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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application No. US 2020/0286747A1 to Trindade et al. (hereinafter “Trindade”).
Regarding claim 1, Trindade discloses a micro-optical component, comprising: a micro-substrate (50 in Fig. 2); a micro-optical element (58 or 56 in Fig. 2) disposed on the micro-substrate; and a stand-off (58 or 54 in Fig. 2) disposed on the micro-substrate or the micro-optical element in a separate plane from the micro-substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Trindade discloses wherein the stand-off at least partially enclose the micro-optical element (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Trindade discloses wherein the stand-off extends from the micro-substrate a distance that is no less than the distance the micro-optical element extends from the micro-substrate (clearly shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Trindade discloses wherein the stand-off extends in multiple different directions or wherein the micro-optical element comprises (i) a substrate side disposed on the micro-substrate (i.e. portion of 58 towards element 50; or portion of 56 facing 50 shown in Fig. 2) and (ii) a stand-off side different from the substrate side adjacent to the stand-off (i.e. portion of 58 facing 54; or portion of 56 facing 54 as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Trindade discloses wherein the micro-optical element is completely enclosed by the at least the stand-off and the micro-substrate (clearly shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Trindade discloses a plurality of stand-offs (58, 54, or 20 in Fig. 2; see also paragraph [0034]), each of the stand-offs independently disposed on the micro-substrate or micro-optical element in a separate plane from the micro-substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Trindade discloses wherein the stand-off extends at least partially around a perimeter of the micro-substrate and/or perimeter of the micro-optical element (Fig. 2; paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Trindade discloses wherein the stand-off is in direct contact with the micro-optical element (i.e. 58 and 56 are in direct contact in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Trindade discloses wherein the micro-substrate is rectangular and the stand-off is a perimeter wall on one, two, three, or four sides of the micro-substrate (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Trindade discloses at least a portion of a component tether physically attached to the micro-substrate or physically attached to the micro-optical element (18 Fig. 7; paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Trindade discloses a micro-optical system comprising a system substrate (i.e. the substrate is not explicitly labeled but clearly present under the space 14 as shown in Fig. 7); one or more micro-optical component according to claim 1 (52 in Fig. 7) disposed on the system substrate, wherein each of the one or more micro-optical component is non-native to the system substrate (i.e. 50 is not integrally formed with the system substrate as shown in Fig. 7; See also paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, Trindade discloses a light-generating element or light-responsive element disposed on a side of the stand-off or at least one ofc the one or more micro-optical components (i.e. element 20 in Fig. 2 is described as comprising one of many active or passive optical elements including LED or sensor- paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claims 22-23, Trindade discloses wherein the stand-off of at least one of the one or more micro-optical component is substantially transparent or opaque to light modified by the micro-optical element (i.e. element 20 in Fig. 2 is described as comprising one of many active or passive optical elements including SiO2 which is transparent, or metals or oxides which are opaque or reflects light- see paragraph [0040]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trindade.
Regarding claim 10, Trindade discloses a micro-optical component according to claim 1 as discussed above. Although Trindade discloses a micro-optical component that is a piezo electric MEMs element, it does not explicitly disclose that this component has a thickness no greater than 250 microns as claimed. On the other hand, such very thin piezo electric micro-optical component with thickness less than 250 microns is well known common in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the advantage of micro-optical component having thickness no greater than 250 microns, since such thickness allows for compact and energy efficient optoelectronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Trindade to have micro-optical component with thickness no greater than 250 microns as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 12, Trindade discloses a micro-optical component according to claim 1 as discussed above. Although Trindade discloses the use of a component tether, it does not explicitly disclose that the component tether is a broken or separated component tether as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, broken or separated component tether is well known and common in the micro-optical component art. Such broken or separated component tether allows for the printed or deposited micro-optical component to be separated from a sacrificial substrate such that the micro-optical component can be moved to a desired optoelectronic device package of a given use case. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Trindade to have a micro-optical component wherein the component tether is a broken or separated component tether as claimed in the present application.
Regarding claim 24, Trindade discloses a micro-optical component according to claim 1 as discussed above. However, Trindade does not explicitly disclose the stand-off and the micro-optical element, or the stand-off and the micro-substrate being unitary as claimed in the present application. On the other hand, making various optical elements unitary or integral is well known and common in the micro-optical component art. Such integral or unitary components would have been readily recognized as advantageous and desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would allow for structurally more robust micro-optical elements that are less susceptible to environmental factors and requires less manufacturing steps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to modify the device of Trindade to have the stand-off and the micro-optical element, or the stand-off and the micro-substrate being unitary as claimed in the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as discussed above a micro-optical system comprising a system substrate, and a micro-optical component comprising a micro-substrate, a micro-optical element disposed thereon, a stand-off disposed on the micro substrate or micro-optical element in a separate plane from the micro-substrate is known in the art. However, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests such a micro-optical system further comprising plurality of micro-optical components within the micro-optical system, in the manner claimed in claims 14-20 of the present application. There is no credible reasons why, or more importantly how, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art devices, including the invention of Trindade, to have plurality of micro-optical components in the manner claimed in the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG H PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2353. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7AM- 5PM.
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.
/SUNG H PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874