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 without traverse of Group II (claims 11-22) in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn.
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 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 11-15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (US 2019/0191560).
Regarding claim 11, Lopez discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 17, 18, 20, a master form for manufacturing a microlens array (e.g., as shown in Fig. 17 ([0034]); [0117], line 24 (i.e., dome-shaped)), the master form comprising:
a preform for the microlens array, the preform comprising an array of first dome shapes corresponding to microlenses in the microlens array (e.g., as shown in Fig. 20, fabrication of the submicron grating structure with photoresist ([0159], lines 2-3)); and
a conformal layer deposited on the array of first dome shapes to create an array of second dome shapes (e.g., as shown in Fig. 20, deposition of ITO onto the photoresist template ([0159], lines 3-4)).
Regarding claim 12, Lopez discloses that, the conformal layer (i.e., ITO film) is deposited by atomic layer deposition ([0143], line 10 (i.e., ALD)).
Regarding claim 13, Lopez discloses that, the conformal layer (i.e., ITO film) is deposited by chemical vapor deposition ([0143], line 11 (i.e., CVD)).
Regarding claim 14, Lopez discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 17, 18, 20, the second dome shapes (i.e., ITO film) abut only their nearest neighbors.
Regarding claim 15, Lopez discloses that, the periodic microstructure can be spherical, dome-shaped, cylindrical, and any combinational thereof ([0117], lines 21-24). Thus, if the combination of the cylindrical bottom with the spherical top forms the dome shaped microstructure/lens, then the cylindrical bottom is considered as providing the pedestal supporting the dome shaped microstructure/lens.
Regarding claim 19, Lopez discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 18, 20, the second dome shapes have a fill factor of 100% (i.e., as illustrated in Fig. 20, the ITO film covers the total area of the microlens array).
Regarding claim 20, Lopez discloses that, the first dome shapes and the second dome shapes are spheroidal ([0117], line 23 (i.e., spherical and partially spherical)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US 2019/0191560) as applied to claim 11/15 above, further in view of Cui et al. (US 2016/0013449).
Regarding claims 16, 22, Lopez does not disclose the relationship of the pitch (P) of the pedestal, the diameter (D)of the pedestal, and the thickness (T) of the pedestal meeting D-2T < P < D.
In the same field of endeavor, microlens, Cui discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 11A, there are two different sizes of microlens (related to claim 22 (i.e., Rs and RL ([0078], lines 11-12)) for the microlens array.
As illustrated in Figs. 11A, 11B, for the bottom four adjacent microlens (i.e., two small separating microlens and two big touching microlens), approximately, their pitch (in a diagonal direction for the two big microlenses) is about, for example, 1.3 (based on the scale number in Fig. 11A). The big microlens has a diameter of 2. As illustrated in Fig. 11B, the thicknesses of the pedestals of the big microlens and small microlens are 0.6 and 0.4, respectively. The average of the thicknesses is about 0.5. Based on the above analysis, at least in this example, the relationship of the pitch (P) of the pedestal of the big microlens and small microlens, the diameter (D)of the pedestal of the big microlens, and the average thickness (T) of the pedestals of the big microlens and small microlens meets the claimed relationship of D-2T < P < D.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cui overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lopez to have the microlens array as Cui teaches that it is known to have the relationship of the pitch (P) of the pedestal, the diameter (D)of the pedestal, and the thickness (T) of the pedestal meeting D-2T < P < D. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 17, Lopez does not explicitly disclose the pitch is greater than 1 micron, but less than 5 microns.
Cui discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the internal extraction layer (i.e., item 610 in Fig. 6 ([0064], lines 14-17)) may have a minimum thickness of at least 1 micron.
Cui discloses that, for example, the external extraction layer may include an arrangement of microlens, as shown in Fig. 7A. In some configurations, specific dimensions or relative dimension may be used for one or more microlens ([0072]). It is noticed that, an internal extraction layer 701 is disposed ([0065], lines 10-12).
Though, as illustrated in Fig. 10A, the pitch value is 2 without indicating the units in millimeters or micrometers, based on the above analysis, the specific dimension of 2 microns of the pitch in Fig. 10A is applied.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cui overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lopez to have the microlens array as Cui teaches that it is known to have the pitch is greater than 1 micron, but less than 5 microns. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 18, Lopez does not explicitly disclose the second dome shapes have a fill factor of between 79% and 95%.
Cui discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 11A and 11B, the fill factor, i.e., the fraction of the surface of the device covered by microlens, is greater than about 85%, and at least about 90 % ([0078], lines 1-3 from bottom) (overlapping the claimed range of between 79% and 95%).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cui overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lopez to have the microlens array as Cui teaches that it is known to have the fill factor, i.e., the fraction of the surface of the device covered by microlens, is greater than about 85%, and at least about 90 %. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 21, Lopez does not disclose the microlenses have a spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 1.0X and 1.2X a pitch of the microlens array.
Cui discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 10A and 10B, the microlenses have a spherical curvature with a diameter that is 1.0X a pitch of the microlens array.
As illustrated in Figs. 11A and 11B, the big microlens in the microlenses array has a spherical curvature (e.g., RL = 2) with a diameter (i.e., 2X2 = 4) that is 2X a pitch of the two big adjacent microlenses of the microlens array.
Thus, Cui discloses that, the microlenses have a spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 1.0X and 2X a pitch of the microlens array (overlapping the claimed rang of 1.0X and 1.2X).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cui overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Lopez to have the microlens array as Cui teaches that it is known to have the microlenses have a spherical curvature with a diameter that is between 1.0X and 2X a pitch of the microlens array (overlapping the claimed rang of 1.0X and 1.2X). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights