DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/06/2025 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 12/11/2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objections to the drawings, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 7/14/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment.
The original objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office action mailed 7/14/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment, however, new objections are placed forth. See section below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record, as it was previously applied, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 11-12: the comma after “tantalum pentoxide” should keep with the word “pentoxide” and should not lead line 12.
Line 12: “niobium oxide, niobium oxide” should only state niobium oxide once. Appropriate 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, 4-8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in US 20070098959 A1 (hereinafter "Lieberman").
Regarding claim 1, Lieberman discloses a waveguide, comprising:
a plurality of blazed structures (see Fig. 9 and Para. 67), comprising:
a grating material layer comprising a grating material having a refractive index greater than or equal to 2.0 (84 is interpreted as a grating material layer; 84 is a HRISR or high-refractive index surface relief; see Para. 67; note Para. 61 where “the high refractive index coatings of the invention preferably have a refractive index of at least approximately 1.65, most preferably greater than about 2.0”; also assumed to be a necessarily present property of any grating material layer material listed below); and
a coating formed directly on a patterned surface (the blazed structures are interpreted as forming a patterned surface; see Fig. 9) of the grating material layer.
Lieberman further discloses materials for reflective and semi-reflective patterned surfaces including:
tantalum pentoxide, niobium oxide, or a combination thereof (see Para. 50-51); and
indium-tin-oxide, or a combination thereof (see Para. 50-51).
However, Lieberman fails to specifically identify that the layers of Fig. 9 have materials selected from the lists provided in Para. 50-51, wherein:
the grating material is selected from germanium, tantalum pentoxide hafnium oxide, scandium oxide, niobium oxide, or a combination thereof, and
the coating consists of indium-tin-oxide, fluorine doped tin oxide, doped zinc oxide, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grating material layer and the coating from the lists provided in Lieberman for the purpose of creating optimal optical conditions, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Lieberman discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the coating conformally coats the grating material layer (“conforms to the topography of the surface reliefs”; see Para. 9 and 67; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Lieberman discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the coating forms a blanket coating on the grating material layer (“conforms to the topography of the surface reliefs” is interpreted as forming a blanket coating on the grating material layer; see Para. 9 and 67; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Lieberman discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of blazed structures has a first blazed surface that forms a first blaze angle (see Fig. 9), but fails to teach that the first blaze angle is from 50 degrees to 80 degrees relative to perpendicular.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the first blaze angle of Lieberman for the purpose of optimizing the waveguide thereby achieving a more desirable product, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Lieberman discloses the waveguide of claim 6 as discussed above, and further discloses wherein the at least one of the plurality of blazed structures further has a second blazed surface opposite the first blazed surface and the second blazed surface forms a second blaze angle (see Fig. 9 where 2 blaze angles are necessarily present in order to form each blaze structure), but fails to teach that the second blaze angle is from 0 degrees to 40 degrees from perpendicular.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the second blaze angle of Lieberman for the purpose of optimizing the waveguide thereby achieving a more desirable product, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Lieberman discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above. Lieberman further teaches that the device may comprise a polymer display (see Para. 8 and 46), which is interpreted as a microdisplay, and the display would necessarily be either at substrate 80 or attached to substrate 80 and thus be opposite the patterned surface (see Fig. 9) in order for light to pass out of the patterned surface. However, Lieberman does not explicitly disclose a microdisplay positioned adjacent a bottom surface of the grating material layer, wherein the bottom surface is opposite the patterned surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the display of Lieberman beneath the patterned surface as taught by Lieberman for the purpose of providing backlit illumination which is highly desirable in order to hide or protect the optical engine.
Regarding claim 21, Lieberman discloses the waveguide of claim 1, and further discloses a top duty cycle of the plurality of blazed structures (a top duty cycle is interpreted as the top width divided by the linewidth; Fig. 9 shows that the blazed structure has both a top width and linewidth, thus the top duty cycle is necessarily present); and a bottom duty cycle of the plurality of blazed structures ranges (a bottom duty cycle is interpreted as the width of the groove between blazed structures divided by the linewidth; Fig. 9 shows a gap between blazed structures which means a bottom duty cycle is necessarily present) but fails to teach that:
the top duty cycle ranges from 10% to 20%; and
the bottom duty cycle ranges from 60% to 80%.
While the exact claimed ranges are not disclosed by Lieberman, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the claimed ranges of the top and bottom duty cycles as discussed above for the purpose of optimizing the diffraction efficiency, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. in US 20210072437 (hereinafter “Singh”) in view of Lieberman in US 20070098959 A1 (hereinafter "Lieberman").
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a waveguide (see Para. 400), comprising:
a plurality of blazed structures (see Para. 415, 462), comprising:
a grating material layer (see Para. 405) comprising a grating material having a refractive index greater than or equal to 2.0 (see Para. 487); and
a coating (see Para. 402, 445) formed directly (see Para. 184) on a patterned surface (see Para. 516-526) of the grating material layer (see Para. 401, 405), wherein:
a coating (see Para. 402, 445) formed directly (see Para. 184) on a patterned surface (see Para. 516-526) of the grating material layer (see Para. 401, 405), but fails to teach that
the grating material is selected from germanium, tantalum pentoxide, hafnium oxide, scandium oxide, niobium oxide, or a combination thereof, and
the coating consists of indium-tin-oxide, fluorine doped tin oxide, doped zinc oxide, or a combination thereof.
Lieberman discloses materials for similar patterned surfaces (see Fig. 2-12 and 17-20) including:
tantalum pentoxide, niobium oxide, or a combination thereof (see Para. 50-51); and
indium-tin-oxide, or a combination thereof (see Para. 50-51).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the grating material layer and the coating from the lists provided in Lieberman in the waveguide of Singh for the purpose of creating optimal optical conditions, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Singh discloses that the coating (see Para. 402) conformally coats (see Para. 455, 536) the grating material layer (see Para. 405).
Regarding claim 5, Singh discloses that the coating (see Para. 402) forms a blanket coating (see Para. 537) on the grating material layer (see Para. 405).
Regarding claim 6, Singh discloses that at least one of the plurality of blazed structures (see Para. 415, 462) has a first blazed surface (see Para. 516) that forms a first blaze angle, but fails to teach that the first blaze angle (necessarily present) is from exactly 50 degrees to 80 degrees relative to perpendicular (see Para. 521; see also Para. 155-158 for additional exemplary angles and term definitions). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shortened the range taught by Singh for the purpose of optimizing the waveguide thereby achieving a more desirable product, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Singh discloses that the at least one of the plurality of blazed structures (see Para. 415, 462) further has a second blazed surface (see Para. 516) opposite the first blazed surface (see Para. 516) and the second blazed surface (see Para. 516) forms the second blaze angle (necessarily present), a second blaze angle from 0 degrees to 40 degrees from perpendicular (See Para. 525 which is equivalent to 0° from the perpendicular).
Regarding claim 8, Singh discloses a microdisplay (551-552) positioned adjacent (Singh does not mention another microdisplay or bottom surface between those claimed and thus implies that they are inherently adjacent) a bottom surface (See Para. 438-443) of the grating material layer (see Para. 401, 405), wherein the bottom surface (See Para. 438-443) is opposite the patterned surface (see Para. 516-526).
Regarding claim 21, Singh discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein:
a top duty cycle (a top duty cycle is interpreted as the top width divided by the linewidth; Fig. 13E shows that the blazed structure has both a top width and linewidth d, thus the top duty cycle is necessarily present) of the plurality of blazed structures ranges from 10% to 20%; and
a bottom duty cycle (a bottom duty cycle is interpreted as the width of the groove between blazed structures divided by the linewidth d; Fig. 13E shows a gap between blazed structures which means a bottom duty cycle is necessarily present) of the plurality of blazed structures ranges from 60% to 80% (Para. 215 states that the duty cycle may be between 20% and 80% which envelopes the claimed range).
While the exact claimed ranges are not disclosed by Singh, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the claimed ranges of the top and bottom duty cycles as discussed above for the purpose of optimizing the diffraction efficiency, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
US 20150171373 A1 discloses ITO-coated tantalum pentoxide. See Fig. 15B.
US 20090180186 discloses a protective film on a blazed grating.
US 20030190473 A1 discloses dielectric layers 34 and 36 can be composed of dielectric materials having a "high" refractive index of greater than about 1.65, and preferably greater than about 2. Nonlimiting examples of suitable high index dielectric materials include indium-tin-oxide (ITO), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), hafnium oxide (HfO.sub.2), combinations thereof, and the like.
US 20220139103 A1 discloses an optically functional film layer is made of at least two coating materials selected from Ta2O5, Nb2O5, and ITO, in a stacked manner.
US 20050275944 A1 discloses similar grating material in Para. 59-60.
US 20070081246 A1 discloses that materials for the waveguide layer 32 possess an index of refraction higher than that of the substrate 2. For example, inorganic materials like, but not limited to, HfO2, ITO, Nb2O5, SnO.sub.2 (pure or doped with F (FTO) or Sb (ATO)), Ta2O5, or ZnO (pure or doped with Al (AZO) or Ga (GZO)), can be used.
US 20070121210 A1 discloses ITO coating on Ta2O5 or Nb2O5; Para. 43-44.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874