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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/23/2026 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 1-6, 10, 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966).
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 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 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), the optical device film comprising a second zone disposed between an initial zone and a final zone (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);
each zone of the range of zones having a substantially constant oxygen concentration or a substantially constant nitrogen concentration in each as every other zone of the range of zones of the optical device film ([0019] discloses: silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide, each with substantially the same oxygen concentration, “dioxides”; Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers);
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), at least two zones of the range of zones include the first material and the second material with different concentration profiles (zone p2 has a greater concentration of titanium than the zone between zone p1 and p2, the second zone and zone p1 has a greater concentration of silicon oxide than the zone between zones p1 and p2, the second zone), the second zone includes the first material and the second material (the zone between p1 and p2, the second zone, contains both titanium and silicon the first and second material, respectively).
Regarding claim 2, Mellott discloses the optical device film 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 optical device film 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 optical device film 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 optical device film 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 6, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 1, wherein:
the initial zone of the range of zones is adjacent to the first surface (figure 1 depicts: initial zone adjacent to 3b, layer, and the first surface), and comprises:
a maximum concentration of the first material (Figure 1 depicts: a maximum concentration of TiO2, the first material); and a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the second material (Examiner notes that the layer is considered to go from around 100% titanium to 0% titanium in the silicon portion of the layer, see [0019]); and
the final zone of the range of zones is adjacent to the second surface (Figure 1 depicts: final zone, p1, adjacent to 3b, layer, the second surface), and comprises:
a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the first material (Figure 1 depict: p1, layer, SiO2 layer, with 0 percent titanium, see [0019]); and
a maximum concentration of the second material (Figure 1 depicts: p1, SiO2 rich layer, having a maximum concentration, being 100% silicon dioxide, see [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Mellott discloses the optical device film comprising:
a thickness divided into a range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: SiO2/TiO2 Composite) from 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 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), the optical device film comprising a second zone disposed between an initial zone and a final zone (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),
a substantially constant oxygen concentration or a nitrogen concentration in each zone of the range of zones of the optical device film ([0019] discloses: silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide, each with substantially the same oxygen concentration, “dioxides”; Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers);
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), at least two zones of the range of zones include the first material and the second material with different concentration profiles (zone p2 has a greater concentration of titanium than the zone between zone p1 and p2, the second zone, and zone p1 has a greater concentration of silicon than the zone between zone p1 and p2, the second zone), the second zone includes the first material and the second material (the zone between p1 and p2, the second zone, contains both titanium and silicon the first and second material, respectively), wherein:
the first concentration profile (Figure 1 depicts: gradient of titanium oxide) has a first concentration of each zone disposed immediately over a prior zone not less than the first concentration of the prior zone (concentration of titanium oxide increases as move up gradient index layer of Figure 1 from bottom to top); and the second concentration profile (Figure 1 depicts: gradient of silicon oxide) has a second concentration of each zone disposed immediately over the prior zone not greater than the second concentration of the prior zone (concentration of silicon oxide decreases as you move up gradient index layer of Figure 1 from top to bottom).
Regarding claim 12, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 1, wherein the optical device film comprises a plurality of optical device structures disposed therein (Figure 1 depicts: p1, p2, layers and between layers; Examiner notes that each layer has distinct optical properties and functions; therefore, each layer is considered an optical device structure).
Regarding claim 27 Mellott discloses an optical device film (Figure 1), comprising:
a thickness divided into a range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: SiO2/TiO2 Composite) from 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 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), each zone of the range of zones having a zone thickness (Figure 1 depicts: thickness for each zone);
each zone of the range of zones having a substantially constant oxygen concentration or a substantially constant nitrogen concentration in each as every other zone of the range of zones of the optical device film ([0019] discloses: silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide, each with substantially the same oxygen concentration, “dioxides”; Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers);
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); 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), 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), at least two zones of the range of zones include the first material and the second material with different concentration profiles (p1 and central layer includes silicon, p2 and central layer contains titanium; therefore at least two zones include the first and second material), wherein the at least two zones of the range of zones contain more than 0% of the first material and the second material (Examiner notes that the specified zones contain at least 0 percent of their specified material, i.e., titanium and silicon).
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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966) in view of Koch, III et al. (2014/0377522, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 6.
Mellott fails to disclose a device wherein:
the first concentration profile has a first concentration of each zone disposed immediately over a prior zone not greater than the first concentration of the prior zone; and
the second concentration profile has a second concentration of each zone disposed immediately over the prior zone not less than the second concentration of the prior zone. However, the mere reversal of parts in an optical system does not constitute a patentable
invention unless it produces an unexpected result or improvement. In optical device films, reversal of a compositional gradient, such as swapping the positions of maximum and minimum concentrations of materials is a routine modification that doesn’t not alter the films fundamental properties or performance. Reversing the parts in an optical system is a well-established design choice motivated by practical engineering considerations such as: space constraints, optical efficiency, manufacturing ease, and improved system performance. Koch discusses in [0015] where the gradients can be silicon and/or metal content gradient which is sufficient to anticipate the gradient going in either direction. Such design decisions are routinely made by one of ordinary skill in the art without requiring inventive insight. Additionally in many optical and scanning systems reversing the orientation of components such lenses, filters, mirrors, detectors, light sources or optical device films does not alter their fundamental function but merely adjusts the system layout to achieve the same results in a different configuration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a stationary mirror configured to receive the emitted light from the polygon mirror and reflect the emitted light toward the reflective surface of the mirror, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), precedence on, claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 1, wherein:
the initial zone of the range of zones is adjacent to the first surface (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).
Mellott fails to disclose a device that comprises:
a maximum concentration of the second material; and
a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the first material; and the final zone of the range of zones is adjacent to the second surface, and comprises:
a minimum concentration of 0 atomic percent of the second material; and
a maximum concentration of the first material.
However, the mere reversal of parts in an optical system does not constitute a patentable
invention unless it produces an unexpected result or improvement. In optical device films, reversal of a compositional gradient, such as swapping the positions of maximum and minimum concentrations of materials is a routine modification that doesn’t not alter the films fundamental properties or performance. Reversing the parts in an optical system is a well-established design choice motivated by practical engineering considerations such as: space constraints, optical efficiency, manufacturing ease, and improved system performance. Koch discusses in [0015] where the gradients can be silicon and/or metal content gradient which is sufficient to anticipate the gradient going in either direction. Such design decisions are routinely made by one of ordinary skill in the art without requiring inventive insight. Additionally in many optical and scanning systems reversing the orientation of components such lenses, filters, mirrors, detectors, light sources or optical device films does not alter their fundamental function but merely adjusts the system layout to achieve the same results in a different configuration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a stationary mirror configured to receive the emitted light from the polygon mirror and reflect the emitted light toward the reflective surface of the mirror, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), precedence on, claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Moelle et al (2004/0258947, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 6.
Mellott fails to disclose wherein: the first concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones; and the second concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the midpoint of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones. Mellott and Moelle are related because both disclose optical device films.
Moelle discloses an optical device (Figure 1) wherein: the first concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones (See annotated figure B below, which is annotated figure 1 of Moelle), the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones (See annotated Figure B below), the first concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones (See annotated Figure B below); and the second concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones (See annotated Figure B below), the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the midpoint of the range of zones (See annotated figure B below), the second concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones (See annotated figure B below).
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 Moelle and provide an additional layer to define a midpoint at the range zones with specific zone features. Doing so would allow for constructive and deconstructive interference patters that enhance reflectivity and minimize unwanted reflections, therefore, improving the overall clarity and efficiency of the optical device (Moelle: 0036).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 11, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 9.
Mellott fails to disclose wherein: the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has the
maximum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones; and the second concentration
profile has the maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the 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 zones. Mellott and Moelle are related because both disclose optical device films.
Moelle discloses wherein: the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones (see annotated Figure C below, which is annotated Figure
1 of Moelle), the first concentration profile has the maximum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones (see annotated Figure C below), the first concentration profile has the minimum
concentration at the final zone of the range of zones (see annotated Figure C below); and the second concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of
Zones (see annotated Figure C below), the second concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the midpoint of the range of zones (see annotated Figure C below), the second
concentration profile has the maximum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones (see annotated Figure C below).
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 Moelle and provide wherein: the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has the
maximum concentration at a midpoint of the range of zones, the first concentration profile has the minimum concentration at the final zone of the range of zones; and the second concentration
profile has the maximum concentration at the initial zone of the range of zones, the second concentration profile has the 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 zones. Doing so would allow for constructive and deconstructive interference patters that
enhance reflectivity and minimize unwanted reflections, therefore, improving the overall clarity and efficiency of the optical device (Moelle: 0036).
PNG
media_image2.png
551
1457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Mohanty (2021/0349252, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Mellott discloses the optical device film of claim 12.
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 optical device film ([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).
Claims 21-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966) in view of Mohanty (2021/0349252, of record).
Regarding claim 21, Mellott discloses an optical device (Figure 1) comprising:
an optical device substrate (Figure 1 depicts: 1, substate); and
each of the optical device structures having:
a thickness divided into a range of zones (Figure 1 depicts: SiO2/TiO2 Composite) from 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 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) the optical device film comprising a second zone disposed between an initial zone and a final zone (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);
each zone of the range of zones having a substantially constant oxygen concentration or a nitrogen concentration as every other zone of the range of zones of the optical device structures ([0019] discloses: silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide, each with substantially the same oxygen concentration, “dioxides”; Examiner notes that the oxygen concentration stays constant and the silicon and titanium is varied to give the graded index layers);
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) at least two zones of the range of zones include the first material and the second material with different concentration profiles (zone p2 has a greater concentration of titanium oxide than the zone between zone p1 and p2, the second zone and zone p1 has a greater concentration of silicon oxide than the zone between zones p1 and p2, the second zone) and the second zone includes the first material and the second material.
Mellott fails to disclose a plurality of optical device structures disposed over the optical device with gaps therebetween. Mellott and Mohanty are related because both disclose optical devices.
Mohanty teaches a plurality of optical device structures disposed over the optical device with gaps therebetween (Figure 15A depicts: optical device structures with an air gap therebetween).
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 optical structures with gaps therebetween. Doing so would allow for an improved field of view, thereby improving the overall optical properties (Mohanty: 0038).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Mellott discloses the optical device of claim 21, 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 21, 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 21, 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 26, The modified Hunt discloses the optical device of claim 21, 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).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mellott et al. (US 2007/0116966) in view of Mohanty (2021/0349252, of record), 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 21.
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.
Conclusion
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 -10/12-6:30 (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 on (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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights