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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 25, 2025, which has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 25, 2025.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 3, and 11.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to include the phrase “the first grating section, the second grating section and the first boundary region are configured such that a horizontal K-vector component of the first K-vector and the second K-vector are aligned along a propagation direction with grating plane”, the specification fails to teach explicitly support for this feature.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “grating direction” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be “grating direction”. For the purpose of examination, this phrase is being interpreted as the “orientation of the fringes of the grating”. However proper correction is required.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Grant et al (US 2020/0264378 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Grant et al teaches a grating structure (please see Figures 4C and 10), that is comprised of a first grating section (402 or 1001) containing a grating with a first K-vector (please see the fringes orientation of 402) and a second grating section (403 or 1002) containing a grating with a second K-vector (please see the fringes orientation of 403). Grant et al teaches that the first grating section and the second grating section provide a combined or overlapped grating area (overlapped region in Figure 4C or 1003 in Figure 10) at the boundary region positioned between the first grating section and the second grating section (please see Figure 4C and 10). Grant et al teaches that the combined or overlapped grating area may be a multiplexed grating regions including the first grating section with first K-vector and the second grating section with the second K-vector, (please see Figure 4C, paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).
Claim 1 also includes the phrase “first grating section … a first K-vector within a grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction of the grating structure” and the phrase “a second grating section … a second K-vector within grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction of the grating structure”.
Grant et al teaches explicitly that by definition that a grating is characterized by a K-vector is defined as the vector normal to the grating fringes, (please see paragraph [0092]). The orientation of the grating fringes defines the extending direction of the grating structure. The first grating section and the second grating section that each defined by grating fringes or extending direction and a K-vector may be defined within a grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction or the fringes of the grating sections.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. With regard to the features “the grating structure and providing diffraction efficiency characteristics along a grating direction”, the phrase “grating direction” is being rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, and interpreted as “orientation of the fringes of the grating”.
Grant et al teaches that the first grating, the second grating and the boundary each has diffraction efficiency characteristics (DE, Figure 11) along the orientation of the grating fringes.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the first grating section, the second grating section and the first boundary region are configured such that a horizontal K-vector component of the first K-vector and the second K-vector are aligned along a propagation direction within the grating plane”.
This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. As shown in Figure 10 of Grant et al, the first grating section (1001, Figure 10), the second grating section (1002) and the boundary or the combined region may each has a K-vector wherein the horizontal components of the K-vectors are aligned along a propagation direction within the grating plane.
With regard to claim 2, Grant et al taches as shown in Figure 4C that the first and second K vectors are different.
With regard to amended claim 3, Grant et al teaches that different arrangement of the grating sections may be provided as shown in Figure 10. It is withing general level skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Grant et to add additional third grating section with a third K-vector with diffraction efficiency verse field angle such that the second grating section and the third grating section to form a second boundary region with the overlapped or combined grating area, for the benefit of making the grating structure to serve the desired application requirements. The combined or overlapped grating area with multiplexed grating including the second K-vector and the third K-vector. The third K-vector by definition is within a grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction of the grating structure or the grating fringes.
With regard to claim 4, it is obvious modification to one skilled in the art to make the second K-vector and the third K-vector being different from each other as obvious matters of design choice.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, Grant et al teaches that the first grating section the second grating section and the multiplexed grating section at the overlapped boundary region each comprise Bragg grating (please see paragraph [0004]) with refractive index modulation, (please see paragraph [0004]).
With regard to claim 7, Grant et al teaches that the grating structure is formed form a mixture of at least one monomer and at least one liquid crystal, (please see paragraphs [0004] and [0045]).
With regard to claim 8, Grant et al teaches that the first grating section, the first boundary region and the second grating regions (1001, 1003 and 1002, Figure 10) are linearly disposed along a given direction.
With regard to claim 9, Grant et al teaches a waveguide display comprises a waveguide and an input coupler, fold grating and/or output coupler disposed within the waveguide wherein one or more oof the input coupler, fold grating and/or output coupler include the grating structure, (please see Figures 1, 3A, 4C and 9).
With regard to claim 10, the scopes of the claim are confusing and indefinite for the reasons set forth in rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph. Since the claim and the specification fails to identify the specific “grating characteristic” is tapered, such claim cannot be further examined.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Grant et al (US 2020/0264378 A1).
Claim 11 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Grant et al teaches a grating structure with a method for manufacturing the same, wherein the method comprises the step of providing a holographic recording material layer, (please see paragraph [0044]). Grant et al teaches that the grating structure comprises a first grating section and a second grating section, (1001 and 1002, please see Figure 10). Grant et al teaches that the grating sections may be manufactured by exposing at least a portion of the holographic recording material to a first holographic recording beam to create the first grating section and exposing at least a portion of the holographic recording material to a second holographic recording beam to create the second grating section. Grant et al teaches a combined or overlapped grating area (1003) serves as a first boundary region positioned between the first grating section and the second grating section. Grant et al teaches that the combined or overlapped area may comprise multiplexed grating, (please see paragraphs [0049] and [0050]).
As shown in Figure 4C, Grant et al teaches that the first grating section (402) and the second grating section (403) may each comprise a first K-vector (i.e. a first orientation of the fringes of 402) and a second K-vector (i.e. a second orientation pf the fringes 403) and the overlapped area may comprise multiplexed grating oriented with the first K-vector and the second K-vector. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Grant et al (in Figure 4C) to make the first grating section with a first K-vector and second grating section with a second K-vector for the benefit of allowing the grating structure to have the desired diffraction properties.
Claim 11 has been amended to include the phrase “first grating section … a first K-vector within a grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction of the grating structure” and the phrase “a second grating section … a second K-vector within grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction of the grating structure”.
Grant et al teaches explicitly that by definition that a grating is characterized by a K-vector is defined as the vector normal to the grating fringes, (please see paragraph [0092]). The orientation of the grating fringes defines the extending direction of the grating structure. The first grating section and the second grating section that each defined by grating fringes or extending direction and a K-vector may be defined within a grating plane orthogonal to the extending direction or the fringes of the grating sections.
Claim 11 also includes the phrase “a first end region partially oriented with the first K-vector … wherein the first grating section is positioned between the first end region and the first boundary region”. It is implicitly true that the first diffraction portion also includes a first end region that the first grating section is defined between the first end region and the first boundary region, (please see Figure 10 of Grant et al).
Claim 11 has been amended to include the phrase “the first grating section, the second grating section and the first boundary region are configured such that a horizontal K-vector component of the first K-vector and the second K-vector are aligned along a propagation direction within the grating plane”.
This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. As shown in Figure 10 of Grant et al, the first grating section (1001, Figure 10), the second grating section (1002) and the boundary or the combined region may each has a K-vector wherein the horizontal components of the K-vectors are aligned along a propagation direction within the grating plane.
With regard to claims 12 and 13, Grant et al teaches that the exposing of the holographic recording material layer to the first holographic recording beam and the second holographic recording beam may be achieved sequentially, (please see paragraphs [005] and [0073]). Although this reference does not teach the exposure of the different holographic recording beams alternatively in simultaneous manner, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of reducing the manufacturing method steps.
With regard to claim 14, Grant et al in Figure 4C, teaches that the first K-vector and the second K-vector may be different.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Grant et al teaches that the holographic recording material layer comprises a mixture of at least one monomer and at least one liquid crustal, (please see paragraphs [0004] and [0045]). Grant et al teaches that the liquid crystal may be extracted after exposing the holographic recording material layer, (please see paragraph [0048]).
With regard to claim 17, Grant et al teaches that different arrangement of the grating sections may be provided as shown in Figure 10. It is withing general level skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Grant et to add additional third grating section with a third K-vector such that the second grating section and the third grating section to form a second boundary region with the overlapped or combined grating area, for the benefit of making the grating structure to serve the desired application requirements. The method for manufacturing would have been modified to expose at least a third portion of the holographic recording material layer to a third holographic recording beam to create the third grating section oriented with a third K-vector.
The combined or overlapped grating area of the second boundary region with multiplexed grating may include the second K-vector and the third K-vector.
With regard to claim 18, it is within general level skilled in the art to make the second K-vector and the third K-vector to be different for the benefit of allowing the grating structure to have desired diffraction function.
With regard claims 19 and 20, Grant et al teaches that the exposing of the holographic recording material layer to the first holographic recording beam and the second holographic recording beam may be achieved sequentially, (please see paragraphs [005] and [0073]), this means the exposing the second holographic recording beam and the third holographic recording beam may also be achieved sequentially. Although this reference does not teach the exposure of the different holographic recording beams alternatively in a simultaneous manner, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of reducing the manufacturing method steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the boundary region taught by the cited Grant et al reference is referred to the region has both the first grating structure and the second grating structure, such that the first grating structure and the second grating structure are multiplexedly recorded in the boundary region.
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