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Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 29 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-11 are original, and claims 12-20 have been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunne (US20080290383).
Re: claim 1, Dunne discloses a base substrate 20 (Figs. 8A-8E); a plurality of first microlenses L2 located on the base substrate (location disclosed in Figs. 6, 8D-8E), wherein the plurality of first microlenses L2 are arranged at intervals (intervals disclosed in Figs. 6, 8D-8E); and a plurality of second microlenses L1 located on the base substrate 20 (location disclosed in Figs. 6, 8D-8E) and respectively located at gaps between the plurality of first microlenses (location in gaps disclosed in Figs. 6, 8D-8E, & 10), respectively; wherein edges of at least part of the plurality of second microlenses overlap with edges of corresponding first microlenses (Fig. 6 discloses that, from plan view, edges S11 and S14 of L1 overlap the edges of region 04 in L2, and edges S12 and S13 of L1 overlap the edges of region 02 of L2).
Re: claim 2, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Dunne further discloses that edges (Fig. 6, edges S11 – S14 of L1) of all the second microlenses L1 overlap with edges of corresponding first microlenses L2 (Fig. 6 discloses overlaps of all S11-S14 of L1 with the edges of corresponding regions 02 & 04 of L2).
Re: claim 6, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Dunne further discloses that a material of the plurality of first microlenses L2 is the same as a material of the plurality of second microlenses L1 (para. 106 discloses that the pellets from which the lenses L1 and L2 are made are made from the same resin).
Re: claim 7, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 6, and Dunne further discloses that the material of the plurality of first microlenses and the material of the plurality of second microlenses both comprise a resin (para. 106 discloses that the pellets from which the lenses L1 and L2 are made are made from the same resin).
Re: claim 9, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Dunne further discloses that a difference between a caliber the first microlens L2 and a caliber of the second microlens L2 is in a range of 0 µm to 4 µm (Para. 99 discloses that the diameter of L2 is 2 x 2.22 = 4.44 and the diameter of L1 is 2 x 2.63 = 5.25. The difference between the diameters is 0.82 µm, which is within the claimed range), and a difference between an arch height H2 of the first microlens and an arch height H1 of the second microlens is in a range of 0 µm to 3 µm (Para. 99 discloses that the arch height of L1 is 930 nm and the arch height of L2 is 672 nm. The difference between the heights is 0.258 µm, which is within the claimed range).
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.
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.
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) 3, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne.
Re: claim 3, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 2. While Dunne does not explicitly disclose that an overlapping width of an edge of the second microlens with an edge of the first microlens is in a range of 0.5 µm to 2 µm, Dunne does disclose that the radius R2 of first lens L2 is equal to 2.22 µm (para. 97) and that radius R1 of second lens L1 is 2.63 µm (paras. 96 & 97), Dunne further discloses in Fig. 6 that the overlapping width of the area of overlap would be approximately equal to half of the width of regions 04 or 02 of L2 at its widest portion, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of the ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2125]. The value of said half of the width of regions 04 or 02 would necessarily be less than the diameter, 2 x R2, of L2, which is equal to 2 x 2.22 or 4.44 µm. Thus, the approximate value of the overlapping width is greater than 0.00 µm and less than 4.44 µm, which overlaps the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to utilize the overlapping width in the recited range through routine experimentation and optimization for the purpose of ensuring that output light is directed to a predetermined location while optimizing the transmittance of light through the lens because a separate light shield would not be required.
Re: claim 8, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 7. While Dunne does not explicitly disclose that the resin comprises at least one of a polyacrylic resin, a polyimide resin or a phenolic resin, Dunne does disclose the use of a resin (para. 106). In addition, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.07]. 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 the resin comprise at least one of a polyacrylic resin, a polyimide resin or a phenolic resin applied to the device disclosed by Dunne for the purpose of using a cost-effective material that is comparatively easier to manufacture with as compared to comparable materials such as silicon nitrides or silicon oxides.
Re: claim 10, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 9, and Dunne further discloses that the caliber of the first microlens and the caliber of the second microlens are both in a range of 10 pm to 300 pm µm (Para. 99 discloses that the diameter of L2 is 2 x 2.22 = 4.44 and the diameter of L1 is 2 x 2.63 = 5.25. The difference between the diameters is 0.82 µm, which is within the claimed range). While Dunne does not explicitly disclose that the arch height of the first microlens and the arch height of the second microlens are both in a range of 5 µm to 30 µm, Dunne does disclose micrometer scale heights (para. 99 discloses 0.93 and 0.672 for H1 and H2); thus, Dunne discloses the general conditions of the claim. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [MPEP § 2144.05.II.A]. 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 used routine experimentation to obtain values for the heights H1 and H2 to be in the range of 5 µm to 30 µm for the purpose of obtaining predetermined values of angles of the refracted light output by the lenses.
Re: claim 11, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Dunne does not explicitly disclose that surface precision of the plurality of first microlenses and surface precision of the plurality of second microlenses are both less than 10 nm, and roughness of the plurality of first microlenses and roughness of the plurality of second microlenses are both less than 1nm. Generally, surface precisions and roughnesses of lenses are dependent on the application, the material used to make the lenses, and the method used to manufacture the lenses. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date to have used routine experimentation to obtain surface precisions of both microlenses being under 10 nm and to have the roughness of both lenses to be less than 1 nm for the purpose of optimizing the ease and cost of manufacturing and having lenses capable of transmitting light at angles having a predetermined value range.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne in view of Seo (US20210149270).
Re: claim 4, Dunne discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Dunne does not explicitly disclose a plurality of transparent protection structures located between the plurality of first microlenses and the plurality of second microlenses and covering the plurality of first microlenses, wherein surface topographies of the plurality of transparent protection structures are the same as surface topographies of the plurality of second microlenses.
Seo discloses a plurality of transparent protection structures (Fig. 2 the arched structures of insulating layer 200 that are in contact with lens 210) located between the plurality of microlenses 210 and covering the plurality of microlenses (location & covering disclosed in Fig. 2), wherein surface topographies of the plurality of transparent protection structures are the same as surface topographies of the plurality of microlenses (same surface topologies disclosed in Fig. 2).
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 plurality of transparent protection structures located between the plurality of first microlenses and the plurality of second microlenses and covering the plurality of first microlenses, wherein surface topographies of the plurality of transparent protection structures are the same as surface topographies of the plurality of second microlenses, as disclosed by Seo, applied to the device disclosed by Dunne for the purpose of protecting the lens surfaces from physical damage, such as scratches or impacts, while maintaining the transparency of the device.
Re: claim 5, Dunne and Seo disclose the limitations of claim 4, and while Seo does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of transparent protection structures (Fig. 2 the arched structures of insulating layer 200 that are in contact with lens 210) comprise silicon nitride, silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride, Seo does disclose that the structures are formed of a transparent resin material (para. 55). In addition, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness [MPEP § 2144.07]. 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 the transparent protection structures be comprised of silicon nitride, silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride applied to the device disclosed by Dunne and Seo for the purpose of using a comparatively cost-effective, transparent, non-conducting material, and lightweight material in a wide range of temperatures without deformation to protect the lens surfaces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see Arase (US20120298842), which discloses overlapping lenses in a lens array where second lenses are disposed in the gaps between first lenses.
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-T & Th-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
Prosecution Insights