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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 5, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of November 5, 2025, arguing against the rejections in the Final Office Action of June 18, 2025, and the expert declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed by Applicant on August 15, 2025, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based upon the newly-cited Weng, Frey, Singh and Hong references.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng et al., 2019/0084874 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Weng discloses: An anti-reflective coating (TiOx and SiOxNy layers 2, 3, 4, 5 shown in FIG. 10 of Weng) comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a plurality of first layers that each comprise a first material with a relatively high refractive index (titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4; paragraphs [0043]-[0045] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
the first material comprising at least one of Nb2O5, TiO2, Ta2O5, HfO2, Sc2O3, SiN, SiOxN, and AlOxN (titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng); and
a plurality of second layers that each comprise a second material with a relatively low refractive index (silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
wherein: the second material comprises MgF2, AlF3, or a combination thereof when the first material comprises Nb2O5 (the first material is identified above as titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2], and thus it is not Nb2O5, and so there is no requirement of MgF2 or AlF3 for the second material; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
a total thickness of the first layers comprised of the first material is about 120 nm or less (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers may be 47nm, which is less than 120nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
the total thickness of the first layers is less than a total thickness of the second layers (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers [first layers, i.e., high refractive index layers] may be 47nm, whereas exemplary thicknesses of silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5 are 50nm and 88nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers [second layers, i.e., low refractive index layers] may be 138nm, wherein 47nm is less than 138nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng); and
the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.05% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Regarding Claim 2, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.04% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Regarding Claim 3, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.03% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Regarding Claim 4, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises alternating layers of the first material and of the second material (the titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are disposed in an alternating pattern with the silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 5, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first material has a refractive index of about 1.8 or greater at 850 nm (titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2]; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 6, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses: wherein the first material has a refractive index of about 1.9 or greater at 850 nm (titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2]; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 8, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the total thickness of the first layers is about 100 nm or less (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers may be 47nm, which is less than 100nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 9, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a first layer of the plurality of first layers has a thickness in a range of about 10 nm to about 50 nm (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus each of these layers may have a thickness between 10nm and 50nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 12, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a total thickness of the second layers is about 150 nm or less (exemplary thicknesses of silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5 are 50nm and 88nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers may be 138nm, wherein 138nm is less than 150nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 14, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a ratio of the total thickness of the first layers to a total thickness of the second layers is in a range of about 0.3 to about 0.7 (as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1, the total thickness of the first layers [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] may be 47nm, whereas the total thickness of the second layers [SiOxNy] may be 138nm, and therefore, a ratio of the first total thickness to the second total thickness is 47nm divided by 138nm, which equals 0.34 [47nm / 138nm = 0.34], and the number 0.34 is in a range between 0.3 and 0.7; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 15, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the total thickness of the first layers and a total thickness of the second layers combined is about 250 nm or less (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers [first layers, i.e., high refractive index layers] may be 47nm, whereas exemplary thicknesses of silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5 are 50nm and 88nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers [second layers, i.e., low refractive index layers] may be 138nm, and therefore, the combined thickness of the first layers and second layers is 47nm plus 138nm, which equals 185nm, and 185 nm is less than 250nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng).
Regarding Claim 16, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a percent transmission of the anti- reflective coating is about 98.0% or greater (Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed high transmission; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that high transmission is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Regarding Claim 17, Weng discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the light path propagates under total internal reflection with a bend angle in a range of about 40 degrees to about 70 degrees (Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed angular reflection of light when propagating by the oblique angles which are characteristic of TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II).
Regarding Claim 21, Weng discloses: An anti-reflective coating (TiOx and SiOxNy layers 2, 3, 4, 5 shown in FIG. 10 of Weng) comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a plurality of first layers that each comprise a first material with a relatively high refractive index (titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4; paragraphs [0043]-[0045] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
the first material comprising at least one of TiO2, Ta2O5, HfO2, Sc2O3, SiN, SiOxN, and AlOxN (titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng); and
a plurality of second layers that each comprise a second material with a relatively low refractive index (silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
wherein: the refractive index of the first material is greater than the refractive index of the second material (the first material is identified above as titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2], and the second material is identified above as silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy]; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
a total thickness of the first layers comprised of the first material is 120 nm or less (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers is 47nm, which is less than 120nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng);
the total thickness of the first layers is less than a total thickness of the second layers (exemplary thicknesses of titanium oxide [TiOx, e.g., TiO2] layers 2 and 4 are 17nm and 30nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers [first layers, i.e., high refractive index layers] is 47nm, whereas exemplary thicknesses of silicon oxynitride [SiOxNy] layers 3 and 5 are 50nm and 88nm, respectively, and thus the total thickness of these layers [second layers, i.e., low refractive index layers] is 138nm, wherein 47nm is less than 138nm; paragraph [0043] and FIG. 10 of Weng); and
the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.05% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frey, US 2018/0267220 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Frey discloses: An anti-reflective coating (Filter_B; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey) comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a plurality of first layers that each comprise a first material with a relatively high refractive index (Filter_B comprises two layers of silicon nitride [SiN]: layer A7 and layer A15; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey);
the first material comprising at least one of Nb2O5, TiO2, Ta2O5, HfO2, Sc2O3, SiN, SiOxN, and AlOxN (Filter_B comprises two layers of silicon nitride [SiN]: layer A7 and layer A15; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey); and
a plurality of second layers that each comprise a second material with a relatively low refractive index (Filter_B comprises two layers of silicon dioxide [SiO2]: layer A8 and layer A16; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey);
wherein: the second material comprises MgF2, AlF3, or a combination thereof when the first material comprises Nb2O5 (the first material is identified above as silicon nitride [SiN], and thus it is not Nb2O5, and so there is no requirement of MgF2 or AlF3 for the second material; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey);
a total thickness of the first layers comprised of the first material is about 120 nm or less (Filter_B’s two layers of silicon nitride [SiN], layer A7 and layer A15, may be 6 nm each, for a total thickness of 12 nm, wherein 12 nm is less than 120 nm; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey);
the total thickness of the first layers is less than a total thickness of the second layers (Filter_B’s two layers of silicon nitride [SiN], layer A7 and layer A15, may be 6 nm each, for a total thickness of 12 nm, and Filter_B’s two layers of silicon dioxide [SiO2], layer A8 and layer A16, may be 91 nm each, for a total thickness of 182 nm, wherein 12 nm is less than 182 nm; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey); and
the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.05% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Frey discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Frey is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Regarding Claim 10, Frey discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the second material has a refractive index of about 1.5 or less at 850 nm (the second material is identified above as silicon dioxide [SiO2], i.e., layer A8 and layer A16; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey).
Regarding Claim 11, Frey discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the second material comprises at least one of SiO2, MgF2, and AlF3 (the second material is identified above as silicon dioxide [SiO2], i.e., layer A8 and layer A16; paragraph [0106] and TABLE 1 of Frey).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al., US 2011/0176768 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 18, Singh discloses: An anti-reflective waveguide comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an optical waveguide configured to propagate a light path via total internal reflection (rectangular prism 104; Abstract and paragraphs [0041], [0042], [0057], [0170]-[0173] and TABLE 2 and FIGS. 10, 11 of Singh); and
an anti-reflective coating on a surface of the optical waveguide (internal thin film structure on the diagonal of rectangular prism 104; paragraphs [0170], [0171] and TABLE 2 and FIG. 10 of Singh);
the anti-reflective coating comprising:
a plurality of first layers that each comprise a first material with a relatively high refractive index (each row of TABLE 2 corresponds to different solution [configuration], wherein the set of layers 2 and 4 [Ta2O5; tantalum oxide] in any one of the first three rows [configurations] of TABLE 2 of Singh, such layers having thicknesses of 42.5nm or 50nm or 60nm depending on the configuration; see paragraphs [0169]-[0171] and TABLE 2 and FIG. 10 of Singh); and
a plurality of second layers that each comprise a second material with a relatively low refractive index (the set of layers 1, 3 and 5 [SiO2] in any one of the first three rows of TABLE 2 of Singh; see paragraphs [0169]-[0171] and TABLE 2 and FIG. 10 of Singh);
the first material comprising at least one of Nb2O5, TiO2, Ta2O5, HfO2, Sc2O3, SiN, SiOxN, and AlOxN (layers 2 and 4 are Ta2O5 [tantalum oxide]; paragraph [0171] of Singh);
wherein: the second material comprises MgF2, AlF3, or a combination thereof when the first material comprises Nb2O5 (the first material [layers 2 and 4] is identified above as Ta2O5 [tantalum oxide], and thus it is not Nb2O5, and so there is no requirement of MgF2 or AlF3 for the second material; paragraph [0171] of Singh);
wherein: a total thickness of the first layers comprised of the first material is about 120 nm or less (layers 2 and 4 may have thicknesses of 42.5nm or 50nm or 60nm, and thus a total thickness of 85nm or 100nm 120nm; paragraphs [0169]-[0171] and TABLE 2 and FIG. 10 of Singh);
the total thickness of the first layers is less than a total thickness of the second layers (the layers 2 and 4 [first layers] may have thicknesses of 42.5nm or 50nm or 60nm, and thus a total thickness of 85nm or 100nm 120nm, whereas the layers 1, 3 and 5 [second layers] may have thicknesses in the range of 192.5nm to 415.6nm, and thus have a total thickness which is larger than 85nm or 100nm 120nm; paragraphs [0169]-[0171] and TABLE 2 and FIG. 10 of Singh); and
the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.05% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Singh discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Singh is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al., US 2019/0377120 A1, newly-cited.
Regarding Claim 18, Hong discloses: An anti-reflective waveguide comprising (the Examiner notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
an optical waveguide configured to propagate a light path via total internal reflection (light guide plate 10; paragraphs [0042]-[0051], [0058], [0061], [0097] and FIGS. 1, 2, 13 of Hong); and
an anti-reflective coating on a surface of the optical waveguide (underlying layer 70 [comprising layers 20, 30, 40] is on a surface of light guide plate 10; FIGS. 1, 2, 13 of Hong);
the anti-reflective coating comprising:
a plurality of first layers that each comprise a first material with a relatively high refractive index (SiNx [silicon nitride] layers 27a, 47b in Results 2 and 3 of Case 3 of FIGS. 6C, 13 of Hong; see also paragraphs [0019], [0104] of Hong); and
a plurality of second layers that each comprise a second material with a relatively low refractive index (SiOx [silicon oxide] layers 27b, 47a, and layer 30 which may comprise silicon oxide, in Results 2 and 3 of Case 3 of FIGS. 6C, 13 of Hong; see also paragraphs [0019], [0057], [0104] and FIG. 3 of Hong);
the first material comprising at least one of Nb2O5, TiO2, Ta2O5, HfO2, Sc2O3, SiN, SiOxN, and AlOxN (layers 27a, 47b are silicon nitride [i.e., SiNx or SiN]; paragraphs [0087], [0104] and FIGS. 6C, 13 of Hong);
wherein: the second material comprises MgF2, AlF3, or a combination thereof when the first material comprises Nb2O5 (the first material [layers 27a, 47b] is identified above as SiNx [silicon nitride], and thus it is not Nb2O5, and so there is no requirement of MgF2 or AlF3 for the second material; paragraph);
wherein: a total thickness of the first layers comprised of the first material is about 120 nm or less (thickness of layers 27a, 47b may be 0.02 micrometers [20 nm] and either 0.06 micrometers [60 nm] or 0.08 micrometers [80 nm], respectively, for a total thickness of 0.08 micrometers [80 nm] or 0.1 micrometers [100 nm]; paragraph [0104] and FIGS. 6C, 13 of Hong);
the total thickness of the first layers is less than a total thickness of the second layers (as explained above, the total thickness of the first layers [27a, 47b] may be 80 nm or 100 nm, and a total thickness of the second layers [27b, 30, 47a] may be 0.04 micrometers [40 nm] plus 1 micrometer [1000 nm] plus 0.02 micrometers [20 nm] for a total of 1.06 micrometers [1060 nm], and the thickness 80 nm or 100 nm is less than 1060 nm; paragraphs [0058], [0087], [0104] and FIGS. 6C, 13 of Hong); and
the anti-reflective coating is configured to absorb about 0.05% or less of light for a single reflection of the average of the s- and p-polarizations of the light, at every wavelength between about 425 nm to about 495 nm, when the light is propagating under total internal reflection (Hong discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Hong is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result, including the claimed low reflection of blue light when propagating by TIR; see MPEP § 2112, Section III and MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II; the Office further notes that low absorption is a goal of any anti-reflective coating, especially where high transmission/propagation is required, such as in waveguides, and thus cannot form the basis of an invention, because it is simply stating a desired outcome rather describing a physical structure and/or chemical composition and/or arrangement of parts which is new and non-obvious).
Regarding Claim 19, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 18 and further discloses: wherein the first material has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the optical waveguide and the second material has a refractive index less than the refractive index of the optical waveguide (light guide plate 10 may be a glass substrate having a refractive index of about 1.5 and thus having a refractive index between that of silicon oxide [SiOx] and silicon nitride [SiNx]; paragraphs [0042], [0046], [0059], [0061], [0104] and FIGS. 1, 2, 6C, 13 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 20, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 18 and further discloses: wherein a first layer of the plurality of first layers, which is directly adjacent to the optical waveguide, has a thickness in a range of about 5 nm to about 60 nm (SiNx [silicon nitride] layer 27a [first layer] is directly adjacent to light guide plate 10 [glass substrate] and may have a thickness of 0.02 micrometers [20 nm], and 20 nm is between 5 nm and 60 nm; paragraphs [0042], [0104] and FIGS. 1, 2, 6C, 13 of Hong).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-6, 8, 9, 12-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-17 and 21, as explained above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Weng discloses the claimed absorption characteristics of independent Claims 1 and 21 because Weng discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Weng is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result.
However, assuming arguendo, that Weng does not disclose the claimed absorption characteristics, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Weng discloses the desirability of a high transmission for visible light for proper functioning of the article as a window for humans (see, e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0040], [0061] of Weng).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed low absorption for the device of Weng, including for any polarization of light [“s” or “p”] and for the entire visible spectrum, in accordance with maximizing transmission of visible light, as evidenced by para Abstract and paragraphs [0040], [0061] of Weng.
The Office further notes that the above analysis is also applicable to the claimed absorption and transmission values of dependent Claims 2 and 3.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey.
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 11, as explained above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Frey discloses the claimed absorption characteristics of independent Claim 1 because Frey discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Frey is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result.
However, assuming arguendo, that Frey does not disclose the claimed absorption characteristics, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Frey discloses image sensing device, and thus a maximal transmission would be desirable to maximizing the receipt of light (see, e.g., paragraphs [0002], [0029], [0094], [0100] of Frey).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed low absorption for the device of Frey, including for any polarization of light [“s” or “p”] and for the entire visible spectrum, in accordance with maximizing transmission of visible light, as evidenced by paragraphs [0002], [0029], [0094], [0100] of Frey.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong.
Regarding Claims 18-20, as explained above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Hong discloses the claimed absorption characteristics of independent Claim 18 because Hong discloses the same physical structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, and thus the layer set of Hong is presumed to have the same optical characteristics as a result.
However, assuming arguendo, that Hong does not disclose the claimed absorption characteristics, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Hong discloses the use of the multi-layer coating in the propagation of light in a display device, in which a high degree of light propagation is necessary for proper functioning (see, e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0011], [0012], [0081], [0151] and FIG. 24 of Hong).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed low absorption for the device of Hong, including for any polarization of light [“s” or “p”] and for the entire visible spectrum, in accordance with maximizing transmission of visible light, as evidenced by paragraphs [0006], [0011], [0012], [0081], [0151] and FIG. 24 of Hong.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of the references, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights