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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Yoneyama have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the remarks the applicant argues that Yoneyama does not disclose a surface-bonding configuration and rather applies adhesive in a spot manner.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoneyama discloses that the adhesive can be a sheet type (see paragraphs [0019], [0041], and [0051]), thus matching the surface-bonding configuration of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 USC 103 over Hasegawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hasegawa (US 2011/0096213) and Yoneyama et al. (US 2011/0222161), both of record.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneyama et al. (US 2011/0222161) of record (hereafter Yoneyama).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneyama discloses a microlens array laminate formed by bonding a plurality of microlens arrays (see at least Fig. 1), each of the plurality of microlens arrays being obtained by arranging a plurality of microlenses in a planar shape (see at least Fig. 1, where the microlenses are repeated across the plane of the array), wherein an adhesive sheet is disposed between the bonded microlens arrays, and the bonded microlens arrays are in surface bonding with the adhesive sheet interposed therebetween (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0037], adhesive layer and paragraphs [0019],[0041], and [0051], where the adhesive layer is in the form of an adhesive sheet).
Regarding claim 2, Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yoneyama also discloses that the adhesive sheet is configured to cover a bonding area, which is an area of the bonded microlens arrays other than an area corresponding to each microlens (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0019], [0041], and [0051], where the adhesive sheet only covers the substrate portion).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yoneyama also discloses that the adhesive sheet is made of a light-absorbing material and that the adhesive sheet is black (see at least paragraph [0043], where a black pigment can be added to the adhesive layer).
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.
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.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2011/0096213) of record (hereafter Hasegawa), in view of Yoneyama et al. (US 2011/0222161) of record (hereafter Yoneyama).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa discloses an optical device in which a lens laminate is formed by bonding a plurality of types of microlenses (see at least Fig. 16), wherein a first adhesive is disposed between microlenses of the lens laminate (see at least Fig. 16 and paragraph [0113], where 56 is an adhesive sheet), the first adhesive sheet is made of a light-absorbing material (see at least paragraph [0118]), and the first adhesive sheet and the microlenses are in surface bonding (see at least Fig. 16), and the first adhesive sheet functions as a spacer for adjusting a unit gap (see at least paragraph [0119]).
Hasegawa does not specifically disclose that the first adhesive is disposed between the lowermost microlens of the lens laminate and adjacent optical components and that the first adhesive sheet and the adjacent optical components are in surface bonding.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, 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 Hasegawa so that additional adhesive layers are provided between the lowermost microlens (543) and glass plate (53) thus providing a first adhesive sheet disposed between the lowermost microlens of the lens laminate and adjacent optical components and wherein the first adhesive sheet and the adjacent optical components are in surface bonding for the purpose of securely attaching them together within the stack and for providing additional light blocking portions to reduce stray light within the device.
Hasegawa does not specifically disclose that the adhesive is an adhesive sheet forming a surface bonding area.
However, Yoneyama teaches an optical device comprising a lens laminate and an adhesive sheet forming a surface bonding area (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0019], [0037], [0041], and [0051], where the adhesive layer is in the form of an adhesive sheet).
Therefore, 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 Hasegawa to include the teachings of Yoneyama so that the adhesive is an adhesive sheet forming a surface bonding area for the purpose of using a known adhesive layer in order to obtain predictable results such as forming it only in a non-transmissive region of the microlenses.
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Hasegawa also discloses that an image sensor is disposed at a bottom of the lens laminate, and an opening is formed in the first adhesive sheet to ensure an optical path between the lowermost microlens and the image sensor (see at least Fig. 16, where 51a are image capturing elements and the adhesive sheet leaves the optical path clear).
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Hasegawa also discloses that an image sensor is disposed at a bottom of the lens laminate, and one of the adjacent optical components is the lowermost microlens, and the other of the adjacent optical components is a glass cover adjacent to the first adhesive sheet and disposed on the image sensor (see at least Fig. 16, where 51a are image capturing elements and 53 is a glass cover).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Hasegawa also discloses that a second adhesive sheet forming a surface bonding area is disposed between an uppermost microlens of the lens laminate and a microlens adjacent to the uppermost microlens (see at least Fig. 16, adhesive layer 55), the second adhesive sheet is made of a light-absorbing material (see at least paragraph [0118]), the second adhesive sheet is in surface bonding to the uppermost microlens and the microlens adjacent to the uppermost microlens, and the second adhesive sheet functions as a diaphragm for gathering light in the optical device (see at least Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Hasegawa also discloses that the first adhesive sheet and the second adhesive sheet have a light blocking function (see at least paragraph [0118]).
Yoneyama also teaches an adhesive in a lens stack that can have a black pigment added to it (see at least paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, 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 Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama to include the further teachings of Yoneyama so that the first adhesive sheet and the second adhesive sheet are black for the purpose of facilitating the light shielding property of the adhesive sheets by adding a black pigment to the adhesive.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2011/0096213) of record (hereafter Hasegawa), in view of Yoneyama et al. (US 2011/0222161) of record (hereafter Yoneyama) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ferreira et al. (US 2020/0284883) of record (hereafter Ferreira).
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Hasegawa also discloses that the device can be used in a laser pick-up apparatus (see at least paragraph [0033]).
Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama does not specifically disclose a LiDAR sensor unit equipped with the optical device according to claim 8.
The examiner notes that using the optical device in a LiDAR sensor unit is considered an intended use of the device and is therefore given limited patentable weight.
However, Ferreira teaches a LiDAR sensor unit equipped with a lens assembly (see at least the abstract).
Therefore, 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 Hasegawa as modified by Yoneyama to include the teachings of Ferreira so that the optical device is part of a LiDAR sensor unit for the purpose of using the device in a known application for which it is well suited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0301140 to Matsuno et al. discloses a stack-type lens array comprising an adhesive sheet (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0010]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights