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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 18, 2026. Claims 3-5, 8, 10, 18, and 22 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 17, and 19-21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-14, 20, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-14, 20, and 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the Remarks, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tomita (JP 2000-075117) in view of Greco et al. (US 2022/0137259 A1). Namely, as set forth below Tomita discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, except, “wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface. However, Greco et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1): wherein a surface of the replication material 2 (denoted “nanopillars”, see e.g. paragraph [0045]) comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface (see e.g. paragraph [0046] for metalens). Using a metasurface diffractive structure has an advantage of maintaining size, weight, and fabrication simplicity while avoiding multiple diffraction orders (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Greco et al.).
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 16 and 17.
Therefore, claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (JP 2000-075117) in view of Greco et al. (US 2022/0137259 A1).
In regard to claim 15, Tomita discloses an optical device (i.e. diffraction grating, see e.g. abstract) comprising (see e.g. Figures 2,4):
a substrate 23 (see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of the English translation);
a portion of replication material 27 (denoted “resist layer”, see e.g. page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation) disposed on a first surface of the substrate 23, the portion of replication material 27 forming one or more diffractive optical elements (see e.g. page 3, sixth paragraph of the English translation),
a masking layer 25 (denoted “light shielding film”, see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of English translation) on a second surface of the substrate 23, the second surface being opposite the first surface (see e.g. Figures 2, 4), the masking layer 25 being composed of a material that blocks transmission of UV light (see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of English translation for aluminum),
wherein a sidewall of the portion of the replication material 27 has a straight profile (see e.g. Figures 2 and 4), and wherein the masking layer 25 defines an aperture aligned with the portion of the replication material (see e.g. Figures 2 and 4).
Tomita fails to disclose
wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Greco et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein a surface of the replication material 2 (denoted “nanopillars”, see e.g. paragraph [0045]) comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface (see e.g. paragraph [0046] for metalens).
Given the teachings of Greco et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomita with wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
Using a metasurface diffractive structure has an advantage of maintaining size, weight, and fabrication simplicity while avoiding multiple diffraction orders (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Greco et al.).
In regard to claim 16, Tomita discloses an optical device (i.e. diffraction grating, see e.g. abstract) comprising (see e.g. Figures 2,4):
a substrate 23 (see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of the English translation);
a replication material 27 (denoted “resist layer”, see e.g. page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation) disposed on a first surface of the substrate 23, the replication material 27 forming one or more diffractive optical elements (see e.g. page 3, sixth paragraph of the English translation); and
a masking layer 25 (denoted “light shielding film”, see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of English translation) disposed on a second surface of the substrate 23, the second surface being opposite the first surface (see e.g. Figures 2, 4),
wherein a sidewall of the replication material 27 has a straight profile and is sloped with an acute angle with respect to the surface of the substrate 23 (see e.g. Figure 4).
Tomita fails to disclose
wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Greco et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein a surface of the replication material 2 (denoted “nanopillars”, see e.g. paragraph [0045]) comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface (see e.g. paragraph [0046] for metalens).
Given the teachings of Greco et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomita with wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
Using a metasurface diffractive structure has an advantage of maintaining size, weight, and fabrication simplicity while avoiding multiple diffraction orders (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Greco et al.).
In regard to claim 17, Tomita discloses comprising an optical device (i.e. diffraction grating, see e.g. abstract) comprising (see e.g. Figures 2,4):
a substrate 23 (see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of the English translation);
a replication material 27 (denoted “resist layer”, see e.g. page 3, fourth paragraph of the English translation) disposed on a first surface of the substrate 23, the replication material 27 forming one or more diffractive optical elements (see e.g. page 3, sixth paragraph of the English translation); and
a masking layer 25 (denoted “light shielding film”, see e.g. page 3, second paragraph of English translation) disposed on a second surface of the substrate 23, the second surface being opposite the first surface (see e.g. Figures 2, 4),
wherein a sidewall of the replication material 27 has a straight profile and is sloped with an obtuse angle with respect to the surface of the substrate 23 (see e.g. Figure 4).
Tomita fails to disclose
wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Greco et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein a surface of the replication material 2 (denoted “nanopillars”, see e.g. paragraph [0045]) comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface (see e.g. paragraph [0046] for metalens).
Given the teachings of Greco et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomita with wherein a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
Using a metasurface diffractive structure has an advantage of maintaining size, weight, and fabrication simplicity while avoiding multiple diffraction orders (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Greco et al.).
In regard to claim 19, Tomita , in view of Greco et al., discloses an optical device in accordance with claim 15 (see e.g. rejection of claim 15 above).
Tomita further discloses a module comprising (see e.g. Figures 2, 4):
at least one of a light-emitting device or a light-sensitive device (see e.g. page 3, fifth and sixth paragraphs, where an exposure light is disclosed, thus there is inherently a light emitting device); and
wherein the optical device is configured (i) to interact with light generated by the light emitting device or (ii) to interact with light incident on the module such that light passing through the optical device is received by the light- sensitive device (see e.g. page 3, fifth and sixth paragraphs, where an exposure light is disclosed, thus there is inherently a light emitting device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-4, 20, and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
In regard to independent claim 1, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “a method comprising: pressing a first face of a stamp into a first portion of a replication material disposed on a substrate, to cause the replication material to have a predetermined characteristic; exposing the first portion of the replication material to illumination, to modify the first portion of the replication material; and subsequently removing a second portion of the replication material that was not exposed to the illumination, wherein removing the second portion of the replication material comprises directing a solvent into daps between the stamp and the substrate while the face of the stamp is maintained in contact with the first portion of the replication material to selectively dissolve the second portion of the replication material, wherein the stamp comprises a masking layer, wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the first face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and wherein the masking layer shields the second portion of the replication material from the illumination when the first portion of the replication material is exposed to the illumination, wherein the stamp comprises a backing and a protrusion on the backing, wherein the protrusion includes the first face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, wherein the masking layer is disposed on the backing, and wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.”
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights