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 § 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, 3-6, 8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enokida et al (US 2019/0041557 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Enokida discloses an optical element comprising:
an substrate (Fig. 2, para 29 “base material 1”, para 31 “base material … SUS420J2” SUS420j2 is an opaque material); and
an optical shape layer (Fig. 2, para 29 “middle layer 2”) that is formed on the substrate (1) and that has a plurality of optical shape surfaces (Fig. 2, para 29 “reflecting layer 3”),
a thickness of the optical shape layer (2) is 10 µm or larger and 3000 µm or smaller (para 38 “the thickness of the middle layer shall be, for instance, 300 μm, so as to reduce stripping and cracking of the optical surface due to a thermal influence even under an extreme environment, and to enable fine cutting. However, the thickness is not limited to 300 μm, and may be 10 μm or more and 3,000 μm or less”), and
the optical element is provided with a groove (see the grooves between 4 in Fig. 2), and a side surface of the optical shape layer and a side surface of the substrate along each contour of the plurality
of optical shape surfaces form a side wall of the groove (see Fig. 2, side surface of 2 and side surface of 1 along 3 and 5 form a side wall of the groove).
Regarding claim 3, Enokida discloses an optical element (Fig. 2) comprising:
an opaque substrate (Fig. 2, para 29 “base material 1”, para 31 “base material … SUS420J2” SUS420j2 is an opaque material); and
an optical shape layer (Fig. 2, para 29 “middle layer 2”) that is formed on the substrate (1) and that has a plurality of optical shape surfaces (Fig. 2, para 29 “reflecting layer 3”),
wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate is smaller than a thermal expansion coefficient of the optical shape layer (para 33 “these materials have thermal expansion coefficients which have a relationship of base material<middle layer<reflecting layer, as is illustrated in Table 1”; see Table 1), and
the optical element is provided with a groove (see the grooves between 4 in Fig. 2), and a side surface of the optical shape layer and a side surface of the substrate along each contour of the plurality
of optical shape surfaces form a side wall of the groove (see Fig. 2, side surface of 2 and side surface of 1 along 3 and 5 form a side wall of the groove).
Regarding claim 4, the optical element according to claim 1, further comprising a reflective layer provided on the optical shape surface (Fig. 2, para 29 “optical surface 5 us a flat surface or a curved surface, and has a smooth mirror surface”).
Regarding claim 5, the optical element according to claim 4, wherein a material of the reflective layer is attached to the substrate in the groove (Fig. 2, see 5 is provided entire 3).
Regarding claim 6, the optical element according to claim 4, wherein the reflective layer is a layer containing one selected from the group consisting of Au, Ag and Al, as a main component (para 32 “the reflecting layer can be a metal film that contains any one of Au, Ag and Al as a main ingredient”).
Regarding claim 8, the optical element according to claim 1, wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the optical shape layer (2) is 10 ppm/K or larger (Para 33, Table 1, 16.8).
Regarding claim 16, the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the substrate (base material 1, SUS420J2) has a light transmittance of less than 70% (opaque, thus satisfy the claimed transmittance of less than 70%) in bands of visible light (380-750nm band) and infrared light (750nm-12,000nm band).
Regarding claim 17, the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the substrate contains an alloy (base material 1, SUS420J2 is an alloy).
Regarding claim 18, the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the optical shape layer (2) is a layer containing Cu or Ni as a main component (para 31 “cu or Ni”).
Regarding claim 19, Enokida discloses a method for manufacturing an optical element (Fig. 2), comprising:
forming a film (middle layer 2) on a substrate (base material 1);
forming a groove by working the substrate and the film (para 39 “middle layer is removed by a fine cutting … use of a diamond tool of which the cutting edge has a curved portion” the concaved portion in middle layer 2 can be considered as a groove, since groove is not structurally different over the prior art); and
forming an optical shape surface by working the film (para 40 “a reflecting layer is formed which contains … silver”).
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.
Claims 2, 7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokida et al (US 2019/0041557 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Enokida discloses an optical element comprising:
an substrate (Fig. 2, para 29 “base material 1”, para 31 “base material … SUS420J2” SUS420j2 is an opaque material); and
an optical shape layer (Fig. 2, para 29 “middle layer 2”) that is formed on the substrate (1) and that has a plurality of optical shape surfaces (Fig. 2, para 29 “reflecting layer 3”), and
the optical element is provided with a groove (see the grooves between 4 in Fig. 2), and a side surface of the optical shape layer and a side surface of the substrate along each contour of the plurality of optical shape surfaces form a side wall of the groove (see Fig. 2, side surface of 2 and side surface of 1 along 3 and 5 form a side wall of the groove).
However, the prior art does not disclose
an absolute value of a ratio of a thermal expansion coefficient of the optical shape layer to a thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate is 3.0 or larger.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose an absolute value of a ratio of a thermal expansion coefficient of the optical shape layer to a thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate is 3.0 or larger, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to eliminating stress via thermal expansion coefficient matching and enabling passive athermalization.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate is 0.21 ppm/K or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate is 0.21 ppm/K or smaller, in order to have an absolute value of ration of a thermal expansion coefficient of the optical shape layer to a thermal expansion coefficient of the substrate is 3.0 or larger, as being motivated to eliminating stress via thermal expansion coefficient matching and enabling passive athermalization.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a width of the groove is 0.02 mm or larger and 3 mm or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a width of the groove is 0.02 mm or larger and 3 mm or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to create a continuous refractive index gradient.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a depth of the groove is 5 mm or larger and 20 mm or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a depth of the groove is 5 mm or larger and 20 mm or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to create a continuous refractive index gradient.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a thickness of a portion of the substrate which overlaps the groove is 30 mm or larger and 60 mm or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a thickness of a portion of the substrate which overlaps the groove is 30 mm or larger and 60 mm or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to eliminating stress via thermal expansion coefficient matching and enabling passive athermalization
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein an area of one optical shape surface of the plurality of optical shape surfaces is 1 mm² or larger and 625 mm² or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose an area of one optical shape surface of the plurality of optical shape surfaces is 1 mm² or larger and 625 mm² or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to make an excellent optical element.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a ratio of a total area of the grooves in a top view of the optical element to a total area of the optical shape surfaces is 0.04 or larger and 5 or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a ratio of a total area of the grooves in a top view of the optical element to a total area of the optical shape surfaces is 0.04 or larger and 5 or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to make an excellent optical element.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a ratio of a depth of the groove to a thickness of the optical shape layer is 1.6 or larger and 1000 or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a ratio of a depth of the groove to a thickness of the optical shape layer is 1.6 or larger and 1000 or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to make an excellent optical element.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein a ratio of a thickness of a portion of the substrate which overlaps the groove to a thickness of the optical shape layer is 10 or larger and 3000 or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to choose a ratio of a thickness of a portion of the substrate which overlaps the groove to a thickness of the optical shape layer is 10 or larger and 3000 or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to make an excellent optical element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
9/26/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights