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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Notice of Non-compliant Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 02 March 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) for the following reasons:
Claim 24 recites “[[the]],” which utilizes both strike-through and underlining for a claim amendment. It is unclear if the amendment is being deleted or added.
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states: (2) When claim text with markings is required… The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived…
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response to arguments below. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that ‘Applicant respectfully disagrees and requests reconsideration of the objection. Applicant first notes that claim 33 specifically recites "the diffractive out-coupler is an exit pupil expander",’ the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s argument is moot. Please see new drawing(s) objections below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Applicant notes that Fig. 3B independently demonstrates possession of an embodiment…respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for claim 1 and its dependent claims," the Examiner traverses. Examiner submits that the drawings do not depict nor describe “h2 > 2h1,” for only “h2” and “h1” are labeled with no disclosed proportion and/or sizing relationship. Applicant’s reliance on the drawings is not persuasive, for there is no disclosure nor indication that the drawings are drawn to scale or reflect any dimensional proportionality. There is no statement in the as-filed specification that the drawings are to scale, nor is there any disclosure assigning quantitative or even relative values to the first and second step heights. Absent such disclosure, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonably certainty, whether the claimed relationship (i.e., “greater than twice…”) is satisfied. Applicant’s recitation of para. [0105] of the as-filed specification is also incorrect, for it states “in some embodiments of the diffraction grating, the height h2 of the stepped channel is less than twice the height h1 of the first step,” not that “wherein the height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step” as recited in Claim 1.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejection to claim 1, which…This proportional relationship is nowhere disclosed or suggested in Yoon… Peroz does not disclose or suggest modifying Yoon's stepped grating to impose a specific dimensional relationship between step heights… Applicant asserts that this other embodiment of Yoon does not disclose or suggest modifying Yoon's stepped grating to impose a specific dimensional relationship between step heights of claims 30-33," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see new § 103 rejection for Claim 1 below in the present Office action.
Examiner reminds the applicant that the “applicant should... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” See MPEP § 2163 and MPEP § 714.02.
Examiner reminds the applicant that the previously amended feature of Claim 1 incorporates new subject matter. Please see §§ 112(a) and 112(b) rejections presented in the present Office action below. Claim 1 recites a completely different limitation containing new subject matter that is not inclusive of the presently presented dependent claims. Please see §§ 112(a) and 112(b) rejections presented in the present Office action below.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of “wherein the height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step” in Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 3-8, and 21-33 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.
Newly amended Claim 1 recites “wherein the height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step,” which introduces new claimed subject matter that is not properly described in the application as filed. The as-filed specification (In some embodiments of the diffraction grating, the height h2 of the stepped channel is less than twice the height h1 of the first step; see para. [0105] in as-filed specification dated 10 November 2022) and originally filed claims (see claims filed 10 November 2022 and 04 August 2025) describe the stepped channel with the relationship of h2 < 2h1. There is no disclosure, explicit or implicit, that the applicant contemplated or possessed an embodiment where h2 > 2h1, nor is there any structural, functional, or geometric rationale supporting this inverse relationship. Since the application as filed provides no teaching that the inventor possessed a stepped-channel configuration in which the second step of the stepped channel height exceeds twice the height of the first step, the newly added limitation changes the technical relationship of the steps and therefore constitutes new matter. The amendment introduces a different structure not supported by the original description, and thus, does not comply with the written-description requirement of § 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 3-8, and 21-33 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the amended limitation reciting “wherein the height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step” is indefinite because it introduces a dimensional relationship that directly contradicts the only relationship disclosed in the application (i.e., “the height h2 of the stepped channel is less than twice the height h1 of the first step.” see para. [0105] in as-filed specification dated 10 November 2022 & claims filed 10 November 2022 and 04 August 2025). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the intended structure or boundaries of the claimed stepped channel. The lack of support renders the meaning and scope of the new height relationship unclear, resulting in indefiniteness under § 112(b).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “wherein the height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step” as the claimed subject matter introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of a diffraction grating.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 21-23, 25-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. KR 20190073107 A (see machine translation; herein after "Yoon") in view of Yokochi JP 2007256852 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 1, Yoon discloses a diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) comprising:
a substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]) having an outer surface (FIL on substrate SB/SUB, as seen in fig. 7), the substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]) having a first refractive index (FIL on substrate SB having a refractive index n3; [0096]);
a plurality of grating elements (grating patterns; [0021], plurality seen in fig. 7), each grating element (within optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) comprising a stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) inset into the substrate (GPS inset into substrate SB as seen in fig. 7), the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) having a second refractive index (refractive index n2; [0095]) greater than the first refractive index (n2 - n3 > 0.2; fig. 7 & [0019]);
wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is a two-step channel (comprising two steps as seen in fig. 7) having a first step (fig. 7) along the outer surface (FIL, as seen in fig. 7) of the substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]) and a second step extending inward from the first step (second step extending inward and towards vertical detection light 401; fig. 7), the first step having a greater width than the second step (first step base of GPS closest to substrate SB having greater width than second step of GPS; fig. 7).
