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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on March 19, 2024 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, Examiner suggests -- that does not [[about]] abut the base --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “the first refractive index” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claims 1+2 have not introduced a first refractive index.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the second refractive index” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claims 1+3 do not include a second refractive index.
As to claim 20, the claim recites “the internal angle that abuts the base”, “the internal angle that does not abut the base” which lack antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand as “an internal angle…”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Sykora et al. (US 2014/0286043 - Sykora).
As to claim 1, Sykora teaches a lens array (Sykora Fig. 1B - 140; Fig. 5; Fig. 6) comprising a base substrate (Sykora Fig. 5 - 510; Fig. 6 - 647);
a plurality of prisms (Sykora Fig. 5 - 536; Fig. 6 - 641 para. [0077], [0083]) arranged in parallel to each other in a first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - y-axis; Fig. 6 - x-axis), each of the plurality of prisms extending in a second direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - x-axis; Fig. 6 - y-axis; Fig. 1B) different from the first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - x vs. y; para. [0078], [0083], [0084]);
a plurality of lenses covering the plurality of prisms (Sykora Fig. 5 - 526; Fig. 6 - 644; para. [0077], [0084]), and arranged in parallel to each other in the first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - 326, y-axis; Fig. 6 - 644, x-axis) each of the lenses extending in the second direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - 326, x-axis; Fig. 6 - 644, y-axis).
As to claim 3, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sykora teaches the base substrate and the plurality of prisms have an identical first refractive index (Sykora para. [0081], [0085] - same material of PET, polycarbonate, etc.; elements having same visible refractive index of 1.4-1.7).
As to claim 5, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Sykora teaches the second refractive index is greater than a third refractive index that is equal to a refractive index of air (Sykora para. [0081], [0085]).
As to claim 8, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sykora teaches wherein, among internal angles of a cross-section of the plurality of prisms, the internal angle that abuts the base is greater than the internal angle that does not abut the base substrate (Sykora Fig. 8 - 843c, Vprism).
As to claim 9, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sykora teaches the apex of each of the plurality of prisms has a curved shape (Sykora para. [0083] - Regardless of the vertex angle, the vertex is sharp rather than truncated or rounded, e.g., having a radius of curvature of no more than 3 microns).
As to claim 10, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sykora teaches a cross-section of each of the plurality of prisms includes a trapezoidal base, and a semi-circular apex (Sykora Fig. 6 - 642, 643, 641; para. [0083]).
As to claim 11, Sykora teaches a lens array (Sykora Figs. 5, 6) comprising
a base substrate (Sykora Fig. 5 - 510) having a planar shape extending in a first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - y-axis) and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - x-axis);
a plurality of pyramids disposed on the base substrate (Sykora Fi.g 5 - 536; para. [0077] - The second microreplicated structure 535 includes a plurality of saw-tooth or pyramidal prismatic features 536);
a plurality of lenses (Sykora Fig. 5 - 526; para. [0077]), each of the plurality of lenses covering a corresponding pyramid of the plurality of pyramids (Sykora Fig. 5 - 526, 529, 536, 539; para. [0078]).
As to claim 12, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Sykora teaches a rectangular base of each of the plurality of pyramids contacts the base substrate (Sykora Fig. 5 - 536, 510), and an apex of each of the plurality of pyramids protrudes in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - z-axis).
As to claim 13, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Sykora teaches the base substrate and the plurality of pyramids have an identical first refractive index (Sykora para. [0081], [0085] - same material of PET, polycarbonate, etc.; elements having same visible refractive index of 1.4-1.7).
As to claim 14, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Sykora teaches the plurality of lenses have a second refractive index (Sykora para. [0081], [0085]) that is less than the first refractive index (Sykora para. [0085] - e.g. base carrier (647) having n = 1.67 and lenses (646) having n = 1.51).
As to claim 15, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Sykora teaches the second refractive index is greater than a third refractive index that is equal to a refractive index of air (Sykora para. [0085]).
As to claim 16, Sykora teaches a method of fabricating a lens (Sykora Figs. 5, 6), comprising
preparing a base substrate (Sykora Fig. 5 - 510; Fig. 6 - 647);
forming a plurality of prisms (Sykora Fig. 5 - 536; Fig. 6 - 641 para. [0077], [0083]) arranged parallel to each other in a first direction on the base substrate (Sykora Fig. 5 - y-axis; Fig. 6 - x-axis), each of the plurality of prisms extending in a second direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - x-axis; Fig. 6 - y-axis; Fig. 1B) different from the first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - x vs. y; para. [0078], [0083], [0084]);
forming a plurality of lenses covering the plurality of prisms (Sykora Fig. 5 - 526; Fig. 6 - 644; para. [0077], [0084]), and arranged parallel to each other in the first direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - 326, y-axis; Fig. 6 - 644, x-axis), each of the plurality of lenses extending in the second direction (Sykora Fig. 5 - 326, x-axis; Fig. 6 - 644, y-axis).
As to claim 17, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Sykora teaches the base substrate and the plurality of prisms have an identical first refractive index (Sykora para. [0081], [0085] - same material of PET, polycarbonate, etc.; elements having same visible refractive index of 1.4-1.7).
As to claim 18, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Sykora teaches the plurality of lenses have a second refractive index that is less than the first refractive index (Sykora Fig. 6; para. [0085] - e.g. base carrier (647) having n = 1.67 and lenses (646) having n = 1.51).
As to claim 19, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Sykora teaches the second refractive index is greater than a third refractive index that is equal to a refractive index of air (Sykora para. [0085]).
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kume et al. (US 2005/0068475 - Kume).
As to claim 1, Kume teaches a lens array (Kume Figs. 1A,B - 4, 5; para. [0069], [0070]; Fig. 8) comprising
a base substrate (Kume Fig. 1A - 3);
a plurality of prisms (Kume Fig. 1A - 4, 4a) arranged in parallel to each other in a first direction on the base substrate (Kume Fig. 1 - 4a, left-right; Fig. 8), each of the plurality of prisms extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Kume Fig. 1A - 4a, into-out of page; Fig. 8; para. [0031]);
a plurality of lenses covering the plurality of prisms (Fume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a; para. [0031], [0070]), and arranged parallel to each other in the first direction (Fume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a), each of the plurality of lenses extending in the second direction (Fume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a; Fig. 8; para. [0031]).
As to claim 2, Kume teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kume further teaches a first surface of each of the plurality of prisms contacts an upper surface of the base substrate (Kume Fig. 1A - 4, 3), wherein a second surface and a third surface of each of the plurality of prisms contact inner surfaces of each of the plurality of lenses (Kume Fig. 1B - 4a, 5, 5a), wherein the first surface, the second surface, and the third surface extend in the second direction (Kume Fig. 1B; Fig. 8; para. [0031]).
As to claim 4, Kume teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Kume further teaches the plurality of lenses have a second refractive index (Kume Fig. 1A - N2) that is less than the first refractive index (Kume Fig. 1A - N1, N2; para. [0039]).
As to claim 6, Kume teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kume further teaches internal angles of a cross-section of each of the plurality of prisms are identical to each other (Kume Fig. 1B - base internal angles (a1) being identical).
As to claim 7, Kume teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kume further teaches among internal angles of a cross-section of the plurality of prisms, the internal angle the abuts the base substrate is less than the internal angle that does not abut the base substrate (Kume Fig. 1B; see below: a1 < A).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Kume teaches a lens array (Kume Figs. 1A,B; Fig. 8) comprising
a base substrate having a planar shape extending in a first direction and a second direction (Kume Fig. 1 - 3; Fig. 8 - 33);
a plurality of pyramids disposed on the base substrate (Kume Fig. 1A - 4, 4a; Fig. 8 - 34, 34a - truncated pyramids);
and a plurality of lenses (Kume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a; Fig. 8 - 35, 35a), each of the lenses covering a corresponding pyramid of the plurality of pyramids (Kume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a; Fig. 8 - 35, 35a).
As to claim 12, Kume teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Kume further teaches a rectangular base of each of the plurality of pyramids contacts the base substrate (Kume Fig. 8 - 34a, 34), wherein an apex of each of the plurality of pyramids protrudes in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (Kume Fig. 8 - 34a, 34; see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
700
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, Kume teaches a method of fabricating a lens array (Kume Figs. 1A,B - 4, 5; para. [0069], [0070]; Fig. 8);
preparing a base substrate (Kume Fig. 1A - 3);
forming a plurality of prisms (Kume Fig. 1A - 4, 4a) arranged parallel to each other in a first direction on the base substrate (Kume Fig. 1 - 4a, left-right; Fig. 8), each of the plurality of prisms extending in a second direction different from the first direction Kume Fig. 1A - 4a, into-out of page; Fig. 8; para. [0031]);
forming a plurality of lenses covering the plurality of prisms (Fume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a; para. [0031], [0070]), and arranged parallel to each other in the first direction (Fume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a), each of the plurality of lenses extending in the second direction (Fume Fig. 1A - 5, 5a; Fig. 8; para. [0031]).
As to claim 20, Kume teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Kume further teaches among internal angles of a cross-section of the plurality of prisms, the internal angle the abuts the base substrate is less than the internal angle that does not abut the base substrate (Kume Fig. 1B; see below: a1 < A).
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.
Claims 6-7, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sykora (cited above).
As to claim 6, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Sykora teaches the prisms form a triangle (Sykora Fig. 5 - 536), doesn’t specify the angles are identical (i.e. equilateral triangle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an equilateral triangle since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As per Sykora, the angles/shapes of the prism allow for controlling the light refraction through the film (Sykora para. [0077]).
As to claim 7, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Sykora teaches the prisms form a triangle (Sykora Fig. 5 - 536), doesn’t specify the base angles are less than the internal angle that does not abut the substrate (e.g. isosceles triangle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide such an isosceles triangle since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As per Sykora, the angles/shapes of the prism allow for controlling the light refraction through the film (Sykora para. [0077]).
As to claim 20, Sykora teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and while Sykora teaches the prisms form a triangle (Sykora Fig. 5 - 536), doesn’t specify the base angles are less than the internal angle that does not abut the substrate (e.g. isosceles triangle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide such an isosceles triangle since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As per Sykora, the angles/shapes of the prism allow for controlling the light refraction through the film (Sykora para. [0077]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Muller (US 9,563,062; 2014/0071538); Sykora et al. (US 9,261,641); Hoffmuller et al. (US 10,046,585; 2013/0270813); Kume et al. (US 7,542,101); Neijzen (US 5,731,857); Nishihara (US 5,764,319); Nishio et al. (US 5,592,332); Feldman Jr (US 5,220,462); Samuels (US 2015/0285959); Teng et al. (US 2011/0019435); Goto (US 2006/0227323) are cited as additional examples of lens arrays with prisms/pyramids and various aspects of such lenses/prisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights