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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended Claims 1 and 8 overcome the art of record because prior arts do not disclose “wherein at least one of the center of the first member or the center of the second member is laterally offset from the center of the grating”. However, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because as described below in the rejection, prior art do disclose the newly added limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lui et al US 20150253470.
Regarding claim 1, Lui teaches An optical resonator comprising (Figs. 4 & 7):
a first member (See annotated Fig. 7 below); and
a second member (See annotated Fig. 7 below),
wherein each of the first member and the second member has a high contrast grating (HCG) structure (Abstract “A sub-pixel unit for a reflective display includes a color filter including a tunable high contrast grating.”), and
wherein a refractive index of the first member and a refractive index of the second member are the same. (Paragraph 0071 “In an embodiment, material 1 and 2 may be the same material and material 3 may be different materials.” The same materials will inherently have the same refractive index) wherein at least one of a center of the first member or a center of the second member is laterally offset from a center of the grating. (Fig. 4(d) shows different width L for the different members so the first member center and the second member center will inherently have laterally offset in the horizontal direction from the center of the grating).)
PNG
media_image1.png
578
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
656
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lui teaches a width of the first member and a width of the second member are the same. (Fig. 7 shows the widths of the first member and the second member to be the same)
Regarding claim 3, Lui teaches a distance from the center of the second member to the center of a grating is 0. (Fig. 7 shows a distance from the horizontal center of the second member to the horizonal center of the grating is 0)
PNG
media_image3.png
578
839
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Lui teaches an area of the first member and an area of the second member are different. (Fig. 4(c) shows areas of 190nm*100nm = 19000nm2 and 200nm*300nm = 60000nm2 which are different areas for the first and second members)
Regarding claim 6, Lui teaches a distance from the center of the first member to the center of a grating and a distance from the center of the second member to the center of the grating are different. (Fig. 4(d) shows different heights for the different members so the first member center and the second member center will inherently have different distances in the vertical direction from the center of the gratings)
Regarding claim 7, Lui teaches a width of the first member and a width of the second member are different. (Fig. 4(c)shows the first member and second member have different widths)
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. US 20220209502.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches An optical resonator (Figs. 1I-1-1I-3) comprising:
a first member (Fig. 1I-3, 120a’); and
a second member (Fig. 1I-3, 120a’’),
wherein each of the first member and the second member has a grating structure (Fig. 1I-1-1I-3 shows each of the members has a grating structure), and
wherein the second member has a high contrast grating (HCG) structure (Paragraph 0042 “The patterned layer 116 may be upper portion 120a″ of the grating element 120a in the high-contrast grating 120.”) and a refractive index of the first member and a refractive index of the second member are different. (Paragraph 0031 “The layer 116 may include III-V semiconductors or metal, such as GaAs, AlGaAs, AlAs, GaN, AlGaN, AlN, InP, InAlAs, InGaAs, Al, or a combination thereof.” Paragraph 0042 “In the embodiments, the lower portion 120a′ of the grating elements 120a and the oxide layer 114 are integrally formed.” Paragraph 0041 “The oxide layer 114 may be made of insulator such as silicon oxide or aluminum oxide.” Different materials will inherently have different refractive indexes.) wherein at least one of a center of the first member or a center of the second member is laterally offset from a center of the grating. (See annotated Fig. 1I-3 below. The center of the first member (width is longer) is different from the center of the grating.)
PNG
media_image4.png
571
742
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches the refractive index of the second member is higher than 3. (Paragraph 0031 “The layer 116 may include III-V semiconductors or metal, such as GaAs, AlGaAs, AlAs, GaN, AlGaN, AlN, InP, InAlAs, InGaAs, Al, or a combination thereof.” In the index of refraction of InP is inherently higher than 3. See pertinent art #2 below)
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches a distance from the center of the second member to the center of a grating is 0 (Fig. 1I-3 shows the distance from the horizontal center of the second member to the horizontal center of the grating is 0), and the refractive index of the first member is lower than that of the second member. (Paragraph 0043 “In some embodiments, the passivation layer 122 includes an insulator (e.g., silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, another applicable insulator, or a combination thereof) Silicon nitride inherently has a lower index of refraction than InP. See Pertinent art #3 below)
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches a distance from the center of the first member to the center of a grating and a distance from the center of the second member to the center of the grating are different.
PNG
media_image4.png
571
742
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches the refractive index of the first member is lower than 2. Paragraph 0043 “The oxide layer 114 may be made of insulator such as silicon oxide or aluminum oxide. Silicon oxide inherently has a refractive index lower than 2. See Pertinent art #3 below)
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the first member includes SiO2 or TiO2. (Paragraph 0043 “The oxide layer 114 may be made of insulator such as silicon oxide or aluminum oxide.)
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches the second member includes silicon, InP, InGaAs and Ge. (Paragraph 0031 “The layer 116 may include III-V semiconductors or metal, such as GaAs, AlGaAs, AlAs, GaN, AlGaN, AlN, InP, InAlAs, InGaAs, Al, or a combination thereof.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lui.
Regarding claim 5, Lui does not teach an area of the first member and an area of the second member are the same.
However,
Lui teaches adjusting the area parameters. (Paragraph 0070 “the edge lengths L, heights H, and pitch P are in the range of 10 nm to 1000 nm. For a given material, adjustment of these and other parameters can be made in order to tune the high contrast gratings to particular wavelength ranges, e.g. to produce blue, green, and red filters, by changing the centers and/or widths of the reflection spectra”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second areas of the first and second members as taught by Lui by changing the areas to be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the areas of the members is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the areas of the members allows a change in the reflection spectra. (Lui Paragraph 0070).
However,
Lui teaches adjusting the length, height and width parameters. (Paragraph 0070 “the edge lengths L, heights H, and pitch P are in the range of 10 nm to 1000 nm. For a given material, adjustment of these and other parameters can be made in order to tune the high contrast gratings to particular wavelength ranges, e.g. to produce blue, green, and red filters, by changing the centers and/or widths of the reflection spectra”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length, height and width parameters of the first and second members as taught by Lui by changing them so the center of be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the areas of the members is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the areas of the members allows a change in the reflection spectra. (Lui Paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image5.png
578
1064
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, 13, 15-16 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chen in view of Lui.
Regarding claim 10, Chen does not teach a thickness of the second member is greater than that of the first member.
However,
Lui teaches changing the thickness of the first and second members affects the reflection spectrum of the grating (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0073 “The parameters determining the reflection spectrum of a grating include the grating period P, the grating pillar edge lengths L1 and L2 for the TiO2 and quartz layers, respectively, and layer thicknesses H1 and H2 for the TiO2 and quartz, respectively.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the second member as taught by Chen by changing the thickness of the second member to be greater than the first member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing the thickness of the second member is recognized in the prior art as a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II) Changing the thickness of the second member allows the reflection spectrum of the grating to change. (Lui Paragraph 0073)
Regarding claim 13, Chen does not teach a width of the first member is smaller than that of the second member.
However,
Lui teaches a width of the first member is smaller than that of the second member. (Fig. 4(a)-4(c) The first member width is 100nm and the second member width is 190)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the widths of the first member as taught by Chen by having the first member width be smaller than that of the second member as disclosed by Lui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to change the spectrum of light that is reflected. (Lui Paragraph 0067)
Regarding claim 15, Chen does not teach an area of the first member and an area of the second member are different.
However,
Lui teaches an area of the first member and an area of the second member are different. (Fig. 4(c) shows areas of 190nm*100nm = 19000nm2 and 200nm*300nm = 60000nm2 which are different areas for the first and second members)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the areas of the first and second members as taught by Chen by having the first member width be smaller than that of the second member as disclosed by Lui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to change the spectrum of light that is reflected. (Lui Paragraph 0067, Lui Paragraph 0070)
Regarding claim 16, Chen does not teach a thickness of the first member is less than that of the second member.
However,
Lui teaches a thickness of the first member is less than that of the second member. (Fig. 4(a)-4(d). The thickness of the first member is 200nm and the thickness of the second member is 300nm)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the first member as taught by Chen by having the first member width be less than that of the second member as disclosed by Lui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to change the spectrum of light that is reflected. (Lui Paragraph 0067, Paragraph 0070)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINSUN OH HARVEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1835. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Fristoe can be reached at 571-272-4926. 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.
MINSUN OH. HARVEY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights