1.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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shan et al 2013/0120707, either alone, or further in view of French et al 2024/0316846 (see paragraph 0005).
Shan et al is applied for reasons of record, the primary reference disclosing the basic claimed mold insert and method of forming a lens therefrom lacking essentially a teaching that the working stamp is necessarily flexible. First of all, it is submitted that virtually all materials have some degree of flexibility—nickel being one of them-- and hence the mere recitation of the stamp being flexible would not define over Shan et al. Flexibility is a relative term and there is nothing in the instant claims or specification that would suggest that the instant stamp is indeed any more flexible than the shim of Shan et al. Shan et al teaches that the shim is nickel as set forth in instant claim 5 and it has a thickness that would be comparable to the instant—ie, 1-2 mm for the reference and less than 1 mm for the instant. Note also that paragraph 0045 of Shan et al teaches that 1-2 mm is the “maximum height” and that the shim should be “made as thin as possible while still maintaining certain mechanical strength”. This would surely suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the shim would have some amount of flexibility, certainly at lower thicknesses. Further, it is submitted that making a known element as flexible would certainly have been within the skill level of the art of Shan et al should such be desired. Surely some flexibility would be desirable when attaching the shim to the ceramic block and this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Additionally, French et al has been applied to teach that shims or stamps as taught in Shan et al are desirably flexible—see paragraph 0005 of French et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the shim of Shan et al as flexible as taught in French et al for the attendant benefits noted at paragraph 0005 of French et al. Concerning the adhesive, it is noted that epoxy does have a higher CTE at 150 deg C than that instantly claimed. However, other adhesives are known in the art to have the instant CTE and glass transition temperature—Official Notice is hereby taken of this-- and their use would have been obvious in Shan et al dependent on the exact adhesive properties desired. Certainly applicant does not intend patentability of the claims to lie on the properties of the adhesive used, particularly when no specific adhesive is disclosed in the instant specification. The exact thicknesses for the shim/stamper and body would have been readily determined dependent on fidelity of reproduction and heat transfer characteristics desired. While Shan et al teaches a nominal thickness of around 40 mm, it is respectfully submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would understand that the instant thickness of 4-20 mm would have been within the skill level of the art dependent on injection pressure employed—ie, degree of stability required for the body. The curving set forth in instant claim 16 is submitted to have been obvious in Shan et al given that the shim/stamp has some amount of flexibility to allow the curving. This aspect has been previously addressed and is submitted to be obvious over Shan et al alone, or further in view of French et al. Instant claim 17 is submitted to have been obvious for reasons already noted with respect to the thickness of the stamp. Microstructures on a lens are conventionally known to be less than 50 microns as set forth in instant claim 18—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious feature size in Shan et al dependent on the utility for the microstructure.
2.Applicant's arguments filed October 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s comments directed to the stamp being flexible have been essentially discussed in paragraph 1, supra. It is respectfully submitted that there is no evidence of record to indicate that the shim/stamp of Shan et al is not flexible. Further, it certainly would have been obvious to have made the shim as thin as possible as noted at paragraph 0045 of Shan et al, and aspect would have obviously enhanced the flexibility of the shim. Comments directed to the adhesive are noted. There are other adhesives besides epoxies used in the art and the instant CTE and glass transition temperature are known for these epoxies. It would not be inventive to select a known adhesive based on its properties as such is clearly within the skill level of the art. Further, the exact thicknesses for the shim and body is submitted to have been well within the skill level of the art. One of ordinary skill in this art would have been easily able to determine a suitable thickness for these structures as well as the height of the microstructures on the shim, dependent on parameters such as injection pressure and optical utility, respectively.
3.THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742