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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2026 and 07/31/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/24/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Claims 1-5, 8, 22-24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966, of record), in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0131460 A1) in view of Chern et al. (US 4,545,646).
Regarding claim 1, Mellott discloses an optical device film (Figure 1), comprising:
a thickness divided into a range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: SiO2/TiO2 Composite) from an initial zone adjacent to a first surface substantially corresponding to 0% of the thickness (top of SiO2/TiO2 Composite, opposite to 1, glass substrate, adjacent to SiO2 layer) to a final zone adjacent to a second surface substantially corresponding to 100% of the thickness (bottom of SiO2/TiO2 Composite, adjacent to 1, glass substrate), each zone of the range of zones having a zone thickness (Figure 1 depicts: thickness for each zone);
an oxygen concentration or a nitrogen concentration in each zone of the range of zones of each optical device structure (Examiner notes that Lin, see below, is relied up for the multiple device structures), wherein the oxygen concentration or nitrogen concentration is constant or substantially constant throughout all of the zones of the range of zones; ([0019] discloses: silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide, each with substantially the same oxygen concentration, “dioxides”; Figure 1 depicts: p2, TiO2-rich zone as the initial zone, p1, SiO2-rich zone as the final zone and middle of 3a, between p1 and p2, is the second zone; Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers, the oxygen concentration remains about 66.7% through the graded layer);
a first material having a first refractive index of about 2.0 or greater ([0020] discloses: TiO2 rich layer of p2, with refractive index of 2.3 to 2.55), the first material having a first concentration profile throughout the range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: gradient of titanium oxide); and
a second material having a second refractive index of less than 2.0 ([0020] discloses: SiO2 rich layer p1, with refractive index of 1.46 to 1.7), the second material having a second concentration profile throughout the range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: gradient of silicon oxide), the second concentration profile different from the first concentration profile (titanium goes from maximum to minimum, inside the graded index layer, from top of Figure 1 to bottom of Figure 1, silicon goes from minimum to maximum, inside the graded index layer, from top of Figure 1 to bottom of Figure 1, which are opposite graded profiles, i.e., 0-100 and 100-0, therefore different).
Mellott fails to disclose a waveguide comprising a plurality of optical device structures disposed on an optical device substrate; wherein the initial zone has a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the first material and the final zone has a maximum concentration of the first material and wherein the first concentration profile has a first concentration of each zone disposed immediately over a prior zone not less than the first concentration of the prior zone; and wherein the initial zone has a maximum concentration of the second material and the final zone has a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the second material and wherein the second concentration profile has a second concentration of each zone disposed immediately over the prior zone not greater than the second concentration profile of the prior zone. Mellott and Lin are related because both disclose optical devices employing refractive-index structures for controlling propagation of light.
Lin teaches a waveguide comprising a plurality of optical device structures disposed on an optical device substrate ([0042] teaches: waveguide with a plurality of spaced apart protrusions/structures disposed on a waveguide substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melott in view of Lin and provide the index films on a waveguide comprising a plurality of optical device structures disposed on an optical device substrate. Doing so would allow for the graded index structures to redirect or couple light into or out of the waveguide, thereby improving control of light propagation through the optical device. Melott and Chern are related because both disclose optical devices having graded refractive-index structures for controlling propagation of light.
Chern teaches an optical device wherein the initial zone has a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the first material and the final zone has a maximum concentration of the first material and wherein the first concentration profile has a first concentration of each zone disposed immediately over a prior zone not less than the first concentration of the prior zone (Col. 16 lines 18-29 teach: the composition of the composite oxide may vary from pure Sio.sub.2 along the continuum to pure TiO.sub.2, a continuously graded refractive index as a function of thickness; Claim 10a teaches: material varies in a gradual and continuous manner along the continuum from said first oxide alone to said second oxide alone); and
wherein the initial zone has a maximum concentration of the second material and the final zone has a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the second material and wherein the second concentration profile has a second concentration of each zone disposed immediately over the prior zone not greater than the second concentration profile of the prior zone (Col. 16 lines 18-29 teach: the composition of the composite oxide may vary from pure Sio.sub.2 along the continuum to pure TiO.sub.2, a continuously graded refractive index as a function of thickness; Claim 10a teaches: material varies in a gradual and continuous manner along the continuum from said first oxide alone to said second oxide alone; Examiner notes that this is one material going from 0-100 concentration while the other goes from 100-0 concentration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melott in view of Chern and provide wherein the initial zone has a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the first material and the final zone has a maximum concentration of the first material and wherein the first concentration profile has a first concentration of each zone disposed immediately over a prior zone not less than the first concentration of the prior zone; and wherein the initial zone has a maximum concentration of the second material and the final zone has a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the second material and wherein the second concentration profile has a second concentration of each zone disposed immediately over the prior zone not greater than the second concentration profile of the prior zone. Doing so would allow for a greater and controllable refractive index modulation through the thickness of the optical material, thereby improving control of the optical characteristics of the graded index structure.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, a waveguide, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Regarding claim 2, Mellott discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein the zone thickness is about 0.001 % to about 50% of the thickness (Figure 1 depicts: zone thickness of at least 0.001% and no more than 50% of layer thickness).
