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’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14,16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Shie et al (US 6266476)
Regarding Claim 1,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure below) a substrate (52) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface; and an optical element (56) on the first surface of the substrate, the optical element (56) comprising an optics region and an edge region, and a transition region between the edge region and optics region, the transition region including a surface angled (angled vertically, the claim has not claiming a specific angle) at a sidewall angle, and wherein the optics region is a diffuser; wherein the first surface of the substrate includes an outer region that extends a distance past the periphery of the optics region.
[AltContent: textbox (Transition region)]
[AltContent: textbox (Optics region)][AltContent: textbox (Edge Region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Second surface)][AltContent: textbox (First surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
286
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the optical element further comprises an edge region on the outer region of the substrate, the edge region extending partially or completely around a periphery of the optics region, the edge region having an edge thickness that is less than a thickness of the optics region (an optical element with micro structures integrated over part of the surface while leaving other surface areas free of micro-structures. The non micro structured areas effectively act as an edge region with lesser optical structure than the diffusing region, therefore, non-diffusing portions of the surface surrounding the diffusing structures have lower effective optical thickness than the diffusing region.
Regarding Claim 3,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein a ratio of the edge thickness (as shown in the figure pick any of the edges shown) to the thickness of the optics region ranges from about 0 to about 0.95. One would have recognized the thickness of the optics region ranges from about 0 to 0.95 as a result effective variable. By reducing the thickness of an optical material at the periphery relative to the central optics region would predictably reduce edge chipping, cracking, and stress without materially affecting optical diffusion performance in the central region.
Regarding Claim 4,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the edge region has an edge width, wherein a ratio of the edge width to an overall width of the substrate ranges from about 0.001 to about 0.999. One would have recognized a ratio of the edge width to an overall width of the substrate ranges from about 0.001 to about 0.999 as a result effective variable. By reducing the thickness of an optical material at the periphery relative to the central optics region would predictably reduce edge chipping, cracking, and stress without materially affecting optical diffusion performance in the central region.
Regarding Claim 5,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the edge thickness is substantially uniform (in the figures seems the edge thicknesses are uniform).
Regarding Claim 6,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein an adhesion feature adhering the edge region of the optical element to the substrate is enhanced compared to an adhesion feature adhering the optics region to the substrate. Applying known adhesion enhancement techniques to the diffuser edges would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 7,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein an outer surface of the edge region of the optical element has a surface roughness ranging from about 0.025um to about 500um. One would have recognized optical element has a surface roughness ranging from about 0.025um to about 500um as a result effective variable. Smie already teaches using surface irregularities to achieve diffusion, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that adjusting the degree of surface roughness including on non-optical or edge regions is a matter of routine optimization to balance optical, mechanical, and adhesion performance.
Regarding Claim 8,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the optics region is a diffuser having a base layer thickness that is less than an overall thickness of the optics region, the ratio of the edge thickness to the base layer thickness ranging from 0 to about 0.95. One would have recognized the ratio of the edge thickness to the base layer thickness ranging from 0 to about 0.95 as a result effective variable. Smie teaches a diffuser whos optical performance depends on the geometry of surfaced micrdo-structures relative to the base layer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adjusting the thickness of the base layer relative to the overall diffuser thickness, and adjusting peripheral thickness relative to the base layer, are matters of routine optimization to achieve predictable optical and mechanical outcomes.
Regarding Claim 9,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) further comprising a transition region between the edge region (very edge) and the optics region the transition region including a sidewall of the optics region.
Regarding Claim 10,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the sidewall is angled relative to a plane of the edge (as shown).
Regarding Claim 11,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the transition region includes a radially curved surface between the edge region and the sidewall of the optics region (as shown).
Regarding Claim 12,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) comprising an optical stack on the second surface of the substrate.
Regarding Claim 13,
Shie et al discloses (Fig. 3b and pasted figure above) wherein the substrate comprises a first material having a first coefficient of thermal expansion and the optical element comprises a second material having a second coefficient of thermal expansion, wherein the first coefficient of thermal expansion is different than the second coefficient of thermal expansion. (using different materials for optical layers and substrates is common)
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.
Claim(s) 14,16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shie et al (US 6266476) in view of Keller et al (US 9070850)
Regarding Claim 14,
Shie et al discloses everything as disclosed above. Shie et al discloses wherein the optics region is a diffuser.
Shie et al does not disclose depositing a layer for forming a plurality of optics regions on a first surface of a substrate, each of the optics regions corresponding to one of the plurality of articles; and thinning a portion of the layer to form thinned areas between the plurality of optics regions severing the substrate in the thinned areas to form singulated articles, wherein an optical element of each of the singulated articles includes an optics region and an edge region.
Keller et al discloses depositing a layer for forming a plurality of optics regions on a first surface of a substrate, each of the optics regions corresponding to one of the plurality of articles ((Figs. 2-4 columns 6-8) teaches removal shaping or reduction of material between adjacent device regions to facilitate separation and package integrity.); and thinning a portion of the layer to form thinned areas between the plurality of optics regions and thinning a portion of the layer to form thinned areas between the plurality of optics regions severing the substrate in the thinned areas to form singulated articles(column 8-10 describes singulating a substrate panel into individual devices using cutting, sawing, or dicing operations performed in reduced thickness regions),, wherein an optical element of each of the singulated articles includes an optics region and an edge region (singulation inherently creates peripheral edge regions around each optics region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shie et al to include Keller et al’s depositing a layer for forming a plurality of optics regions on a first surface of a substrate, each of the optics regions corresponding to one of the plurality of articles; and thinning a portion of the layer to form thinned areas between the plurality of optics regions motivated by the desire to reduce mechanical stress, control fracture planes and improve yield.
Regarding Claim 16,
In addition to Shie et al and Keller et al, Keller et al discloses wherein each of the singulated articles include an outer region of the substrate that extends a distance past the periphery of the optics region. (Keller shows individual devices having substrate portions extending beyond the optical element, used for mechanical support and handling (Fig. 3-5).
Regarding Claim 17,
In addition to Shie et al and Keller et al, Keller et al discloses wherein the optical element of each of the singulated articles includes an edge region on an outer region of the substrate, the edge region extending partially or completely around a periphery of the optics region, the edge region having an edge thickness that is less than an overall thickness of the optics region. (Keller teaches shaping or profiling optical material near device boundaries to accommodate singulation and reduce damage (Colum 7-9).
Regarding Claim 18,
In addition to Shie et al and Keller et al, Keller et al discloses wherein the thinned areas have a thickness ranging from about 0 to about 50 microns. (Keller et al teaches thinning to small residual thicknesses suitable for dicing or breaking (Column 8-9). Selecting a specific micron scale thickness for thinning regions is a result effective variable determined by tooling and substrate material.
Regarding Claim 19,
In addition to Shie et al and Keller et al, Keller et al discloses wherein the articles have reduced material mismatch stress between the optical element and the substrate compared to a second optical device that is otherwise the same as the first optical device except that that the optical element has the same overall thickness over the entire first surface of the substrate. (Thinning and removing material at edges is well knowno to reduce stress concentration and CTE mismatch effects. Stress reduction is an inherent and predictable result of reducing material volume as constrained interfaces.
Regarding Claim 20,
In addition to Shie et al and Keller et al, Keller et al discloses A source substrate comprising a plurality of articles made by the method of claim 14. (Keller discloses the panel level substrate containing multiple devices prior to singulation)
Regarding Claim 21,
In addition to Shie et al and Keller et al, Keller et al discloses A method of singulating, comprising: thinning a portion of a layer to form thinned areas between a plurality of device regions on a substrate; and severing the substrate in the thinned areas to form singulated devices. (Keller explicitly discloses thinning material between device regions and severing the substrate to form individual devices (Column 7-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
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 Caley can be reached at 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 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights