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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 18, 2026. Claim 11 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on page 6 that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that the cited art fails to disclose “wherein the surface of each structure is segmented into a plurality of segments, each segment having a tilt-angle relative to the optical axis and a height, wherein for any two adjacent segments the tilt-angle and height of an upper segment is greater than the tilt-angle and height of a lower segment, the upper segment being further from the substrate than the lower segment.” However, as set forth below, Gueyvandov et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-3): wherein the surface of each structure 2, 3 is segmented into a plurality of segments, each segment having a tilt-angle relative to the optical axis (i.e. perpendicular to the base in Figure 3) and a height (i.e. distance from base in Figure 3), wherein for any two adjacent segments the tilt-angle and height of an upper segment is greater than the tilt-angle and height of a lower segment, the upper segment being further from the substrate (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that the substrate is considered the lowest plane portion) than the lower segment (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the shape of the element satisfies the limitations).
Therefore claims 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected, as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “trough between structures of the plurality of structures is rounded”, as set forth in claim 19, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinniah et al. (US 2015/0117021 A1) in view of Gueyvandov et al. (US 2007/0115573 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Chinniah et al. discloses an optical element comprising a plurality of structures (i.e. “facets”, see e.g. paragraph [0021] and Figure 1) formed on a substrate 105 (i.e. “cylinder” 105, see e.g. paragraph [0020] and Figure 1), wherein (see e.g. Figures 1-6):
in a cross-section orthogonal (see e.g. Figure 6 for cross-section) to a plane defined by the substrate 105, an upper portion of a surface of each structure comprises a greater tilt-angle relative to an optical axis orthogonal to the substrate than a lower portion of the surface (see e.g. Figure 6 for the rounding of the facets of 140, thus satisfying the limitation), the lower portion being closer to the substrate 105 than the upper portion (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that the lower portion of the facet 140 is closer to the surface of 105); and
each structure (i.e. facets of 140) is arranged on the substrate 105 such that radiation entering each structure through the substrate 105, in a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis and undergoing internal reflection within each structure, exits the surface of each structure along a path that does not intersect a directly adjacent structure of the plurality of structures (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that light that is substantially parallel to the facets of layer 140 undergo total internal reflection and exit such that the light does not enter an adjacent facet).
Chinniah et al. fails to disclose
wherein the surface of each structure is segmented into a plurality of segments, each segment having a tilt-angle relative to the optical axis and a height, wherein for any two adjacent segments the tilt-angle and height of an upper segment is greater than the tilt-angle and height of a lower segment, the upper segment being further from the substrate than the lower segment.
However, Gueyvandov et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
wherein the surface of each structure 2, 3 is segmented into a plurality of segments, each segment having a tilt-angle relative to the optical axis (i.e. perpendicular to the base in Figure 3) and a height (i.e. distance from base in Figure 3), wherein for any two adjacent segments the tilt-angle and height of an upper segment is greater than the tilt-angle and height of a lower segment, the upper segment being further from the substrate (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that the substrate is considered the lowest plane portion) than the lower segment (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the shape of the element satisfies the limitations).
Given the teachings of Gueyvandov et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al. with wherein the surface of each structure is segmented into a plurality of segments, each segment having a tilt-angle relative to the optical axis and a height, wherein for any two adjacent segments the tilt-angle and height of an upper segment is greater than the tilt-angle and height of a lower segment, the upper segment being further from the substrate than the lower segment.
Providing the segmented structure would result in the light directed in a forward direction.
In regard to claim 2, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the plurality of structures (i.e. facets of 140) comprises one or more structures formed as a closed loop, ellipse, oval, ring, or continuous free-form shape in a cross-section parallel to the plane (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0021] for concentric facets).
In regard to claim 3, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein a height of the one or more structures (i.e. facets of 140) and/or a width of a base of the one or more structures varies along at least a portion of the one or more structures (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that the leftmost facet is a different width, thus satisfying the limitation).
In regard to claim 4, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein each structure of the plurality of structures (i.e. facets of 140) is disposed beside another structure of the plurality of structures such that there are no gaps between the structures (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that there are no gaps between the facets of 140) In regard to claim 5, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a height of each structure of the plurality of structures is substantially the same as a height of an adjacent structure of the plurality of structures.
However, Gueyvandov et al. discloses
wherein a height of each structure 2, 3 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0038]) of the plurality of structures 2, 3 is substantially the same as a height of an adjacent structure of the plurality of structures 2, 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 for substantially the same height).
Given the teachings of Gueyvandov et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al. with wherein a height of each structure of the plurality of structures is substantially the same as a height of an adjacent structure of the plurality of structures.
Providing a consistent height of the structures would provide a more uniform of the light transmitted.
In regard to claim 6, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein at least one structure (i.e. facets of 140) of the plurality of structures (i.e. facets of 140) is rotationally symmetrical about an axis parallel to the optical axis (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0021] for concentric facets).
In regard to claim 7, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the plurality of structures (i.e. facets of 140) are arranged concentrically on the substrate 105 (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0021] for concentric facets).
