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 .
Examiner Comment
Examiner reminds the applicant that the general policy of the Office is that applicants are not permitted to shift to claim another invention after an election is made and an Office action on the merits is made on the elected invention. Specifically, the applicant may not disaffirm or change their election, as a matter of right, after making an oral election and receiving an Office action based upon that oral election in a pending application. See 37 CFR 1.142(b). In addition, the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) on claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). See MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection VI.(B). See MPEP § 819.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, and 21-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Claim 1, as amended, recites "wherein the height h2 of the second step is less than twice the height hi of the first step." Neither Yoon nor Yokochi teaches…That teaching is the opposite of the relationship recited in claim 1. Accordingly, neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests "the height h2 of the second step is less than twice the height hi of the first step," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the teachings previously applied to the relationship recited in Claim 1 were necessitated by the applicant previously amending new matter that was not supported nor properly claimed in the present invention. Please see the new ground(s) of rejection presented in the § 103 section below in the present Office action for further guidance and details.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Second, the Office Action alternatively asserts that selecting the step heights is merely a "change in size" within the level of ordinary skill, citing In re Rose and MPEP § 2144.04. Applicant respectfully traverses this rationale. The step-height relationship recited in claim 1 is not an arbitrary matter of size…Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at the claimed relationship absent impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, Applicant believes that the reliance on In re Rose is misplaced because the claimed dimensional relationship is functionally critical to the optical performance of the diffraction grating and is not merely an arbitrary change in size," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner reminds the applicant that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP § 2144. Examiner further reminds the applicant that, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 'the height hi of the first (larger) step is selected so that the two nanojets generated at the edges of that step combine at a "hot spot" with the nanojet generated by the second step, thereby increasing the intensity of the final beam and producing the non-symmetrical intensity distribution responsible for the high grating efficiency and "very high diffraction uniformity (about 95%) for the first diffracted order"') are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please see the new ground(s) of rejection presented in the § 103 section below in the present Office action for further guidance and details.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Third, Applicant notes that the references are directed to different purposes that do not motivate the recited relationship. Yoon's optical structure (OPS) is a reflective/refractive element that redirects obliquely incident detection light into vertical detection light directed onto an image sensor of a flat-panel display…Claim 1 is therefore patentable over Yoon in view of Yokochi, and claims 3-6, 8, and 21-23, 25-27, and 29-30 are patentable at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 1," the Examiner traverses. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kong teaches an optical apparatus (100g; [0086]; fig. 14) comprising an optical waveguide 120G and grating pattern 130G, wherein the first height H1A of the taper portion 124G may range from about 20 nm to about 200 nm, and the second height H2A of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G may range from about 20 nm to about 400 nm (e.g., if H1A ≈ 100 nm, H2A ≈ 150 nm, then H2A ≈ 150 nm < 2(H1A ≈ 100 nm) = 200 nm; [0087-88]). Kong further teaches that the first height H1A of the taper portion 124G is smaller than the second height H2A of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G (fig. 14; [0092]), but the first height H1A and the second height H2A are not limited thereto ([0087-88]). 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 features of a grating step height ranging from about 20 nm to about 200 nm, another grating step height ranging from about 20 nm to about 400 nm, and a first height of a taper portion being smaller than a second height of a plurality of high refractive index portions, for the purpose of reducing occurrence of back reflection between the optical waveguide 120G and the grating pattern 130G and reducing optical loss caused by a sharp mode-mismatch, as taught by Kong ([0092]). Examiner reminds the applicant that, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144. 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.
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 they think 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 applicant' s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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, 3-8, and 21-29 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 Kong et al US 20170082800 A1 (herein after “Kong”).
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 less than twice the height h1 of the first step.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kong teaches an optical apparatus (100g; [0086]; fig. 14) comprising an optical waveguide 120G and grating pattern 130G, wherein the first height H1A of the taper portion 124G may range from about 20 nm to about 200 nm, and the second height H2A of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G may range from about 20 nm to about 400 nm (e.g., if H1A ≈ 100 nm, H2A ≈ 150 nm, then H2A ≈ 150 nm < 2(H1A ≈ 100 nm) = 200 nm; [0087-88]). Kong further teaches that the first height H1A of the taper portion 124G is smaller than the second height H2A of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G (fig. 14; [0092]), but the first height H1A and the second height H2A are not limited thereto ([0087-88]).
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 features of a grating step height ranging from about 20 nm to about 200 nm, another grating step height ranging from about 20 nm to about 400 nm, and a first height of a taper portion being smaller than a second height of a plurality of high refractive index portions, for the purpose of reducing occurrence of back reflection between the optical waveguide 120G and the grating pattern 130G and reducing optical loss caused by a sharp mode-mismatch, as taught by Kong ([0092]). Examiner reminds the applicant that, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144. 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 Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong 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 7, Yoon in view of Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 1.
Yoon does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is formed by etching.
However, Kong further teaches, in a process of forming the optical apparatus 100G, a semiconductor layer 116 having a first top level LV1A may be etched by using an etch mask to form the sidewall 124S of the taper portion 124G and lower portions of the sidewalls 150SI and 150SO of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G ([0093]).
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 Kong to include and describe the technical feature of forming a stepped channel by etching, for the purpose of achieving an epitaxial growth process via producing and removing a growth stop layer when forming an optical apparatus, as taught by Kong ([0093]). 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 8, Yoon in view of Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong 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 24, Yoon in view of Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 3.
Yoon does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is formed by etching.
However, Kong further teaches, in a process of forming the optical apparatus 100G, a semiconductor layer 116 having a first top level LV1A may be etched by using an etch mask to form the sidewall 124S of the taper portion 124G and lower portions of the sidewalls 150SI and 150SO of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G ([0093]).
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 Kong to include and describe the technical feature of forming a stepped channel by etching, for the purpose of achieving an epitaxial growth process via producing and removing a growth stop layer when forming an optical apparatus, as taught by Kong ([0093]). 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 25, Yoon in view of Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong 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 28, Yoon in view of Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 4.
Yoon does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the stepped channel (stepped grating pattern GPS; [0095]) is formed by etching.
However, Kong further teaches, in a process of forming the optical apparatus 100G, a semiconductor layer 116 having a first top level LV1A may be etched by using an etch mask to form the sidewall 124S of the taper portion 124G and lower portions of the sidewalls 150SI and 150SO of the plurality of high refractive index portions 150G ([0093]).
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 Kong to include and describe the technical feature of forming a stepped channel by etching, for the purpose of achieving an epitaxial growth process via producing and removing a growth stop layer when forming an optical apparatus, as taught by Kong ([0093]). 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 29, Yoon in view of Kong 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 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 Kong et al US 20170082800 A1 (herein after “Kong”) and another embodiment of Yoon.
With respect to Claim 30, Yoon in view of Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 8.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 30.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 30.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Kong 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 Kong 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 Kong teaches the diffraction grating (grating pattern/optical structure OPS; [0021] & [0095]; fig. 7) of claim 32.
Fig. 7 of Yoon in view of Kong 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 Kong 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 22 September 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights