Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/614,069

MANUFACTURING PROCESS FOR GRIN LENSES ASSISTED BY AI

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 22, 2024
Examiner
JORDAN, DANIEL JEFFERY
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Peak Nano Optics LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
62%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
30 granted / 48 resolved
-5.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 48 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement 2. Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) dated 03/27/2024 and 09/19/2024. Regarding the IDS dated 03/27/2024, improper document number “US H132100 H” should read “US H001321 H”. Regarding the IDS dated 09/19/2024, improper “Vol. 12079” of the first NPL reference should read “Vol. 12078”. Since the examiner is able to retrieve each document, the information therein has still been considered as to the merits. The correct citations have been listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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. 4. Claims 9-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beadie et al. (“Multilayer Polymer GRIN Singlets: Manufacturing and Performance”, International Optical Design Conference, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 12078, pages 1-5, 9 November 2021). Regarding claim 9, Beadie discloses a gradient-index (GRIN) lens (Fig. 1), comprising: a laminate optic comprising a plurality of optical layers (2. Fabrication, page 1, “transparent polymer films”; 2. Fabrication, page 2, “films can be…stacked…and compressed…into optical-quality, transparent sheets”), the GRIN lens having near spherical (2. Fabrication, page 2) iso-index contours such that dR0/dt ≈ -1 (2. Fabrication, “concentric spherical molds”; 3. Design - “monotonic change in index as a function of GRIN radius”) and κ ≈ 0 (2. Fabrication, “near-spherical internal interfaces”; 3. Design - “spherical GRIN distribution”), wherein the GRIN lens has a composite structure (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, page 2, “molding between concentric spherical molds”) and is shaped from an optical preform that is produced by molding a charge design (2. Fabrication, page 2, lens obtained by diamond turning). Regarding claim 10, Beadie discloses wherein a lens diameter is between 3 mm and 250 mm (1. Introduction, 1-inch diameter), the GRIN lens having an F# of 0.5 to 100 (Abstract, f/4 or f/6). Regarding claim 12, Beadie discloses wherein the lens is shaped from the optical preform by diamond turning (2. Fabrication, page 2). Regarding claim 13, Beadie discloses a method for producing a (GRIN) lens (Fig. 1), comprising: providing an initial optical design for a GRIN lens (2. Design, page 2); producing a charge design with a plurality of shaped optical layers (2. Fabrication, page 2, “films can be…stacked…and compressed…into optical-quality, transparent sheets”); producing a first preform with the charge design (2. Fabrication, page 2, “to create preforms”); optimizing the first preform based on previously measured optical parameters to produce a second preform (3. Design, page 3, “revised, design optimization loop”); and forming the GRIN lens conforming to the initial optical design from the second preform (2. Fabrication, page 2, lens obtained by diamond turning). Regarding claim 15, Beadie discloses wherein the GRIN lens has near spherical (2. Fabrication, page 2) iso-index contours such that dR0/dt ≈ -1 (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, “concentric spherical molds”; 3. Design - “monotonic change in index as a function of GRIN radius”) and κ ≈ 0 (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, “near-spherical internal interfaces”; 3. Design - “spherical GRIN distribution”). Regarding claim 16, Beadie discloses forming the GRIN lens with diamond turning from the second preform (2. Fabrication, page 2). Regarding claim 18, Beadie discloses wherein the charge design comprises layered planar optical materials (2. Fabrication, page 2, “films can be…stacked…and compressed…into optical-quality, transparent sheets”; 3. Design, plano lenses). Regarding claim 19, Beadie discloses wherein the charge design comprises a partially layered structure with suspended or captured sub-elements (2. Fabrication, page 2, “concentric”). Regarding claim 20, Beadie discloses wherein a diameter of the GRIN lens is between 3 mm and 250 mm (1. Introduction, 1-inch diameter). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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. 6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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. 7. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beadie in view of Isao et al. (RU 2272054 C2). Regarding claim 1, Beadie discloses a method for forming a gradient-index (GRIN) lens (Fig. 1), comprising: providing an optical design of a GRIN lens (3. Design, page 2); forming a GRIN material (2. Fabrication, page 1, “transparent polymer films”); shaping a pre-determined charge design (2. Fabrication, page 2, “films can be…stacked…and compressed…into optical-quality, transparent sheets”); shaping the charge design into an optical preform (2. Fabrication, page 2, “to create preforms”); and forming the GRIN lens from the optical preform such that the GRIN lens conforms to the optical design (2. Fabrication, page 2, lens obtained by diamond turning). Beadie fails to disclose forming the GRIN material into an annealed puck. However, Isao teaches methods for forming GRIN lenses (page 37 lines 9-33), and discloses wherein GRIN material is formed into an annealed puck (page 37 lines 9-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Beadie and Isao such that GRIN material was formed into an annealed puck, and the puck was shaped, motivated by allowing for more precise control over optical characteristics of GRIN lenses. Regarding claim 2, modified Beadie discloses wherein the GRIN lens has a composite molded structure (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, page 2, “molding between concentric spherical molds”). Regarding claim 3, modified Beadie discloses wherein the GRIN lens is a laminate optic (Beadie - 3. Design, page 3) with near spherical (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, page 2) iso-index contours such that dR0/dt ≈ -1 (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, “concentric spherical molds”; 3. Design - “monotonic change in index as a function of GRIN radius”) and κ ≈ 0 (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, “near-spherical internal interfaces”; 3. Design - “spherical GRIN distribution”). Regarding claim 4, modified Beadie discloses wherein a diameter of the GRIN lens is between 3 mm and 250 mm (Beadie - 1. Introduction, 1-inch diameter). Regarding claim 5, modified Beadie discloses wherein a surface profile of the charge design is described by spherical (Beadie - page 2), aspherical (Beadie - page 2), planar, or freeform shapes, or by a piece-wise defined function. Regarding claim 6, modified Beadie discloses wherein the charge design comprises layered planar optical materials (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, page 2, “films can be…stacked…and compressed…into optical-quality, transparent sheets”). Regarding claim 7, modified Beadie discloses wherein the charge design comprises a partially layered structure with suspended or captured sub-elements (Beadie - 2. Fabrication, page 2, “concentric”). 8. Claims 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beadie in view of Isao, and further in view of Daugela et al. (US 20180252896 A1). Regarding claim 8, modified Beadie discloses wherein the GRIN lens is suitable for use as an objective for cameras (Beadie - 4. Performance). Modified Beadie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the GRIN lens is suitable for use as an objective for imaging devices including riflescopes, binoculars, spotting scopes, and cameras. However, Daugela teaches the use of a GRIN lens ([0031]), and discloses wherein the GRIN lens is suitable for use as an objective for imaging devices including riflescopes ([0013]), binoculars ([0013]), spotting scopes ([0036]), and cameras ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Beadie and Daugela such that the GRIN lens was used in riflescopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes, motivated by adapting the lens to a variety of applications. 9. Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beadie in view Daguela. Regarding claims 11 and 17, Beadie discloses wherein the lens is suitable for use as an objective for cameras (Beadie - 4. Performance). Beadie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the GRIN lens is suitable for use as an objective for imaging devices including riflescopes, binoculars, spotting scopes, and cameras. However, Daugela teaches the use of GRIN lenses ([0031]), and discloses wherein the GRIN lens is suitable for use as an objective for imaging devices including riflescopes ([0013]), binoculars ([0013]), spotting scopes ([0036]), and cameras ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Beadie and Daugela such that the GRIN lens was used in riflescopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes, motivated by adapting the lens to a variety of applications. 10. Claims 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Beadie in view of Isao, and further in view of Waks et al. (US 20220114706 A1). Regarding claim 14, modified Beadie fails to disclose the use of a combination of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and optimization techniques to optimize the first preform. However, Waks teaches the use of GRIN lenses ([0053]), and discloses the use of a combination of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and optimization techniques to optimize the GRIN lenses ([0037] and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Beadie and Waks such that A.I., ML, and optimization techniques were used to optimize the first preform, motivated by allowing for more precise control over optical characteristics of GRIN lenses. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p. 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. /D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591113
LENS ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12566316
CAMERA OPTICAL LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12461343
OPTICAL IMAGING LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12429711
OPHTHALMIC DEVICE WITH BUILT-IN SELF-TEST CIRCUITRY FOR TESTING AN ADJUSTABLE LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Patent 12429715
Synthesis and Application of Light Management with Thermochromic Hydrogel Microparticles
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
62%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 48 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month