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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 3 by adding the limitation to the method of independent claim 1 the steps of applying an adhesive in which particles of a filler are dispersed to the opposing surface the first substrate after the surface treatment and the particles having a particle size from 5 to 100 µm. while dependent claim 3 is amended to add the limitation of the filler whose particles are dispersed in the adhesive is a monodisperse spherical filler. Added portions are underlined.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 now recites particles of a filler are dispersed the particles having a particle size from 5 to 100 µm and this is not met by the references used in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Nakahashi (JP2013076769A) with machine translation as primary reference and Coldrey (US 6,256,152 B1) as secondary reference. These alone or combined are silent as to including particles of a filler in an adhesive that is applied between two substrates in a manner to surround a lens portion, as required in claim 1. The claim 3 rejection under § 103 utilizes Edmonds (WO 2012/138495), which although teaching dispersing beads in an adhesive, these beads are microparticles for adjusting the haze of an optical film and the thickness of the adhesive is only from 3.5 to 5.0 µm. Therefore, the particle size of the beads are less than 5 µm due to the adhesive thickness limitation. Therefore, Nakahashi in view of Coldrey and Edmonds fails to disclose or suggest: “applying an adhesive in which particles of a filler are dispersed to the opposing surface of the first substrate after the surface treatment, the adhesive surrounding a lens portion corresponding within a contour of each of the plurality of optical units, the particles have a particle size from 5 to 100 µm'', as recited in claim 1.
The examiner finds new grounds of rejection based on these amendments.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahashi (JP2013076769A) with machine translation in view of Coldrey (US 6,256,152 B1) and further in view of Chuang (US 9,132,574 B2) with
evidence provided for claim 1 by cteec.org blog What is the impact of surface energy on material properties Ashley Watts = https://cteec.org/surface-energy/ Nov. 25, 2025 and with
evidence provided for claim 3 from GKD – Gebr.Kufferath AG Glossary: Monodisperse, https://www.gkd-group.com/en/glossary/monodisperse/
Regarding Claim 1, Nakahashi discloses a method for manufacturing a plurality of optical units by adhering a second substrate to a first substrate to produce a laminate (Fig. 1 abs, paragraph [0012], the first substrate being a lens wafer, the lens wafer including a plurality of lens portions (Fig. 1 paragraphs [0061] [0062] stacked wafer lens – 20 made up two disk-shaped wafer-scale lenses – 201 and 202 with lens optical portions – 2011 and 2021) and being formed of a curable resin (Figs. 2, 4 paragraphs [0050] [0117] lenses – 201 and 202 bonded together with a light-blocking adhesive – 213; which is hardened which is inferring curing), and then cutting the laminate between the plurality of lens portions (Fig. 3 paragraphs [0017] [0058] plurality of cutting lines – 212 vertically and horizontally across the wafer scale lenses – 210 and 202) , the method comprising:
applying an adhesive to the opposing surface of the first substrate the adhesive surrounding a lens portion corresponding within a contour of each of the plurality of optical units (Fig. 3 paragraphs [0060] [0101] sections surrounded on all sides by a set of four cutting lines – 212, the areas excluding the lens optical portions – 2011, 2021 and the areas including the circumferential ends of the wafer-scale lenses- 201, 202 to which a light-shielding adhesive – 213 is applied areas using application section – 204); and
superimposing the second substrate on the first substrate and curing the adhesive after the applying an adhesive (Fig. 1 paragraph [0062] two wafer-scale lenses – 201 and 202 having the same diameter are superimposed and glued together).
However, Nakahashi is silent as to a first step of performing surface treatment of increasing surface free energy before applying the adhesive.