In regard to claim 10, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a peak of one or more structures of the plurality of structures (i.e. facets of 140) is rounded (see e.g. Figure 6 for rounded peaks on the facets).
In regard to claim 12, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein each structure (i.e. facets of 140) is configured as a prism comprising a plurality of surfaces for reflecting and refracting the radiation entering each structure through the substrate 105 (see e.g. Figure 6 for reflection and refraction of the light entering from 105 to the facets).
In regard to claim 13, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the path is at an angle of greater than 70 degrees relative to the optical axis.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the path is at an angle of greater than 70 degrees relative to the optical axis, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al. with wherein the path is at an angle of greater than 70 degrees relative to the optical axis.
Providing a light path that directs light toward a specific angle that benefits the particular application is known in the art to be a parameter that may be controlled by a shape of surface structures and a refractive index of those structures.
In regard to claim 17, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the tilt-angle and the height of each segment increases gradually from a lowest segment to a highest segment.
However, Gueyvandov et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 3)
wherein the tilt-angle and the height of each segment increases gradually from a lowest segment to a highest segment (see e.g. Figure 3, where the tilt-angle increases segmentally from the base to the top and because it takes two changes in slope between the bottom and top, it is considered a gradual change).
Given the teachings of Gueyvandov et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al. with wherein the tilt-angle and the height of each segment increases gradually from a lowest segment to a highest segment.
Providing the segmented structure would result in the light directed in a forward direction.
In regard to claim 18, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the surface comprises two sides that are symmetrically segmented.
However, Gueyvandov et al. discloses
wherein the surface comprises two sides that are symmetrically segmented (see e.g. Figure 3 where it is at least mirror symmetric across a vertical line through the middle).
Given the teachings of Gueyvandov et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al. with wherein the surface comprises two sides that are symmetrically segmented.
Providing the symmetric segmented structure would result in the light directed in a forward direction.
In regard to claim 19, Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a trough between structures of the plurality of structures is rounded.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which wherein a trough between structures of the plurality of structures is rounded, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., with wherein a trough between structures of the plurality of structures is rounded.
Providing a curved trough would provide a desired light directionality that would have predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinniah et al. (US 2015/0117021 A1) in view of Gueyvandov et al. (US 2007/0115573 A1) and further in view of Schwalenberg (US 2019/0146199 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
a microlens array disposed at a center of the concentrically arranged plurality of structures.
However, Schwalenberg discloses (see e.g. Figure 10):
a microlens array 36, 37 disposed at a center of the concentrically arranged plurality of structures 32 (see e.g. Figure 10, paragraphs, [0060], [0081]).
Given the teachings of Schwalenberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., with a microlens array disposed at a center of the concentrically arranged plurality of structures.
Providing the microlens array would allow the optical surface to be utilized as a flash light or headlight.
Claims 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinniah et al. (US 2015/0117021 A1) in view of Gueyvandov et al. (US 2007/0115573 A1) and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2017/0023205 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
a substantially conical structure disposed at a center of the concentrically arranged plurality of structures.
However, Hu et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
a substantially conical structure 41 disposed at a center of the concentrically arranged plurality of structures 41 (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0027] where the center structure is substantially conical).
Given the teachings of Hu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., with a substantially conical structure disposed at a center of the concentrically arranged plurality of structures.
Providing the conical structures would allow for an improved visibility of light through the optical device.
In regard to claim 14, Chinniah et al. discloses an optical module comprising the optical element of claim 1 (see e.g. rejection of claim 1) in combination with a radiation source 200 (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0023]).
Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., fails to disclose
wherein the radiation source is configured to emit radiation towards the substrate such that the radiation enters each structure through the substrate in a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis.
However, Hu et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the radiation source (i.e. which emits L1, see e.g. Figure 3) is configured to emit radiation L1 towards the substrate 30 (i.e. body, see e.g. paragraph [0027] and Figures 1-3) such that the radiation L1 enters each structure through the substrate 30 in a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis (see e.g. Figure 3 for light parallel to an optical axis).
Given the teachings of Hu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al., with wherein the radiation source is configured to emit radiation towards the substrate such that the radiation enters each structure through the substrate in a direction substantially parallel to the optical axis.
Providing the light substantially parallel would allow for light directivity in a forward direction.
In regard to claim 16, Chinniah et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
wherein the directly adjacent structure (i.e. facets of 140) is a nearest neighboring structure (see e.g. Figure 6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinniah et al. (US 2015/0117021 A1) in view of Gueyvandov et al. (US 2007/0115573 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2017/0023205 A1) and further in view of Hudman et al. (US 2015/0097947 A1).
In regard to claim 15¸ Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al. and Hu et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the radiation source comprises an array of Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers (VCSELs).
However, Hudman et al. discloses
wherein the radiation source comprises an array of Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers (VCSELs) (see e.g. abstract).
Given the teachings of Hudman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chinniah et al., in view of Gueyvandov et al. and Hu et al., with wherein the radiation source comprises an array of Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers (VCSELs).
Using a VCSEL array as a light source has an advantage of a more easily and accurately aligning with optical components which results in a more efficient use of the light.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights