

Light Receiving Device

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 26, 2023
Examiner
JUNG, JONATHAN Y
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Dexerials Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
284 granted / 396 resolved
+3.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
422
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.8%
+18.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 396 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 2 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation “a compound eye lens comprising the convex lens surface having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface that is formed on the partially spherical convex surface formed on one side of the condensing lens” [the emphasis added by the examiner]. It is not clear what the limitation means. Did the applicant intend to claim “a compound eye lens comprising the convex lens surface having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface that is formed one side of the condensing lens”? Or did the applicant intend to claim “a compound eye lens comprising a plurality of partially spherical convex lens surfaces having a smaller radius of curvature than that of the convex surface that is formed one side of the condensing lens”? (for example, see Fig. 9 of the specification). Thereby as being indefinite, claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For the purpose of examining the present application, the limitation has been construed as meaning “a compound eye lens comprising the convex lens surface having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface that is formed on one side of the condensing lens”. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyayama (JP 2016080556 A; the English translation document attached) in view of Sweatt et al. (US 7286295 B1, hereinafter “Sweatt”). Regarding claim 1, Miyayama discloses a light receiving device (Figs. 1-9; Page 3 lines 30-36) comprising a condenser (holes and the substrate 12a formed by 12; Page 4 lines 26-27 and 32-33 “The first condenser 12 is formed by integrally forming a substrate 12a and a conical cylinder 12b” and “a substrate 12a made of an appropriate material such as resin or metal having four holes are separately formed”), a holder (12b) on which the condenser is attached, a light receiving element (20; Page 4 lines 5-7 “The sensor element 20 is, for example, a substantially rectangular thin-film infrared detection element … and has a light receiving surface 20a for receiving infrared light on the surface”), and a base (18; Page 4 line 3 “a sensor element 20 is placed on the surface of the circuit board 18”) for fixing the light receiving element and the lens holder, in which light transmitted through the condenser enters the light receiving element through an optical path section in the holder (Page 2 lines 30-32); wherein the holder has a cylindrical reflective surface facing the optical path section formed in a truncated cone shape whose diameter decreases as it approaches the light receiving element from the condensing lens (see Fig. 2 and Page 4 line 20 “The inner surface of the conical cylinder 12b is formed as a reflecting surface”), and a part of the light transmitted through the condenser is reflected by the reflective surface and enters the light receiving element (Page 2 lines 30-32, Page 4 lines 20). Miyayama does not explicitly disclose the condenser being a condensing lens and a compound eye lens having plurality of convex lens surfaces; the holder being a lens holder; and the light receiving element being a semiconductor light receiving element. However, Sweatt teaches providing a condensing lens (12 in Fig. 1; see the incoming light being illuminated on 19 via 12) and a compound eye lens (12 being a compound eye lens having a plurality of convex lens surfaces) having a plurality of convex lens surfaces; a lens holder (11 and 17, holding the lens 12 in Fig. 1); and a semiconductor light receiving element (23; Column 5 lines 16-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the compound lens as disclosed by Miyayama with the teachings of Sweatt, to have a condensing lens and a compound eye lens having plurality of convex lens surfaces; a lens holder; and a semiconductor light receiving element, for the purpose of providing convex lens surfaces for further improving the image quality while correcting aberrations where a known photodetector includes a semiconductor (Sweatt: Column 3 lines 23-25, Column 4 lines 35-37, Column 5 lines 17-20). Regarding claim 2, Miyayama as modified by Sweatt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Miyayama does not disclose the condensing lens is a compound eye lens comprising the convex lens surface having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface that is formed on one side of the condensing lens (see 112(b) rejections above). However, Sweatt teaches providing a compound eye lens comprising the convex lens surface having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface that is formed on one side of the condensing lens (see each individual 12 having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface formed as a whole on a compound eye lens). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the compound lens as disclosed by Miyayama with the teachings of Sweatt, wherein the condensing lens is a compound eye lens comprising the convex lens surface having a radius of curvature smaller than that of a partially spherical convex surface that is formed on one side of the condensing lens, for the purpose of providing convex lens surfaces for further improving the image quality while correcting aberrations (Sweatt: Column 3 lines 23-25, Column 4 lines 35-37). Regarding claim 3, Miyayama as modified by Sweatt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Miyayama does not disclose the condensing lens is a compound eye lens such that the farther it is from the center line of the reflective surface passing through the center of the condensing lens, the larger an intersection angle between the center line and the optical axis passing through the center of the convex lens surface. However, Sweatt teaches the condensing lens is a compound eye lens such that the farther it is from the center line of the reflective surface passing through the center of the condensing lens, the larger an intersection angle between the center line and the optical axis passing through the center of the convex lens surface (see the angles formed by 12 in respect to the optical axis 21 in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the compound lens as disclosed by Miyayama with the teachings of Sweatt, wherein the condensing lens is a compound eye lens such that the farther it is from the center line of the reflective surface passing through the center of the condensing lens, the larger an intersection angle between the center line and the optical axis passing through the center of the convex lens surface, for the purpose of providing convex lens surfaces for further improving the image quality while correcting aberrations (Sweatt: Column 3 lines 23-25, Column 4 lines 35-37). Regarding claim 4, Miyayama as modified by Sweatt discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Miyayama further discloses the condensing lens is a compound eye lens in which a plurality of convex lens surfaces are integrally formed on a silicon substrate (Page 2 lines 7-8), and the semiconductor light receiving element receives infrared light (Page 4 lines 5-7) (Regarding a semiconductor light receiving element, see Sweatt, Column 5 lines 17-20 above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601905
OBSERVATION OPTICAL SYSTEM AND OPTICAL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596212
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591081
ABRASION RESISTANCE FOR PATTERNED LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591079
HUMIDITY SENSITIVE NANO-PHOTONICS AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586320
LIGHTWEIGHT OPTICAL DEVICE FOR AUGMENTED REALITY USING STATE CHANGE OPTICAL ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+18.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 396 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month