Coldrey teaches in a method of laminating wafers used for making optical articles (abs, Col.1, ll. 3-6), that a surface of one or more layers, which are front and back lens wafers (Col. 8. ll. 7-11, 32-35) is subjected to a preliminary step of surface treatment which includes physical and/or chemical modification of the surface of the wafer polymer. Since this is a surface modification to improve bondability and/or compatibility this must increase surface free energy (See Evidence: What is the impact of surface energy on material properties – 3rd paragraph – The Role of Surface Energy in Material Properties: “high overlap between the adhesive and substrate surface energy leads to better bonding and adhesion performance”.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Nakahashi with the teachings of Coldrey whereby a method for manufacturing a plurality of optical units by adhering a second substrate to a first substrate producing a laminate, would include a step preliminary to the application of the adhesive step as disclosed by Nakahashi, a surface treatment step on an opposing surface of the first substrate opposing the second substrate before adhering the second substrate to the first substrate, as taught by Coldrey. This would be considered advantageous because subjecting this surface to a surface treatment improves the bondability and/or compatibility of the adhesive to the surfaces (Col. 8, ll. 36-40).
However, the combination of Nakahashi and Coldrey do not disclose that the adhesive is applied in which particles of a filler are dispersed and that these particles have a particle size from 5 to 100 µm.
In an analogous art, Chuang discloses a method for producing a microstructure whereby an array of spherical microparticles are used to coat the substrate of a master mold by means of a natural self-assembly mechanism (abs). Chuang further teaches that particles are used as filler in an optical curing adhesive such that the plurality of particles are self-assembled on the surface of the substrate of the master mold (Figs. 1A, 1B, 7 Col. 3 ll. 60-64). Moreover, the size of the particles is between 1-250 micrometer (µm) which encompasses particle size range of 5 to 100 µm as recited (Fig. 1B Col. 4 ll. 16-20 particles – 12 optical curing adhesive – 11). This forms a microstructure since the plurality of particles are self-assembled on a surface of the master mold (Figs 1A, 1B, 7 Col. 3 ll. 59-64).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include the teachings of Chuang to modify the combination of Nakahashi and Coldrey whereby particles of a filler are dispersed into the adhesive that is applied after surface treatment and having particle sizes of from 5 to 100 µm. The skilled artisan would add these particles to produce a spherical microstructure array with a fixed volume proportionality to produce a contour with a concave surface corresponding to the shapes of the plurality of the particles and thus forming a proportional structured single-layer disposition (Col. 2 ll.35-38; Col. 4 ll. 62-66).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nakahashi, Coldrey and Chuang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but Coldrey does not disclose the range of surface free energy values that are set from 26 to 73 mJ/m2 when the surface treatment of increasing the surface free energy is performed on the opposing surface of the first substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the range of surface free energy values from 26 to 73 mJ/m2 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use this range because the surface of one or more layers/wafers making up a laminate are surface modified to improve bondability and/or compatibility (Col. 8 ll. 41-43).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nakahashi, Coldrey and Chuang disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Chuang discloses as in claim 1 a filler whose spherical particles are dispersed in the adhesive (Figs. 1A, 1B, 7 Col. 3 ll. 60-64) and while Chuang mentions in its description of related art (Col 1. l. 33, 38-48, 56-57 & Col. 2 l.7) the formation of assembled monolayers as well as in a cited reference (p. 2 other publications cited by the examiner include Langmuir films of monodisperse 0.5 µm spherical polymer particles) which suggest that the single-layer of particles disclosed is a monodisperse spherical filler (Col 4 ll. 65-67), however, Chuang does not explicitly state that it discloses a monodisperse spherical filler.
However, evidence indicates that Chuang does indeed discloses or suggests that its spherical particles are monodisperse where evidence seems to provide this from GKD – Gebr.Kufferath AG Glossary: Monodisperse, https://www.gkd-group.com/en/glossary/monodisperse/ defines monodisperse as “a system of particles or droplet that are all nearly identical in size”.
Therefore, the examiner determines that based on the suggestions through the references disclosed in Chuang and the evidence from the non-patent literature above, that the filler particles dispersed in the adhesive are a monodisperse spherical filler.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nakahashi, Coldrey and Chuang disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Nakahashi further discloses that a portion of the opposing surface of the first substrate, which is to be adhered to the second substrate, is flat, and wherein a portion of an opposing surface of the second substrate opposing the first substrate, which is to be adhered to the first substrate, is flat (Fig. 1 paragraph [0064] filling portion – 203 for filling with a light-blocking adhesive – 213 is formed between the flat portion – 2012 of the first wafer-scale lens- 201 and the flat portion – 2022 of the second wafer-scale lens – 202).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights