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
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn, and claims 15-20 are original.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain technical inconsistencies. Specifically, elements 150, 250, 350, and 450 are identified in the specification as meniscus lenses. However, in Figs. 1-4, instead of meniscus lenses being illustrated, elements 150, 250, 350, and 450 are illustrated as double convex lenses.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 16 October 2025 and 14 November 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montevirgen (US 20200081253).
Re: claim 15, Montevirgen discloses: a piano-concave lens element 82 (Fig. 4); and a meniscus lens element 84, wherein the meniscus lens element directly overlies a concave surface of the piano-concave lens element (direct overlying disclosed in Fig. 4).
While Montevirgen does not explicitly disclose that the plano-concave lens is comprised of a high refractive index material and that the meniscus lens element is comprised of a low refractive index material, Montevirgen does disclose that “[e]ach lens element may have unique shapes and refractive indexes that, in combination, focus light…in a desired manner” (para. 47). In addition, Snell’s law dictates that the magnitude of refraction of light at the border of two adjacent layers depends on the values of the refractive indices of the materials used to comprise the layers; the greater the difference between refractive indices of the layers, the greater the refraction of light. A person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would be motivated to select high and low refractive index materials so that the differences in refractive indices would be optimized to produce the predetermined or desired magnitude of refraction depending upon the specific application. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known device that achieves predictable results.
Re: claim 16, Montevirgen discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Montevirgen further discloses that a minimum thickness of the plano-concave lens element ranges from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 500 micrometers (para. 58 discloses that lens 82 has a minimum thickness ranging from five microns to over twenty millimeters, which overlaps the claimed range).
Re: claim 17, Montevirgen discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Montevirgen further discloses that a center thickness of the plano-concave lens element ranges from approximately 50 micrometers to approximately 500 micrometers (para. 58 discloses that lens 82 has a minimum thickness ranging from five microns to over twenty millimeters, which overlaps the claimed range).
Re: claim 18, Montevirgen discloses the limitations of claim 15. While Montevirgen does not explicitly disclose that a maximum thickness of the hybrid piano-convex lens element ranges from approximately 1 mm to approximately 10 mm, Montevirgen does disclose that the lens element 82 has a wide range of thicknesses from five microns to over twenty millimeters (para. 58). While this size range applies to only one lens comprising the hybrid lens, the wide breadth of range indicates that the total thickness of the hybrid lens can be optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date as required depending upon the application.
Re: claim 20, Montevirgen discloses the limitations of claim 15. While Montevirgen does not explicitly disclose that the high refractive index material has a refractive index ranging from approximately 1.53 to approximately 1.70, and the low refractive index material has a refractive index ranging from approximately 1.45 to approximately 1.52, Montevirgen does disclose that both lenses may be comprised of glass (para. 47). Barium gallogermanate glass has a refractive index of 1.69, which lies within the claimed high refractive index range, and ZBLAN fluoride glass has a refractive index of 1.48, which lies within the claimed low refractive index range. A person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would be motivated to select high and low refractive index materials so that the differences in refractive indices would be optimized to produce the predetermined or desired magnitude of refraction depending upon the specific application. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known device that achieves predictable results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montevirgen in view of Khan (US 20180039052).
Re: claim 19, Montevirgen discloses the limitations of claim 15; however, Montevirgen does not explicitly disclose that a center thickness of the meniscus lens element ranges from approximately 500 micrometers to approximately 9 mm.
Khan discloses that a center thickness of the meniscus lens element 56 (Fig. 4) ranges from approximately 500 micrometers to approximately 9 mm (para. 52 discloses a range of 1 mm – 3 mm, which overlaps the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a center thickness of the meniscus lens element range from approximately 500 micrometers to approximately 9 mm, as disclosed by Khan, applied to the device disclosed by Montevirgen for the purpose of simplifying handling and bonding to an adjacent lens during the manufacturing process (see Khan para. 52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871