Yoon does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the first step having a height h1 and the second step having a height h2, and wherein the height h2 of the second step is greater than twice the height h1 of the first step.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yokochi teaches a multistage diffraction optical element (10c; [0101]; fig. 4a) and method of manufacturing the same ([0001]), comprising a substrate (11; [0004]; fig. 4a), wherein a step having a height (s5; fig. 4a) is greater than twice the height (fig. 4a) of another step having a height (s4; height (depth) h per stage in one diffraction grating section 11e, except for fourth stage s4, determined using equation 1; [0106]; fig. 4a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diffraction grating of Yoon to include the technical feature of a height or depth of a grating step in one diffraction grating section being different, for the purpose of adjusting diffraction efficiency of first-order diffracted light to be as low as possible, as taught by Yokochi ([0104]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the height(s) of a diffraction grating step, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 3, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1, wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) has an outer surface (FIL outer surface for both substrate SB and pattern GPS, as seen in fig. 7) substantially coplanar (fig. 7) with the outer surface (FIL, as seen in fig. 7) of the substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 4, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1, wherein the width of the first step is substantially twice as great as the width of the second step (first step base of GPS closest to substrate SB having width twice as great as second step of GPS; fig. 7; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 5, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1, wherein a side edge of the first step is substantially aligned with a side edge of the second step (right side edge of first step base of GPS closest to substrate SB aligned with right side edge of second step of GPS, as seen in fig. 7; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 6, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1, wherein the first step has a width
W
and a height
h
1
(width of stepped grating patterns GPS along horizontal axis, height is along axis of vertical detection light 401; fig. 7), wherein
h
1
≈
W
2
tan
Θ
Β
and wherein
Θ
Β
≈
90
°
-
Θ
T
I
R
2
, with
Θ
T
I
R
=
s
i
n
-
1
(
n
L
n
H
)
(if n2 - n3 > 0.2, then
(
n
L
n
H
)
=
n
3
n
2
<
1
-
0.2
n
2
; [0019]; e.g., if n2 ≈ 1.6, n3 ≈ 1.4, then 1.4/1.6 ≈ 0.875, arcsin(0.875) ≈ 61°,
Θ
Β
≈ 29°/2 ≈ 14.5°,
h
1
≈
W
/2tan(14.5°) ≈
W
/0.52, and thus, the first step height is about half the width, as seen in fig. 7), where
n
L
is the first refractive index (FIL on substrate SB having a refractive index n3; [0096]) and
n
H
is the second refractive index (refractive index n2; [0095]; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 8, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1, wherein the substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]) is a waveguide (substrate SB/SUB as a film made of a transparent optical material forming optical structure OPS, light 400 enters OPS and is refracted & emitted as vertical detection light 401; [0094-97]) in a waveguide display (optical image sensor within a flat panel display; [0027] & [0094]; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 21, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 3, wherein the width of the first step is substantially twice as great as the width of the second step (first step base of GPS closest to substrate SB having width twice as great as second step of GPS; fig. 7; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 22, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 3, wherein a side edge of the first step is substantially aligned with a side edge of the second step (right side edge of first step base of GPS closest to substrate SB aligned with right side edge of second step of GPS, as seen in fig. 7; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 23, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 3, wherein the first step has a width
W
and a height
h
1
(width of stepped grating patterns GPS along horizontal axis, height is along axis of vertical detection light 401; fig. 7), wherein
h
1
≈
W
2
tan
Θ
Β
and wherein
Θ
Β
≈
90
°
-
Θ
T
I
R
2
, with
Θ
T
I
R
=
s
i
n
-
1
(
n
L
n
H
)
(if n2 - n3 > 0.2, then
(
n
L
n
H
)
=
n
3
n
2
<
1
-
0.2
n
2
; [0019]; e.g., if n2 ≈ 1.6, n3 ≈ 1.4, then 1.4/1.6 ≈ 0.875, arcsin(0.875) ≈ 61°,
Θ
Β
≈ 29°/2 ≈ 14.5°,
h
1
≈
W
/2tan(14.5°) ≈
W
/0.52, and thus, the first step height is about half the width, as seen in fig. 7), where
n
L
is the first refractive index (FIL on substrate SB having a refractive index n3; [0096]) and
n
H
is the second refractive index (refractive index n2; [0095]; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 25, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 3, wherein the substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]) is a waveguide (substrate SB/SUB as a film made of a transparent optical material forming optical structure OPS, light 400 enters OPS and is refracted & emitted as vertical detection light 401; [0094-97]) in a waveguide display (optical image sensor within a flat panel display; [0027] & [0094]; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 26, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 4, wherein a side edge of the first step is substantially aligned with a side edge of the second step (right side edge of first step base of GPS closest to substrate SB aligned with right side edge of second step of GPS, as seen in fig. 7; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 27, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 4, wherein the first step has a width
W
and a height
h
1
(width of stepped grating patterns GPS along horizontal axis, height is along axis of vertical detection light 401; fig. 7), wherein
h
1
≈
W
2
tan
Θ
Β
and wherein
Θ
Β
≈
90
°
-
Θ
T
I
R
2
, with
Θ
T
I
R
=
s
i
n
-
1
(
n
L
n
H
)
(if n2 - n3 > 0.2, then
(
n
L
n
H
)
=
n
3
n
2
<
1
-
0.2
n
2
; [0019]; e.g., if n2 ≈ 1.6, n3 ≈ 1.4, then 1.4/1.6 ≈ 0.875, arcsin(0.875) ≈ 61°,
Θ
Β
≈ 29°/2 ≈ 14.5°,
h
1
≈
W
/2tan(14.5°) ≈
W
/0.52, and thus, the first step height is about half the width, as seen in fig. 7), where
n
L
is the first refractive index (FIL on substrate SB having a refractive index n3; [0096]) and
n
H
is the second refractive index (refractive index n2; [0095]; Yoon).
With respect to Claim 29, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 4, wherein the substrate (substrate SB/SUB; [0095]) is a waveguide (substrate SB/SUB as a film made of a transparent optical material forming optical structure OPS, light 400 enters OPS and is refracted & emitted as vertical detection light 401; [0094-97]) in a waveguide display (optical image sensor within a flat panel display; [0027] & [0094]; Yoon).
Claims 7, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. KR 20190073107 A (see machine translation; herein after "Yoon") in view of Yokochi JP 2007256852 A (see machine translation) and Peroz et al. US 20180059297 A1 (herein after "Peroz").
With respect to Claim 7, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1.
Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is formed by etching.
However, in another field of endeavor, Peroz teaches a nanograting method and apparatus ([0004]), wherein fabrication of a grating comprises an etch process e.g., reactive ion etching, chemically assisted ion beam etching, potassium hydroxide bath, etc., ([0498]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diffraction grating of Yoon in view of Yokochi to include and describe the technical feature of forming a stepped channel by etching, for the purpose of producing high resolution patterns and achieving sharp geometric features of a grating, as taught by Peroz ([0498]).
Furthermore, Examiner submits that the limitation of “the stepped channel is formed by etching” is directed to a method step of making the product, and the product could have been made using alternative methods such as nanoimprinting, laser deposition, mechanical shaping, molding, etc., Method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP § 2113, since it has been held that “'even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” See MPEP § 2113.
With respect to Claim 24, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 3.
Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is formed by etching.
However, in another field of endeavor, Peroz teaches a nanograting method and apparatus ([0004]), wherein fabrication of a grating comprises an etch process e.g., reactive ion etching, chemically assisted ion beam etching, potassium hydroxide bath, etc., ([0498]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diffraction grating of Yoon in view of Yokochi to include and describe the technical feature of forming a stepped channel by etching, for the purpose of producing high resolution patterns and achieving sharp geometric features of a grating, as taught by Peroz ([0498]).
Furthermore, Examiner submits that the limitation of “the stepped channel is formed by etching” is directed to a method step of making the product, and the product could have been made using alternative methods such as nanoimprinting, laser deposition, mechanical shaping, molding, etc., Method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP § 2113, since it has been held that “'even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” See MPEP § 2113.
With respect to Claim 28, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 4.
Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is formed by etching.
However, in another field of endeavor, Peroz teaches a nanograting method and apparatus ([0004]), wherein fabrication of a grating comprises an etch process e.g., reactive ion etching, chemically assisted ion beam etching, potassium hydroxide bath, etc., ([0498]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the diffraction grating of Yoon in view of Yokochi to include and describe the technical feature of forming a stepped channel by etching, for the purpose of producing high resolution patterns and achieving sharp geometric features of a grating, as taught by Peroz ([0498]).
Furthermore, Examiner submits that the limitation of “the stepped channel is formed by etching” is directed to a method step of making the product, and the product could have been made using alternative methods such as nanoimprinting, laser deposition, mechanical shaping, molding, etc., Method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP § 2113, since it has been held that “'even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” See MPEP § 2113.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. KR 20190073107 A (see machine translation; herein after "Yoon") in view of Yokochi JP 2007256852 A (see machine translation) and another embodiment of Yoon.
With respect to Claim 30, Yoon in view of Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 8.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the waveguide (substrate SB/SUB as a film made of a transparent optical material forming optical structure OPS, light 400 enters OPS and is refracted & emitted as vertical detection light 401; [0094-97]) is coupled to a diffractive in-coupler.
However, in another embodiment, fig. 1 of Yoon further teaches a directional light unit (fig. 1) comprising a directional light substrate (SLS; [0037]), wherein a cover substrate (CP; [0037]) is coupled to a light-input/incident element (CHOE as diffractive in-coupler; [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical waveguide structure of Yoon (fig. 7) in view of Yokochi to include the technical feature of a coupling light-input/incident element, for the purpose of providing a collimated light spread over a large area, as taught by Yoon ([0040]).
With respect to Claim 31, Fig. 7 in view of Fig. 1 of Yoon and Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 30.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the diffractive in-coupler diffracts light into more than one diffractive order.
However, fig. 1 of Yoon further teaches the directional light unit (fig. 1) comprising a directional light substrate (SLS; [0037]), wherein the light-input/incident element (CHOE as diffractive in-coupler; [0037]) diffracts light into more than one diffractive order (multiple beams of incident light 100, traveling light 200, transmitted light 300, and detection light 400 emerging at different angles; [0057-58] & fig. 2, from same incident wavefront and shown reflecting & refracting, and thus, diffractive order mixing e.g., m = +1 & m = -1; fig. 1; [0045] & [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical waveguide structure of Yoon (fig. 7) in view of Yokochi to include the technical feature of a coupling light-input/incident element diffracting light into multiple diffractive orders, for the purpose of providing an incident angle having a greater value than an internal total reflection critical angle of a substrate and achieving light output/extraction efficiency, as taught by Yoon ([0045] & [0048]).
With respect to Claim 32, Fig. 7 in view of Fig. 1 of Yoon and Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 30.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the waveguide (substrate SB/SUB as a film made of a transparent optical material forming optical structure OPS, light 400 enters OPS and is refracted & emitted as vertical detection light 401; [0094-97]) is coupled to a diffractive out-coupler.
However, fig. 1 of Yoon further teaches the directional light unit (fig. 1) comprising a directional light substrate (SLS; [0037]), wherein a cover substrate (CP; [0037]) is coupled to a light-output/emitting element (VHOE; [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical waveguide structure of Yoon (fig. 7) in view of Yokochi to include the technical feature of a light-output/emitting element, for the purpose of controlling light distribution through achieving light extraction efficiency, as taught by Yoon ([0047]).
With respect to Claim 33, Fig. 7 in view of Fig. 1 of Yoon and Yokochi teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 32.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Yokochi does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the diffractive out-coupler is an exit pupil expander.
However, fig. 1 of Yoon further teaches the directional light unit (fig. 1) comprising the light-output/emitting element (VHOE; [0040]), wherein the light-output/emitting element (VHOE; [0040]) functions as an exit pupil expander by the light extraction efficiency of the VHOE having a value that gradually increases exponentially, and thus, VHOE utilizes exit pupil expansion ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical waveguide structure of Yoon (fig. 7) in view of Yokochi to include the technical feature of a light-output/emitting element being an exit pupil expander, for the purpose of controlling light distribution through achieving light extraction efficiency, as taught by Yoon ([0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Okada et al. US 20120170121 A1 discloses a diffraction grating lens and imaging device in which the same is used substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 23 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights