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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/12/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation 1 Gpa and 30 Gpa under 200°C, and the claim also recites 3 Gpa and 75 Gpa under 25°C to 100°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. An example of uncertainty created by the claims is that the claim appears to allow the elastic modulus to be 1 or 2 Gpa when the temperature is under 200°C. However, this contradicts the range of 3 Gpa and 75 Gpa when the temperature is between 25°C and 100°C, which must include the ranges provided below 200°C. The elastic modulus cannot be both between 3 Gpa and 75 Gpa while also being 1 or 2 Gpa when the temperature is below 200°C. The ranges do not correctly overlap to allow both ranges to be true, even though both ranges fall under 200°C.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting claim 3 as stating “…an elastic modulus of the first distant layer is between 1 Gpa and 75 Gpa under 200°C”. This interpretation combines the two ranges and eliminates the gap in the overlap that causes confusion in regard to the range the elastic modulus is in.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5, 9, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210003515 A1 hereinafter Ushikura in further view of US 20160141457 A1 hereinafter Ha.
For claim 1, Ushikura teaches an optical element, comprising: a substrate (Ushikura, fig. 5 numeral 14); a light sensing device disposed in the substrate (fig. 5 numeral 15); a first distant layer disposed above the substrate (fig. 5 numeral 30), wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the first distant layer is between 10 ppm/°C and 300 ppm/°C (Par. [0044 – 0045]; see also attached chemical properties of materials used in Ushiruka – Benchchem: Fundamental Properties of Thallium-Doped Sodium Iodide: An In-Depth Technical Guide); and an inorganic multilayer film covering a top surface and the sidewall of the first distant layer (fig. 5 numeral 32 – 42 demonstrates a multilayer of films over the first distant layer 30 comprising inorganic materials; Par. [0161 – 0166]), wherein a coefficient of thermal expansion of the inorganic multilayer film is between 0.5 ppm/°C and 30 ppm/°C (Par. [0011]; Par. [0028]; Par. [0182]; Ushiruka teaches the multilayer films including layers with a ratio of coefficient of thermal expansion between the multilayer film and the first distant layer being between 0.5 to 4, resulting in embodiments wherein a 30 ppm/°C coefficient in the first distant layer includes a multilayer film coefficient of 15 ppm/°C). Ushikura is silent regarding the angle between a sidewall of the first distant layer and a top surface of the substrate being in the range of 10 degrees to 60 degrees. Ushikura does show the first distant layer being a trapezoid in shape and having an acute angle where the first distant layer meets the substrate (fig. 5 numeral 30)
Ha teaches an optical device (Ha, fig. 6) including a first distant layer (fig. 6 numeral 152) over a substrate (fig. 6 numeral 110), the first distant layer in a trapezoid shape with an acute angle (fig. 6 numeral θ1’) measured between the first distant layer and the substrate. The angle measures between 10 to 60 degrees (Par. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the angle of the first distant layer in Ha with the first distant layer and light sensing device in Ushikura to control the luminance of the device (Ha, Par. [0069]; Par. [0105]).
For claim 2, Ushikura and Ha teach all of claim 1. Ushikura also teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of the distant layer is between 10 ppm/°C and 65 ppm/°C (Ushikura, Par. [0012]; Par. [0045]).
For claim 5, Ushikura and Ha teaches all of claim 1. Ushikura also teaches the thickness of the first distant layer is between 1 µm and 500 µm (Ushikura, Par. [0034]).
For claim 9, Ushikura and Ha teaches all of claim 1. Ushikura also teaches the first distant layer has a stepped structure, and wherein the stepped structure comprises a horizontal surface adjoining a first sidewall portion and a second sidewall portion of the first distant layer (Ushikura, fig. 6A shows the first distant layer 30 including at least two sidewalls with a horizontal surface on top of each sidewall and connected the two sidewall portions).
For claim 19, Ushikura and Ha teach all of claim 1. Ushikura also teaches the coefficient of thermal expansion of the substrate being between 0.5 ppm/°C and 300 ppm/°C (Ushikura, Par. [0033]; Par. [0045]; Par. [0062]; Par. [0141]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210003515 A1 hereinafter Ushikura in further view of US 20160141457 A1 hereinafter Ha with evidence from Physical Property Measurements of Doped Cesium Iodide Crystals.
For claim 3, Ushikura and Ha teach all of claim 1. Ushikura and Ha do not explicitly state that the first distant layer has an elastic modulus that is between 1 and 75 Gpa under 200°C. Ushikura teaches the first distant layer comprises cesium iodide, or doped cesium iodide (Ushikura, Par. [0154 – 0155]). Cesium iodide and doped cesium iodide has an elastic modulus between 1 and 75 Gpa under 200°C (see attachment “Physical Property Measurements of Doped Cesium Iodide Crystals” tables 4 – 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the first distant layer in Ushikura and Ha has an elastic modulus between 1 and 75 Gpa under 200°C based on the materials used in Ushikura and Ha.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210003515 A1 hereinafter Ushikura in further view of US 20160141457 A1 hereinafter Ha with evidence from “Mechanical Properties of Amorphous Silicon Carbide” and “Mechanical properties of amorphous and microcrystalline silicon films”.
For claim 20, Ushikura and Ha teach all of claim 1. Ushikura and Ha do not specifically teach the elastic modulus of the substrate is between 1 and 400 Gpa under 25 °C. However, Ushikura teaches the material used in the substrate including amorphous silicon compounds (Ushikura, Par. [0141]). Amorphous silicon compounds has an elastic modulus of 1 Gpa to 400 Gpa under 25 °C (see “Mechanical Properties of Amorphous Silicon Carbide” page 4 and page 10 section 4.3; see “Mechanical properties of amorphous and microcrystalline silicon films” table 1 and table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the substrate in Ushikura and Ha would have an elastic modulus between 1Gpa and 400 Gpa under 25 °C based on known properties of the materials used in Ushikura.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6 – 8, and 10 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim 4, the prior art of record does not appear to teach the use of fluorene oligomer, ethoxylated bisphenol A diacrylate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate in a device including a light sensing device.
For claim 6, the prior art of record does not appear to teach the multilayer film comprises at least one material layer selected from a group consisting of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, titanium oxide, niobium oxide, and aluminum oxide.
Claim 7 is allowable primarily as depending on an allowable claim but are objected to as depending on a rejected base claim.
For claim 8, Ushikura appears to teach the inorganic multilayer film having a thickness larger than 200 nm to 10 µm (Ushikura, Par. [0168]). Ushikura appears to teach the inorganic multilayer film having a thickness outside the range of 200 nm to 10 µm.
For claim 10, the prior art of record do not appear to teach a second distant layer disposed between the substrate and the first distant layer, wherein the coefficient of thermal expansion of the first distant layer is lower than that of the second distant layer.
Claims 11 – 14 are allowable primarily as depending on an allowable claim, but are objected to as depending on a rejected base claim.
For claim 15, the prior art of record do not appear to teach a second distant layer disposed above the substrate adjacent to the first distant layer, wherein the inorganic multilayer film further covers a top surface and a sidewall of the second distant layer.
Claim 16 is allowable primarily as depending on an allowable claim, but are objected to as depending on a rejected base claim.
For claim 17, the prior art of record do not appear to teach a grating layer disposed on the top surface of the first distant layer, wherein the inorganic multilayer film covers the grating layer.
For claim 18, the prior art of record do no appear to teach micro lenses disposed on the top surface of the first distant layer, wherein the inorganic multilayer film covers the micro lenses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights