DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments on 10/16/25 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8, filed on 10/16/25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 7 that the cited reference Ichihashi does not disclose “the optical surfaces or geometrically coupled interfaces are patterned to achieve one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An updated rejection addressing the amended language is set forth below.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant did not strike out the deleted portion in claim 9, Examiner will consider claim 9 as “wherein the one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics are for polarization processing or polarization-based multiplexing purposes.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4,7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichihashi et al. (US 20100182222).
Regarding claim 1, Ichihashi teaches a gradient index (GRIN) device (fig. 2B and ¶17, gradient index lens), comprising, a lens volume (gradient index lens 17) having a plurality of geometrically coupled interfaces (concentric parts 31 and 32, below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1 and Zone 2) and a first zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) including a first contiguous subset of the plurality of geometrically coupled interfaces (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1, 31 and 32); and a second zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) including a second contiguous subset of the plurality of geometrically coupled interfaces (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1, 31 and 32), immediately adjacent to the first zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) such that the first zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) and the second zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) meet at a zone interface (where Zone 1 and Zone 2 meet), wherein an index of refraction within the first zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) varies smoothly across the first contiguous subset (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32), wherein an index of refraction within the second zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) varies smoothly across the second contiguous subset (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32), wherein an index of refraction or its spatial gradient at the zone interface exhibits a step change (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32), wherein optical surfaces bounding the GRIN device have shapes independent of interface topology of the GRIN device such that the optical surfaces bound the lens volume into a lens shape optimized for an optical design (fig. 2B and ¶17, gradient index lens and ¶9) and wherein the optical surfaces or geometrically coupled interfaces (concentric parts 31 and 32, below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1 and Zone 2) are patterned to achieve one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics (¶34, with the above-described gradient index lens, light that transmits through the gradient index lens can be refracted by a gradient of the effective refractive indexes of the gradient index lens. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the divergence angle of light emitted from the light-emitting layer included in the light-emitter.).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ichihashi teaches the GRIN device of claim 1, wherein an entire volume of the first zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) has a homogenous index of refraction (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32, shown in fig. 2B, 31 and 32 have homogenous index of refraction).
Regarding claim 3, Ichihashi teaches the GRIN device of claim 1, wherein an entire volume of the second zone (below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) has a homogenous index of refraction (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32, shown in fig. 2B, 31 and 32 have homogenous index of refraction).
Regarding claim 4, Ichihashi teaches the GRIN device of claim 1, wherein topologies of the optical surfaces bounding the GRIN device are one or more of planar (shown in fig. 2A), spherical, aspherical, and freeform.
Regarding claim 7, Ichihashi teaches the GRIN device of claim 1, wherein the one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics are for optical multiplexing or optical processing purposes (¶34, with the above-described gradient index lens, light that transmits through the gradient index lens can be refracted by a gradient of the effective refractive indexes of the gradient index lens. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the divergence angle of light emitted from the light-emitting layer included in the light-emitter.).
Regarding claim 8, Ichihashi teaches the GRIN device of claim 1, wherein the one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics are for holographic or optical information processing purposes (¶34, with the above-described gradient index lens, light that transmits through the gradient index lens can be refracted by a gradient of the effective refractive indexes of the gradient index lens. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the divergence angle of light emitted from the light-emitting layer included in the light-emitter.).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichihashi et al. (US 20100182222) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibata et al. (US 20070014013).
Regarding claim 10, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above. Ichihashi further teaches the first (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) and second zones (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2). Ichihashi does not specifically teach the zones comprise one or more of a film, a sheet, a subcomponent formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shibata teaches the GRIN device (fig. 3 or 4), wherein the zones comprise one or more of a film, a sheet, a subcomponent formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass (¶87, refractive index and ¶71, 1 as glass), and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Ichihashi with zones comprise one or more of a film, a sheet, a subcomponent formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number of Shibata, for the purpose of providing a refractive index controlled diffractive optical element (¶69).
Regarding claim 11, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above. Ichihashi further teaches the first (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) and second zones (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) comprising one or more homogenous layers as shown in fig. 2B). Ichihashi does not specifically teach the zones comprise of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shibata teaches the GRIN device (fig. 3 or 4), wherein the zones comprise of one or more of a polymer, a glass (¶87, refractive index and ¶71, 1 as glass), and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Ichihashi with the zones comprise of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number of Shibata, for the purpose of providing a refractive index controlled diffractive optical element (¶69).
Regarding claim 12, Ichihashi in view of Shibata teaches the invention as set forth above and Ichihashi further teaches the one or more homogeneous layers differ (note: the layers differ by the thickness) from the first (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone a) and second zones (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2).
Claims 13-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichihashi et al. (US 20100182222).
Regarding claim 13, Ichihashi teaches a method of forming a gradient index (GRIN) device (fig. 2B and ¶17, gradient index lens), comprising, forming a first optical zone (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) comprising a first set of geometrically coupled layers (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1, 31 and 32); and forming a second optical zone (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) comprising a second set of geometrically coupled layers (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1, 31 and 32), wherein surfaces of the geometrically coupled layers have shapes independent of interface topology (shown in fig. 2B), such that the surfaces bound a volume of the GRIN device into a lens shape optimized for an optical design (fig. 2B and ¶17, gradient index lens and ¶9), wherein the surfaces or geometrically coupled interfaces (concentric parts 31 and 32, below in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1 and Zone 2) are patterned to achieve one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics (¶34, with the above-described gradient index lens, light that transmits through the gradient index lens can be refracted by a gradient of the effective refractive indexes of the gradient index lens. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the divergence angle of light emitted from the light-emitting layer included in the light-emitter.). Ichihashi does not specifically teach wherein a variation of index of refraction in the first zone is different than a variation of index of refraction in the second zone. However, it is common and known in the art to have a variation of index of refraction in the first zone is different than a variation of index of refraction in the second zone, as evidenced by Ichihashi (¶67). Further, Ichihashi, from the same field of endeavor, is related to gradient index lens (¶10), having variation of index of refraction in the first zone is different than a variation of index of refraction in the second zone (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim to modify the device of Ichihashi with a variation of index of refraction in the first zone is different than a variation of index of refraction in the second zone as disclosed, for the purpose of light transmitting through gradient index lens which can be refracted by the gradient so to suppress the divergence angle of light emitted from the light-emitting layer (¶13).
Regarding claim 14, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above and Ichihashi further teaches each layer of the first optical zone (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) has a homogenous index of refraction (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32, shown in fig. 2B, 31 and 32 have homogenous index of refraction).
Regarding claim 15, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above and Ichihashi further teaches each layer of the second optical zone (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) has a homogenous index of refraction (¶67, high refractive index concentric part 31 and low refractive index concentric part 32, shown in fig. 2B, 31 and 32 have homogenous index of refraction).
Regarding claim 16, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above and Ichihashi further teaches the surfaces of the geometrically coupled layers are planar (shown in fig. 2A), spherical, aspherical, or freeform.
Regarding claim 18, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above. Ichihashi further teaches the first (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) and second optical zones (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2). Ichihashi does not specifically teach optical zones comprising one or more of a film, a sheet, a subcomponent formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shibata teaches the method, wherein the optical zones comprise one or more of a film, a sheet, a subcomponent formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass (¶87, refractive index and ¶71, 1 as glass), and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the method of Ichihashi with optical zones comprising one or more of a film, a sheet, a subcomponent formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number of Shibata, for the purpose of providing a refractive index controlled diffractive optical element (¶69).
Regarding claim 19, Ichihashi teaches the invention as set forth above. Ichihashi further teaches the first (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1) and second optical zones (above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 2) comprising one or more homogenous layers (as shown in fig. 2B). Ichihashi does not specifically teach the optical zones comprising one or more homogenous layers formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shibata teaches thee method, wherein the optical zones comprising one or more homogenous layers formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass (¶87, refractive index and ¶71, 1 as glass), and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the method of Ichihashi with the optical zones comprising one or more homogenous layers formed of one or more of a polymer, a glass, and a composite material having a varying refractive index or varying Abbe number of Shibata, for the purpose of providing a refractive index controlled diffractive optical element (¶69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose the claimed GRIN device specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the optical surfaces or geometrically coupled interfaces are fully or partially reflective.”
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not disclose the claimed GRIN device specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the one or more predetermined optical performance characteristic include optical power of color correction.”
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not disclose the claimed GRIN device specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the one or more predetermined optical performance characteristics are for polarization processing or polarization-based multiplexing purposes.”
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as the distinguishing step in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the surfaces of the geometrically coupled layers are fully or partially reflective.”
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be improper.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art Ichihashi (US 20100182222) teaches a gradient index (GRIN) device (fig. 2B and ¶17, gradient index lens), comprising, a plurality of film layers (layers in fig. 2B) stacked together to form a GRIN lens (shown in fig. 2B), wherein the first and second zones of film layers are physically connected and formed together (concentric parts 31 and 32, above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1 and Zone 2), wherein at least two film layers in the first zone of film layers are coupled together at a first interface with a first radius of curvature (concentric parts 31 and 32, above in annotated fig. 2B, Zone 1).
However, regarding claim 20, the prior art Ichihashi taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a gradient index (GRIN) device comprising, the plurality of film layers comprising a first zone of film layers having a first index of refraction and a second zone of film layers having a second index of refraction different from the first index of refraction, wherein at least two film layers in the second zone of layers are coupled together at a second interface with a second radius of curvature different than the first radius of curvature, in combination with all other claimed limitation of claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 01/09/26