Regarding claim 3, Koch discloses the waveguide of claim 1. wherein the first material includes oxides or nitrides of titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), zirconium (Zr), indium (In), or niobium (Nb) (Figure 1 depicts: first material as a titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 4, Mellott discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein the second material includes oxides or nitrides of silicon (Si), aluminum (AI), hafnium (Hf), scandium (Sc), Tin (Sn), yttrium (Y), praseodymium (Pr), or magnesium (Mg) (Figure 1 depicts: second material as a silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 5, Mellott discloses the waveguide of claim 1, wherein the substantially oxygen concentration is about 66.67 atomic percent at plus or minus 10% (Examiner notes that SiO2 has an oxygen concentration of about 66.67 atomic percent).
Regarding claim 8, Mellott discloses an optical device film (Figure 1), comprising:
a thickness divided into a range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: SiO2/TiO2 Composite) from an initial zone adjacent to a first surface substantially corresponding to 0% of the thickness (top of SiO2/TiO2 Composite, opposite to 1, glass substrate, adjacent to SiO2 layer) to a final zone adjacent to a second surface substantially corresponding to 100% of the thickness (bottom of SiO2/TiO2 Composite, adjacent to 1, glass substrate), each zone of the range of zones having a zone thickness (Figure 1 depicts: thickness for each zone
an oxygen concentration or a nitrogen concentration in each zone of the range of zones of each optical device structure (Examiner notes that Lin, see below, is relied up for the multiple device structures), wherein the oxygen concentration or nitrogen concentration is constant or substantially constant throughout all of the zones of the range of zones; ([0019] discloses: silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide, each with substantially the same oxygen concentration, “dioxides”; Figure 1 depicts: p2, TiO2-rich zone as the initial zone, p1, SiO2-rich zone as the final zone and middle of 3a, between p1 and p2, is the second zone; Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers, the oxygen concentration remains about 66.7% through the graded layer),
a first material having a first refractive index of about 2.0 or greater, the first material having a first concentration profile throughout the range of zones ([0020] discloses: TiO2 rich layer of p2, with refractive index of 2.3 to 2.55), the first material having a first concentration profile throughout the range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: gradient of titanium oxide);
a second material having a second refractive index of less than 2.0 ([0020] discloses: SiO2 rich layer p1, with refractive index of 1.46 to 1.7), the second material having a second concentration profile throughout the range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: gradient of silicon oxide).
Mellott fails to disclose a waveguide comprising a plurality of optical device structures disposed on an optical device substrate, the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has a maximum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones the second concentration profile has a maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the midpoint of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the final zone of the range of zone. Mellott and Lin are related because both disclose optical devices.
Lin teaches a waveguide comprising a plurality of optical device structures disposed on an optical device substrate ([0042] teaches: waveguide with a plurality of spaced apart protrusions/structures disposed on a waveguide substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melott in view of Lin and provide the index films on a waveguide comprising a plurality of optical device structures disposed on an optical device substrate. Doing so would allow for the graded index structures to redirect or couple light into or out of the waveguide, thereby improving control of light propagation through the optical device. Melott and Chern are related because both disclose optical devices.
Chern teaches an optical device wherein the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration, the first concentration profile has a maximum concentration, the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration (Claim 8 teaches: predetermined periodic refractive index profile through the thickness; Claim 10 teaches: first and second oxides and the composition of said oxide material varies in a gradual on continuous manner)
the second concentration profile has a maximum concentration, the second concentration profile has a minimum concentration, the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration (Claim 8 teaches: predetermined periodic refractive index profile through the thickness; Claim 10 teaches: first and second oxides and the composition of said oxide material varies in a gradual on continuous manner).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melott in view of Chern and provide , the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration, the first concentration profile has a maximum concentration, the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration the second concentration profile has a maximum concentration, the second concentration profile has a minimum concentration, the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration.
Doing so would allow for a greater and controllable refractive index modulation through the thickness of the optical material, thereby improving control of the optical characteristics of the graded index structure.
The modified Melott fails to disclose wherein the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has a maximum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones the second concentration profile has a maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the midpoint of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the final zone of the range of zone. However, choosing a specific sinusoidal profile of graded refractive index is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Chern teaches Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to select the periodicity and phase of the sinusoidal concentration profile taught by Chern such that one complete period extends through the thickness of the optical structure. Doing so would allow for a symmetric and predictable refractive index profile through the thickness, thereby providing controlled optical response of the structure. Therefore, the claimed use of the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has a maximum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones the second concentration profile has a maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has a minimum concentration at the midpoint of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the final zone of the range of zone represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Mellott discloses the optical device of claim 8, wherein each of the optical device structures have a sub-micron critical dimension that correspond to a width of each of the optical device structures ([0020] discloses: angstrom thickness, therefore considered a critical dimension corresponding to a width of the optical device structure).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Mellott discloses the optical device of claim 8, wherein the first material includes oxides or nitrides of titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), zirconium (Zr), indium (In), or niobium (Nb) (Figure 1 depicts: first material as a titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Mellott discloses the discloses the optical device of claim 8, wherein the second material includes oxides or nitrides of silicon (Si), aluminum (AI),
hafnium (Hf), scandium (Sc), Tin (Sn), yttrium (Y), praseodymium (Pr), or magnesium (Mg) (Figure 1 depicts: second material as a silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Mellott discloses the waveguide of claim 8, wherein the zone thickness is about 0.001 % to about 50% of the thickness (Figure 1 depicts: zone thickness of at least 0.001% and no more than 50% of layer thickness).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Mellott discloses the waveguide of claim 8, wherein the substantially constant oxygen concentration is about 66.67 atomic percent at plus or minus 10% (Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers, the oxygen concentration remains about 66.7% through the graded layer based on the chemical compound).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Mellott discloses the optical device of claim 1, wherein each of the optical device structures have a sub-micron critical dimension that correspond to a width of each of the optical device structures (Lin: Figure 10A; [0093] teaches: protrusions having a width of 125 nm and a thickness of 25 nm; thus considered having a sub-micron critical dimension corresponding to the width of each of the structures; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966, of record), in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0131460 A1) in view of Chern et al. (US 4,545,646), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mohanty (2021/0349252, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Mellott discloses the waveguide of claim 1.
Mellott fails to disclose wherein the plurality of optical device structures are slanted relative to the first surface of the optical device film. Mellott and Mohanty are related because both disclose optical devices.
Mohanty discloses wherein the plurality of optical device structures are slanted relative to the first surface of the waveguide ([0080] discloses 820, slanted grated coupler; Figure 8 depicts 820, slanted grated coupler, slanted relative to 810, waveguide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mellott to incorporate the teachings of Mohanty and provide wherein the plurality of optical device structures are slanted relative to the first surface of the optical device film. Doing so would allow for external light diffraction to be reduced, therefore, improving the overall optical properties (Mohanty: 0079).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966, of record), in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0131460 A1) in view of Chern et al. (US 4,545,646), as applied to claim 21 above in view of Koch, III et al. (2014/0377522, of record).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Mellott discloses the optical device of claim 8.
Mellott fails to disclose a device wherein the optical device structures comprise a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall that are orientated normal to a surface of the optical device substrate. Mellott and Koch are related because both disclose optical devices.
Koch teaches a device wherein the optical device structures comprise a first sidewall (Left side of Figure 4A; Examiner notes that the films are stacked as to form an inherent sidewall using the layers and thicknesses) and a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall (Right Side of Figure 4A) that are orientated normal to a surface of the optical device substrate (Figure 4A depicts side walls, normal to substrate surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mellott to incorporate the teachings of Koch and provide a device wherein the optical device structures comprise a first
sidewall and a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall that are orientated normal to a surface of the optical device substrate. Doing so would allow for better optical control and performance, thereby improving the overall quality of the optical system.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966, of record), in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0131460 A1) in view of Chern et al. (US 4,545,646), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Mohanty (2021/0349252, of record).
Regarding claim 26, The modified Mellott discloses the optical device of claim 8.
Mellott fails to disclose a device wherein the optical device structures comprise a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall. Mellott and Mohanty are related because both disclose optical device.
Mohanty teaches a device wherein the optical device structures comprise a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall (Mohanty: [0080] discloses 820, slanted grated coupler; Figure 8 depicts 820, slanted grated coupler, slanted relative to 810, waveguide; Examiner notes that the layers are constructed as to inherently have a sidewall).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melott in view of Mohanty and provide a device wherein the optical device structures comprise a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall. Doing so would allow for controlled diffraction while reducing undesirable rainbow ghost diffraction of external light, thereby improving the optical performance of the waveguide display.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
