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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 19, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 5 and has canceled claim 3.
Claims 1-2, 4-18 and 21 remain pending in this application.
Claims 1-18 and 21 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application by Laakkonen et al (US 2009/0224416 A1) in view of the US patent the US patent application publication by Lee et al (US 2017/0106690 A1), US patent issued to Dong et al (PN. 11,079,522) and US patent application publication by Pockett et al (US 2010/0277803 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Laakkonen et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a waveguide master grating (50, please see Figure 15, waveguide Figure 14), serves as the waveguide master grating imprint tool, implicitly includes a method for fabricating the waveguide master grating imprint tool, wherein the waveguide master grating imprint tool is comprised of a first diffraction grating master profile (area A1) onto a first area and a second diffraction mater profile (area A2) onto a second area. Laakkonen et al teaches that each of the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile comprising an edge that delimits the respective grating profile and the adjacent edges of the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile spaced apart from each other (regard to amendment to claim) and define a gap, (area A3) between the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile.
Laakkonen et al teaches that the master grating imprint tool (50, Figure 15) may be utilized to fabricate grating (10) that has a first grating and a second grating for a waveguide (Figure 14).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference does not teach explicitly that the method for forming the waveguide master grating imprint tool by coating a first surface of the substrate with at least one photoresist and selectively exposing the first diffraction grating master profile onto first area and selectively exposing the second diffraction grating master profile onto the second area.
Lee et al (‘690) in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for fabricating an originating master that serves as the grating imprinting tool, wherein the method comprises a step of coating a first surface of a substrate (2, Figures 1-3) with at least one photoresist layer (4), step of selectively exposing a first diffraction grating master profile (6) onto a first area or region (7) of the at least one photoresist layer, and step of selectively exposing a second diffraction grating master profile (8) onto a second area or region (9) of the at least one photoresist layer. The method further comprises step of processing the substrate to form the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile (6 and 8).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Lee et al to use a common exposure method to form the waveguide master grating imprint tool or the master grating.
Claim 1 further includes the phrase “the first diffraction grating master profile comprises a first grating pattern that includes a first portion that extends in a direction toward the a second surface of the substrate that is opposite to the first surface and the second diffraction grating profile comprises a second grating pattern that includes a second portion that extends in a direction toward the second surface of the substrate such that at least one of the first portion and the second portion closer to the second surface of the substrate than a lowest surface of the gap”.
Dong et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a submaster mold for forming fiducial design which may comprise a diffractive optical structure (please see column 4, lines 23-25), serves as the diffraction grating profile with a grating pattern, that may comprise recesses (123, Figure 1C), serves as the first portion, that extends toward a second surface of the substrate wherein the first portion is closer to the second substrate than a lowest surface of the gap defining by the edge of the diffraction grating profile.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Dong et al to modify the first diffraction grating profile and/or the second diffraction grating profile of Laakkonen et al have a portion extends toward a second surface of the substrate that is closer to the second surface of the substrate than the lowest surface of the gap for the benefit of obtaining desired diffractive feature.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the second grating master profile different from the first diffraction grating master profile”. Claim 1 also has been amended to include the phrase “a waveguide of a head-mounted display system or a head-up display system the waveguide produced using the waveguide master grating imprint tool configured to propagate image-bearing light to a viewer”.
Lee et al teaches that the first diffraction grating master profile (6) and the second diffraction grating master profile (8) are different from each other, (please see Figures 1-3). These references do not teach explicitly that the waveguide is of a head mounted or head up display. However, the feature concerning the waveguide being of a head mounted or head up display is an intended use for the waveguide and it is irrelevant for the method of fabricating a waveguide master grating imprint tool as claimed. Furthermore, Pockett et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of an input grating (12, Figure 4, paragraph [0053]) and an output grating (16) that have different grating profile. Pockett et al teaches that the waveguide comprises a head mount display configured to propagate image-bearing light, from the micro display 22 of an optical engine 20, (Figure 3a and Figures 8 and 9) to a viewer. It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Pockett et al to utilize the waveguide master grating imprint tool to specifically modify and make the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile of Laakkonen et al to match to the shapes of input grating and output grating of Pockett et al for the benefit of utilizing the method to explicitly fabricate the waveguide of Pockett et al for the benefit of expanding the utilization of the imprint tool.
With regard to claim 21, Dong et al teaches that the submaster mold with the diffraction grating profile including the diffraction grating pattern further has a portion that includes protruding ridges (122, Figure 1C) that extends away from the second surface of the substrate that the portion is further from the second surface of the substrate than the lowest surface of the gap. It is within general level of skill in the art to modify both the first grating pattern and the second grating pattern of Laakkonen et al have protruding ridges that extends further from the second surface of the substrate than the lowest surface of the edge for the benefit of obtaining desired diffraction grating profile.
With regard to claim 2, Lee et al teaches that the method further comprises the step of etching the substrate to form the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile and removing unexposed photoresist layer (4, please see paragraph [0121]).
With regard to claim 4, both Lee et al and Dong et al teach that the edge of the first diffraction grating master profile and the edge of the second diffraction master profile are perpendicular to a surface of the substate coated with the at least one photoresist layer, (please see Figures 1-3 of Lee et al and Figure 5B of Dong et al).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Laakkonen et al (US 2009/0224416 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Dong et al (PN. 11,079,522) and US patent application publication by Pockett et al (US 2010/0277803 A1).
Claim 5 has been amended that necessitates the new grounds of rejection.
Laakkonen et al teaches, with respect to claim 5, a mold (50, Figure 15) serves as the master grating imprint tool for fabricating a waveguide having grating, (10, please see Figures 14-15), wherein the master grating imprint tool having a substrate (50), including a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface with a first diffraction grating master profile etched (please see paragraph [0061]), into a first area of the first surface of the substrate (A1) and a second diffraction grating master profile etched into a second area of the first surface of the substrate (A2). Laakkonen et al teaches that each of the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile comprise an edge that delimits the respective grating profile wherein adjacent edges of the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile spaced apart from each other and defines a gap (A3) between the first diffraction master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile.
Laakkonen et al teaches that the master grating imprint tool (50, Figure 15) may be utilized to fabricate grating (10) that has a first grating and a second grating for a waveguide (Figure 14).
Claim 5 further includes the phrase “the first diffraction grating master profile comprises a first grating pattern that includes a first portion that extends in a direction towards the second surface of the substrate and the second diffraction grating master profile comprises a second grating pattern that includes a second portion that extends in a direction toward the second surface of the substrate such that at least one of the first portion and the second portion is closer to the second surface of the substrate than a lowest surface of the gap”.
Laakkonen et al teaches that each of the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile comprises a first diffraction grating pattern and a second grating pattern, respectively, (please see Figure 15). The diffraction grating patterns comprise portions that are extended into the substrate that may be toward the second surface of the substrate. Laakkonen et al teaches that the gap portion (A3, Figure 15) has a lowest surface also into the substate, but it does not teach explicitly that at least one of the first and second portions is closer to the second surface of the substrate than the lowest surface of the edge.
Dong et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a submaster mold for forming fiducial design which may comprise a diffractive optical structure (please see column 4, lines 23-25), serves as the diffraction grating profile having a grating pattern, that may comprise recesses (123, Figure 1C), serves as the first portion, that extends toward a second surface of the substrate wherein the first portion is closer to the second substrate than a lowest surface of the gap defining by the edge of the diffraction grating profile, (please see Figure 1C).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Dong et al to modify the first diffraction grating profile and/or the second diffraction grating profile of Laakkonen et al to have a portion extends toward a second surface of the substrate that is closer to the second surface of the substrate than the lowest surface of the gap for the benefit of obtaining desired diffractive feature.
Claim 5 has been amended to include the phrase “the second grating master profile different from the first diffraction grating master profile”. Claim 5 also has been amended to include the phrase “a waveguide to be produced by the master grating imprint tool is of a head-mounted display system or a head-up display system, and the waveguide is configured to propagate image-bearing light to a viewer”.
Lee et al teaches that the first diffraction grating master profile (6) and the second diffraction grating master profile (8) are different from each other, (please see Figures 1-3). These references do not teach explicitly that the waveguide is of a head mounted or head up display. However, the feature concerning the waveguide being of a head-mounted or head-up display is an intended use for the waveguide and it is irrelevant for the method of fabricating a waveguide master grating imprint tool as claimed. Furthermore, Pockett et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of an input grating (12, Figure 4, paragraph [0053]) and an output grating (16) that have different grating profile. Pockett et al teaches that the waveguide comprises a head mount display configured to propagate image-bearing light, from a micro display 22 of an optical engine 20, (Figure 3a and Figures 8 and 9) to a viewer. It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Pockett et al to utilize the waveguide master grating imprint tool to specifically modify and make the first diffraction grating master profile and the second diffraction grating master profile of Laakkonen et al to match to the shapes of input grating and output grating of Pockett et al for the benefit of utilizing the method to explicitly fabricate the waveguide of Pockett et al for the benefit of expanding the utilization of the imprint tool.
With regard to claim 6, Laakkonen et al teaches that the height of the grating therefore the edge between the substrate and the respective diffraction grating master profile is about 261 nm, (please see paragraph [0085]) that is much less than 25 millimeters.
Claim(s) 7-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen et al, Dong et al and Pockett et al as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Valera et al (US 2015/0086163 A1).
Laakkonen et al teaches a master grating imprint tool for fabricating a waveguide that in combination with the teachings of Dong et al and Pockett et al as described in claim 5 above.
With regard to claims 7 and 15, Laakkonen et al teaches that the imprint tool that implicitly includes a method for fabricating a waveguide comprising at least two diffraction grating profiles, (please see Figures 14-15), wherein the method comprises using the master grating imprint tool (50 of Laakkonen et al) to replicate the first diffraction grating profile (A1) and the second diffraction grating profile (A2) respectively wherein the first and second diffraction grating profiles are being imprinted in the same process step. Laakkonen et al however does not teach to apply at least one dielectric layer over the first diffraction grating profile and the second diffraction grating profile.
Valera et al teaches an imprint tool including a binary master relief grating (31, Figure 4F) to replicate the first diffraction master profile (32) and the second diffraction grating master profile (34) to form a first diffraction grating pattern (38, Figure 4H of Valera et al) and a second diffraction grating pattern (37), respectively. Valera et al further teaches the method to comprise a step of applying at least one dielectric layer (37 and 38, Valera et al, Figure 4H) over the first diffraction grating pattern and the second diffraction grating pattern, (please see paragraph [0084]. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Valera et al to modify the imprint process to further include a dielectric layer (please see paragraph [0084]) for the benefit of providing reflection of the diffraction grating profiles.
With regard to claims 8 and 16, Valera et al teaches that the first diffraction grating pattern includes at least one of an input grating and an output grating and the second diffraction pattern includes at least one input grating and output grating, (please see Figures 1A and 1B).
With regard to claims 9-10 and 17-18, Laakkonen et al in light of the Valera et al teaches a waveguide fabricated using the method wherein the waveguide comprises a substrate (10, Figures 14-15 of Laakkonen et al) and a first diffraction grating pattern and a second diffraction grating pattern (A1 and A2) wherein each of the first diffraction grating pattern and the second diffraction grating pattern comprises an edge between the substrate and the respective diffraction grating pattern and wherein the edge is the same height as a maximum depth of the first diffraction grating master profile (A1 of 50) and the second diffraction grating profile (A2 of 50).
With regard to claim 11, Laakkonen et al teaches that the imprint tool that implicitly includes a method for fabricating a waveguide comprising at least two diffraction grating profiles, (please see Figures 14-15), wherein the method comprises using the master grating imprint tool (50 of Laakkonen et al) to replicate the first diffraction grating profile (A1) and the second diffraction grating profile (A2) respectively wherein the first and second diffraction grating profiles are being imprinted in the same process step. Laakkonen et al however does not teach to apply at least one dielectric layer over the first diffraction grating profile and the second diffraction grating profile.
Valera et al teaches an imprint tool including a binary master relief grating (31, Figure 4F) to replicate the first diffraction master profile (32) and the second diffraction grating master profile (34) to form a first diffraction grating pattern (38, Figure 4H of Valera et al) and a second diffraction grating pattern (37), respectively. Valera et al further teaches the method to comprise a step of applying at least one dielectric layer (37 and 38, Valera et al, Figure 4H) over the first diffraction grating pattern and the second diffraction grating pattern, (please see paragraph [0084]. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Valera et al to modify the imprint process to further include a dielectric layer (please see paragraph [0084]) for the benefit of providing reflection of the diffraction grating profiles.
With regard to claim 12, Valera et al teaches that the first diffraction grating pattern includes at least one of an input grating and an output grating and the second diffraction pattern includes at least one of an input grating and an output grating, (please see Figures 1A and 1B).
With regard to claims 13 and 14, Laakkonen et al in light of Valera et al teaches a waveguide fabricated using the method wherein the waveguide comprises a substrate (10, Figures 14 and 15) and a first diffraction grating pattern and a second diffraction grating pattern (A1 and A2) wherein each of the first diffraction grating pattern and the second diffraction grating pattern comprises an edge between the substrate and the respective diffraction grating pattern and wherein the edge is the same height as a maximum depth of the first diffraction grating master profile (A1 of 50, Figure 15) and the second diffraction grating profile (A2 of 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the amendment to the claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth in reasons for rejections.
Applicant being one skilled in the must have the general knowledge that it is typical to use master grating imprint tool or known in the art as mold to form diffractive optical element or grating. The particular design of the mold is considered as obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art to obtain desired final product of the grating. The specific shapes of the diffraction grating master profiles of the imprint tool do not change the method for fabricating a waveguide master grating imprint tool and the master grating imprint tool for fabricating a waveguide since the specific shapes are considered to be an intended use for the tool an obvious design choice for the tool. It does not provide novel features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights