DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on June 8, 2026. Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-23 are under consideration. In response to applicant’s remarks regarding the disclosure of the second refractive index of the impedance matching portion and the third refractive index of the anti-reflective portion—the examiner finds applicant’s remarks persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C.§112 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-13, 16-17, and 22 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.
Claim 10 in lines 28-31 recites—one or more third device structures disposed on a second side of the optical device substrate, the second side being opposite the first side, and each of the second device structures having: an anti-reflective portion—is unclear. Perhaps, applicant intended to recite “the third device structures having an anti-reflective portion”.
Claim 10 recites six instances of “device portion”, in lines 8 and 19—a device portion--, in lines 9, 20, 21, 24—the device portion--. Since applicant uses the same term “device portion”, which may be categorized under the plurality of first device structures or plurality of second device structures. The recitations—the device portion—in lines 20, 21, and 24 are unclear whether the device portion belongs to the plurality of first device structures or the plurality of second device structures.
Claim 10 recites three instances of “impedance matching portion”, in line 11—an impedance matching portion--, in line 24—a first impedance matching portion--, and in line 36—a second impedance matching portion--. It is unclear because the numeration of the three instances of the impedance matching portion does not follow the ordinal numbers of a plurality of first device structures, a plurality of second device structures, and one or more third device structures.
Claim 10 recites—a device material—in lines 9 and 20 render it unclear since they are labels for different structures.
The multiple recitations of different structures using the same labels such as device portion, and device material renders the labels unclear without the benefit of visual cues of claim formatting. Perhaps, it would be more beneficial if applicant can label the structures with different labels matching with ordinal numbers for clarity.
Claim 10 in lines 13-14 recites—the sidewalls form an acute device angle ϑ with the optical device substrate--, in line 22—the device portion having a first sidewall and a second sidewall that are both oriented at a same acute angle relative to the surface of the optical device substrate--. The limitation “a same acute angle” is unclear whether is the “acute device angle ϑ” or a different angle.
Claim 17 recites—the plurality of second device structures are disposed with a device angle ϑ between about 10 degrees and about 170 degrees.-- It is unclear whether the device angle ϑ is the same device angle ϑ of claim 10. If this is a new angle, the it is unclear which reference side is the angle is measured from (i.e., the normal or the horizontal axis). Furthermore, contemplating the device angle of claim 17 being dependent on claim 10, claim 10 recites the “same acute angle relative to a surface of the optical device substrate” as format under “a plurality of second device structures”. The angle ranging between about 10 degrees and about 170 degrees includes a right angle and obtuse angles, which are beyond acute angle(s) of a same acute angle relative to a surface of the optical device substrate.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the adjacent device structures" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9, 15, 18-20 and 21, and 23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of record do not teach the invention as amended in claims 1, and 18. In particular, the prior arts do not teach the limitations in claim 1:
a device portion disposed on the first side of the optical device substrate, the device portion including a device material having a first refractive index of about 1.9 to about 4.0; and
a first impedance matching portion disposed on the device portion, the first impedance matching portion having a second refractive index of about 1.4 to about 2.0; and
one or more second device structures disposed on a second side of the optical device substrate, the second side being opposite the first side, and each of the second device structures having:
an anti-reflective portion disposed on a second side of the optical device substrate, the anti-reflective portion having a third refractive index of about 1.4 to about 2.0, where the third refractive index is different from the second refractive index; and
a second impedance matching portion disposed over the anti-reflective portion, the second impedance matching portion having a fourth refractive index of 1.4 to 2.0, wherein the third refractive index is different from the fourth refractive index.
As for claim 18, the prior arts do not teach the limitations:
A method, comprising:
disposing two or more layers of material on a first side of a substrate;
etching though the two or more layers of material to form a waveguide comprising a plurality of device structures forming at least one output coupling grating having two or more portions…
disposing an anti-reflective portion on a second side of the substrate opposite the first side of the substrate, the anti-reflective portion having a third refractive index of about 1.4 to about 2.0, where the third refractive index is different from the second refractive index; and
disposing a second impedance matching portion over the anti-reflective portion, the second impedance matching portion having a fourth refractive index, where the third refractive index is different from the fourth refractive index.
The most pertinent arts of record are to Godet in view of Greiner. Also, Lin et al. (US 2018/0217395 A1) is in the related field. Lin et al. teaches a coupling grating which are metasurfaces formed on a substrate, wherein anti-reflective coating a disposed over the metasurfaces to function as an impedance matching layer. However, all the prior arts of record above, do not teach the “first device structures” (i.e., gratings) disposed on the first side of the optical device substrate, and one or more second device structures disposed on a second side of the optical device substrate and a first impedance matching portion disposed on the first side of the optical device substrate and a second impedance matching portion disposed on the second side of the optical device substrate.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, 15, 19-20, and 21, 23 are allowed by virtue of depending on the respective independent claims 1 and 18.
Therefore, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant’s teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine or modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892: A-H.
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 Erin D Chiem whose telephone number is (571)272-3102. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Thomas A. Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/ERIN D CHIEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights