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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wolfing (US 20050249919) listed in IDS in view of SCHUETZ 20080093753.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfing (US 20050249919) listed in IDS in view of SCHUETZ’s (US 20080093753).
Regarding Claim 1 Wolfing discloses method of forming an optical element, comprising: providing a forming insert in a thermoforming apparatus (Figure 3a-3b, insert-1), the forming insert including a plurality of microstructures formed on a forming surface of the forming insert (Figure 3a-3b, [0064] microstructures -3); disposing/placing an element comprised of a …in the thermoforming apparatus and in contact with the forming surface of the forming insert (Figure 3a-3b, [0064], element-10, thermoforming apparatus-30), and thermoforming via the forming surface of the forming insert, the element, the thermoformed element having microstructures formed on a surface thereof (Figures 3a-3b, [0064], thermoformed element having microstructures-25);
Further Wolfing disclose heating the substrate/ element but didn’t specifically disclose that heating the forming insert to a first predetermined temperature. However, Wolfing disclosed that in the hot-forming temperature when the substrate -10 is heated to a temperature above predetermined temperature of the material , and during the hot forming process the die-1 and substrate -10 get closer to each other so that they come in contact as the clearance of the edge disappears therefore the insert-1 would also be heated ([0056])
Further, Wolfing didn’t disclose that disposing/placing an element comprised of a polymer material in the thermoforming apparatus and in contact with the forming surface of the forming insert. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, SCHUETZ discloses that the element/substrate could be a polymer material ([0024])
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wolfing’s teaching with that of SCHUETZ polymer material for the purpose of significantly lighter weight than glass and can be molded into complex shapes.
Further, Wolfing discloses, wherein the microstructures of the forming insert (Figures 3a-3b, [0064], microstructures-3) but didn’t include that microstructures of the forming insert including through-hole microperforations; In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, SCHUETZ discloses structures with through holes and a vacuum system in the thermoforming apparatus, to the element via the through-hole (Figure 1, [0028])..
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wolfing’s teaching with that of SCHUETZ’s teaching of drawing vacuum through the hole for the purpose of evacuating trapped air inside the microstructures.
Regarding Claim 2 Wolfing discloses, wherein the thermoforming further comprises applying pressure, vacuum, and/or mechanical force to the element ([0005]).
Regarding Claim 3 Wolfing discloses, wherein the microstructures transfer a pattern of microprotrusions to the thermoformed element (Figures 3a-3b, [0064] concave impression-25).
Regarding Claim 4 Wolfing discloses, wherein the microstructures transfer a pattern of microcavities to the thermoformed element ([0064], microcavities-25).
Regarding Claim 6 Wolfing discloses [0005], further comprising applying the vacuum, using a vacuum system included in the thermoforming apparatus, to the element via the microperforations ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 7 Wolfing discloses, wherein a shape of the microperforations is circular (Figure 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 11 Wolfing discloses thermoforming the element further comprises holding the element against the forming surface for a predetermined length of time based on a material rheological relaxation (([0013]-[0015]), [0029], [0030] thermoforming the element by hot forming process by the specifications of the material of the substrate process parameters i.e. in other words hot forming is known to be temperature and time dependent process which depends on the material properties ).
Regarding Claim 13 Wolfing discloses wherein the element is a film or a lens ([0064]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfing (US 20050249919) listed in IDS in view of SCHUETZ’s (US 20080093753) as applied in Claim 5 further in view of Chari, US 20080310186
Regarding Claim 8 Wolfing discloses method of forming an optical element, comprising: providing a forming insert in a thermoforming apparatus (Figure 3a-3b, insert-1), and the microstructures of the forming insert include microperforations (Figures 3a-3b, [0064], microstructures-3 ]) to form the microlens but didn’t disclose that wherein a diameter of the microperforations is between 0.5 micrometer to 2000 micrometers. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Chari discloses a diameter of the microlens is less than 20 micrometers ([0011]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wolfing;s teaching with the diameter taught by Chari for the purpose of high light out put ([0010]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfing (US 20050249919) listed in IDS in view of SCHUETZ’s (US 20080093753) as applied in Claim 2 further in view of Sharygin, (US 20130344296).
Regarding Claim 9 Wolfing discloses method of forming an optical element, comprising: providing a forming insert in a thermoforming apparatus (Figure 3a-3b, insert-1), the forming insert including a plurality of microstructures formed on a forming surface of the forming insert (Figure 3a-3b, [0064], microstructures -3) but didn’t disclose applying the mechanical force for the thermoforming process further comprises applying a force to the element via a hydro-assist. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Sharygin discloses thermoforming comprises applying a force to the element via a hydro-assist ([0019]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wolfing’s teaching with the hydro assist thermoforming taught by Sharygin for the purpose of more intricate non linear shaped objects to be formed.
Regarding Claim 9 Wolfing discloses method of forming an optical element, comprising: providing a forming insert in a thermoforming apparatus (Figure 3a-3b, insert-1), the forming insert including a plurality of microstructures formed on a forming surface of the forming insert (Figure 3a-3b, [0064], microstructures -3) but didn’t disclose applying the mechanical force for the thermoforming process further comprises applying a force to the element via a plug-assist. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Sharygin discloses thermoforming comprises applying a force to the element via a plug-assist ([0019]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wolfing’s teaching with the plug assist thermoforming taught by Sharygin for the purpose of more efficient material distribution to form complex geometries.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfing (US 20050249919) listed in IDS in view of SCHUETZ 20080093753
further in view of Mead (US 20030146526).
Regarding Claim 12 Wolfing implicitly disclosed that in the hot-forming temperature when the substrate -10 is heated to a temperature above predetermined temperature of the material, and during the hot forming process the die-1 and substrate -10 get closer to each other so that they come in contact as the clearance of the edge. However, Wolfing didn’t disclose that thermoforming the element further comprises direct/indirect heating the element via the forming surface to a second predetermined temperature. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Mead discloses that two subsequent temperatures are carried out at different temperatures. ([0013], [0022])
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wolfing’s teaching with the Mead’s for the purpose of producing complex parts with design flexibility and precision as the heating can be done in a gradual manner.
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights