Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/842,438

METHOD OF FABRICATING AT LEAST ONE OPTICAL ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 29, 2024
Examiner
TENTONI, LEO B
Art Unit
1742
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
TRINAMIX GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1134 granted / 1386 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1413
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1386 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 08 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) set forth on pages 6 and 7 of the reply. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner is not bound by any conclusions or decisions of the International Searching Authority (e.g., determination of lack of unity) and the common technical feature of the groups is not a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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) 1-3 and 7-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (WO 2012/046826 A1) in combination with Wu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0309537 A1). Regarding claim 1, Shimada et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0136], [0137], [0145], [0161], [0162] and [0164] – [0168]; Figures 1 – 4C) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (forming a wafer level lens array) of Shimada et al), including (i) at least one preparation step, wherein the preparation step includes providing at least one substrate having at least one first surface and at least one second surface, wherein the second surface is located opposite with respect to the first surface (see Figure 3, paragraph [0164] (substrate 10 (i.e., substrate 10 has opposed first and second surfaces)) of Shimada et al); (ii) at least one deposition step, wherein the deposition step includes applying at least one first layer to the first surface of the substrate, wherein the first layer includes at least one of an optical filter and an anti-reflection coating (see paragraph [0162] (infrared filter may be formed on surface of substrate 10) of Shimada et al); and (iii) at least one deposition step, wherein the deposition step includes depositing at least one optical lens onto the first layer, wherein the optical lens is deposited onto the first layer by deposition (see Figure 3, paragraph [0165] (molding material M is deposited on substrate 10 to form lenses 12) of Shimada et al). Shimada et al does not teach (1) a molding step, wherein the optical lens is molded by injection molding. Wu et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002] and [0022]; Figures 1 and 2) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (injection molding method for fabricating lenses) of Wu et al), including a molding step, wherein the optical lens is molded by injection molding (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph [0022] (silica gel is injection molded onto substrate 22) of Wu et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to injection mold an optical lens onto a substrate in the process of Shimada et al in view of Wu et al because the substitution of one known element (i.e., injection molding) for another known element (i.e., deposition) would have yielded predictable results (e.g., formation of an optical lens on a substrate) to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 2, see paragraph [0161] (substrate 10 is formed of a transparent material such as glass) of Shimada et al. Regarding claim 3, see paragraph [0162] (infrared filter (e.g., a band pass filter)) of Shimada et al. Regarding claim 7, see paragraph [0137] (material for forming lens 12 includes glass) of Shimada et al. Regarding claim 8, see Figures 3, Figures 4A – 4C, paragraphs [0164] – [0168] (mold 60, concave portions 62) of Shimada et al. Regarding claim 9, see paragraph [0145] (transfer suitability) of Shimada et al. Regarding claim 10, see Figures 1 and 2 (plural lenses 12) of Shimada et al. Regarding claim 11, see paragraph [0136] (separated into lens modules by dicing) of Shimada et al. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (WO 2012/046826 A1) in combination with Wu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0309537 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-11 above, and further in view of Shi et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0025932 A1). Regarding claim 4, Shimada et al (in combination with Wu et al) does not teach (1) applying at least one second layer to a second surface of a substrate, wherein the second layer includes at least one of an optical filter and an anti-reflection coating. Shi et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0004], [0007] and [0041]; Figures 8 and 9) teaches a process (see paragraph [0007] (method of forming an optical device on a wafer level) of Shi et al), including applying at least one second layer to a second surface of a substrate, wherein the second layer includes at least one of an optical filter and an anti-reflection coating (see Figures 8 and 9, paragraph [0041] (glass substrate having first and second surfaces; partial-transparent, partial-reflecting coating on first surface; anti-reflection coating on second surface) of Shi et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply at least one second layer to a second surface of a substrate, wherein the second layer includes at least one of an optical filter and an anti-reflection coating in the process of Shimada et al (in combination with Wu et al) in view of Shi et al in order to reduce the cost of fabrication of a lens (see paragraph [0004] of Shi et al). Regarding claim 5, see Figures 8 and 9, paragraph [0041] (glass substrate having first and second surfaces; partial-transparent, partial-reflecting coating on first surface; anti-reflection coating on second surface) of Shi et al. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al (WO 2012/046826 A1) in combination with Wu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0309537 A1) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-11 above, and further in view of Attar et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0335621 A1). Regarding claim 6, Shimada et al (in combination with Wu et al) does not teach (1) that the first layer is applied by a recited deposition method. Attar et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0108] and [0114]; Figure 23) teaches a camera system with multiple lenses (see paragraph [0003] of Attar et al), wherein a first layer is applied by a deposition method (see Figure 23, paragraphs [0108] (polymer-based lenses are provided on transparent substrates 1508, 1509) and [0114] (infrared filters are formed on substrates or lens surfaces by chemical vapor deposition or physical vapor deposition) of Attar et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a layer by a recited deposition method in the process of Shimada et al (in combination with Wu et al) in view of Attar et al in order to provide a technique for applying an optical filter to a substrate. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F. 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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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. LEO B. TENTONI Primary Examiner Art Unit 1742 /LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603206
COMPOSITE COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599464
PRODUCTION OF DENTAL FLOSS FROM WOOD FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601177
DECORATIVE CONCRETE WITH UNIFORM SURFACE AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595594
BULKED CONTINUOUS CARPET FILAMENT MANUFACTURING FROM POLYTRIMETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592620
ROTOR CORE MOLDING METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MOLDING A ROTOR CORE OF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1386 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month