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 .
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2012/0248637 A1) in view of Muller (US 2022/0168960 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. teach a method for manufacturing a mold for optical element, the method comprising: forming a master (Figs 2- 13), then forming the mold form the master (Fig 10), and then forming the optical lens (101; see Fig. 10). Chang et al. show that the master that is formed includes first master piece on a substrate area and second master piece on a substrate area (Fig 7, master 40 on lower mould) and further states that master maybe single piece (monolithic) or multipiece (see [0095]). In an alternative embodiment, Chang et al. show the master includes first master piece (150) and second master pieces (sub-mold) (152), which are surrounded by a formwork (Fig. 13 item 130, 142, 138), which can be used to form either mould or lens as desired. Lastly, it is implicit that upon formation of a first and second mold as claimed (Fig 13), that the first and second formwork would be removed from the molded product.
However, though Chang et al. teach use of digitally creating stamp (mold [0009]), however, fail to explicitly teach 3D printing system and step of receiving, in a three-dimensional printing system, a first dataset providing a three-dimensional representation of a first part of the optical element; receiving, in the three-dimensional printing system, a second dataset providing a three-dimensional representation of a second part of the optical element to create on a first substrate area a first and second master pieces as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Muller teaches 3D printing system and step of receiving, in a three-dimensional printing system, a first dataset providing a three-dimensional representation of a first part of the optical element (see abstract; [0029],[0036], [0044], [0046], [0054], [0063]), for the benefit of efficiently forming curved smooth optical surfaces or mould. It is implicit that Muller includes additional receiving, in the three-dimensional printing system, a second dataset providing a three-dimensional representation of a second part of the optical element ([0044], [0063], [0083]). Based on type of mold being produced/required, such as exemplified by Chang et al. (Figs 2-13, specifically Fig. 13), it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the mold manufacturing technique as taught by Chang et al. with incorporating 3D printing process (which includes providing datasets), as suggested by Muller, for the benefit of efficiently forming curved smooth optical surfaces or mould at lower cost (see [0036]-[0037], [0043][0029]).
As for claim 2, since Muller teaches a three-dimensional printing system, which includes receiving a first dataset providing a three-dimensional representation of a first part of the optical element (see abstract; [0029],[0036], [0044], [0046], [0054], [0063]), for the benefit of efficiently forming curved smooth optical surfaces or mould, therefore claim steps of receiving in a computer system ([0102],[0054]), a master data set providing a three-dimensional model of the optical element determining a section plane intersecting at least part of the three-dimensional model defining the first dataset on a first side of the section plane and the second dataset on a second side of the section plane would have been obvious in view of Chang et al. based on the design and number of mold being produced (see Chang, Figs. 2-13).
As for claim 3, Chang et al. in view of Muller provides suggestion for producing desired shaped mold for smooth optical surface (Muller, [0029], [0036], [0044], [0046], [0054], [0063]), thus using the first and second substrate areas being flat would have been obvious.
As for claim 4, Chang et al. in view of Muller further provide suggestion for having wherein the first substrate area comprises a first marker point and the second substrate area comprises a second marker point and wherein the first amount of master substance is deposited aligned with the first marker point and the second amount of master substance is deposited aligned with the second marker point (see Chang et al. Fig. 7-13, item 58, 77, 78, 136 alignment marker; [0102]).
As for claims 9, 11, and 13, providing a master flow channel ranging from a perimeter of the first substrate area to the first amount of master substance would have been obvious in view of Chang et al. to produce additional mold/lens (see Figs. 2-13) and the mould substance being an elastomer (see [0071]). Chang et al. further shows that the first substrate area and the second substrate area are provided on a single substrate (see Fig. 13).
As for claim 14, Chang et al. further provides suggestion for producing first and second mold using the master (see [0020]-[0030]), therefore, steps of joining the first mould and second mold such that a first negative of the first master piece is provided adjacent to a second negative of the second master piece and providing an optical element substance in a cavity provided by the first and the second negative and allowing the optical element substance to settle and removing the optical element from the first and second mold would have been obvious ([0009], [0020]-[0025] which pertains to forming master, then mold, then from the mold using it to form lenses).
As for claim 15, Chang et al. further provide suggestion for providing first and second alignment elements (Figs. 2-13, items 77,78), fail to teach producing mating mold, however, in a different embodiment, Chang et al. provide suggestion to produce multi-portion mold, thus having first and second portion joined to form a mold would have been obvious ([0095]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-8, 10, 12, AND 16 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. The closest prior art Chang et al. (US 2012/0248637 A1) in view of Muller (US 2022/0168960 A1), as provided above fails to teach wherein the first substrate area comprises a first alignment element engagement point arranged to engage with a first alignment element and the second substrate area comprises a second alignment element engagement point arranged to engage with a second alignment element; the method further comprising, prior to providing the first amount of mould substance and the second amount of mould substance; providing the first alignment element in engagement with the first alignment element engagement point; and providing the second alignment element in engagement with the second alignment element engagement point; further comprising, prior to providing the first amount of mould substance and the second amount of mould substance: providing a first reinforcement structure on or in the a vicinity of the first substrate area; and providing a second reinforcement structure on or in the vicinity of the second substrate area; such that at least part of the first reinforcement structure and the second reinforcement structure are embedded in mould substance;
further comprising, prior to or in combination with depositing the first amount of master substance and the second amount of master substance: depositing on a part of the first substrate area, a first blanket layer; depositing on the second substrate area a second blanket layer; wherein shape of the first substrate area is substantially similar to the a shape of the second substrate area; and wherein a shape of the first blanket layer is substantially complementary to
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0364871 A1; US 2021/0339490 A1; US 2017/0165931 A1; US 2009/0206498 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743