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 January 23, 2026. Claims 3-5, 18 and 22 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 6-17, and 19-21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-8 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. Namely, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose “wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.” Applicant further asserts that it would not be obvious to form a metasurface in the device as taught by Duparré et al. because it is drawn to a lens device.
However, as set forth below, newly cited reference to Jeon et al. discloses wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material (see e.g. abstract where using a stamp to make a metasurface is disclosed). It is noted that using a stamp to provide a metasurface in a replication material would allow the method to be applied to metasurface applications.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not be obvious to modify the device as taught by Duparré et al., in view of Tomita, with “wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.”, 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). Namely, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of manufacturing an optical component may be applied to a metasurface, as taught by Jeon et al. for the purpose of allowing the stamping method to be applied to metasurface applications.
Similar arguments apply to claims independent 15-17.
Therefore, claims 1,2, 6-17, and 19-21 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Between claims 19 and 20, applicant appears to have included a typographical error, “ERROR! USE THE HOME TAB TO APPLY TITLE TO THE TEXT THAT YOU WANT TO APPEAR HERE.” For examination purpose, it is presumed this is a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 6-14, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duparré et al. (US 2012/0140340 A1) in view of Tomita (JP 2000-075117) and further in view of Jeon et al. (KR 20180066308, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Duparré et al. discloses a method comprising (see e.g. Figure 7):
pressing a face of a stamp 144 (denoted “patterned layer” ) into a first portion of a replication material 112 (denoted “lens material”) disposed on a substrate 100 (denoted “support layer”), to cause the replication material 112 to have a predetermined characteristic (see e.g. Figures 7a-b, paragraphs [0050]-[0051]);
exposing the first portion of the replication material 112 to illumination, to modify the first portion of the replication material 112 (see e.g. Figure 7b and paragraph [0051] for curing by UV); and
subsequently removing a second portion of the replication material 112 that was not exposed to the illumination (see e.g. paragraph [0051] for dissolving element 112),
wherein the stamp 144 comprises a masking layer 150,
wherein the masking layer 150 shields the second portion of the replication material 112 from the illumination when the first portion of the replication material 112 is exposed to the illumination (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figures 7a-b),
wherein the stamp 144 comprises a backing 142 and a protrusion 144/146 on the backing, wherein the protrusion 144/146 includes the first face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material 112.
Duparré et al. fails to disclose
wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and
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.
However, Tomita discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
placement of a masking layer external to a substrate 23 for irradiation and curing of a resist layer 27 (see e.g. Figure 2 and page 3, paragraphs 1-7). 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 Duparré et al. with wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and wherein the masking layer is disposed on the backing, based on the placement of Tomita’s masking layer external to the substrate above the resist layer/replication material, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Tomita, 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 Duparré et al. with wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and wherein the masking layer is disposed on the backing.
Providing the masking layer external to the area in contact with the resist/replication material prevents unwanted light noise that may be detrimental to the exposure process (see e.g. Tomita, page 3, paragraph 8).
Duparré et al., in view of Tomita, fails to disclose
wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.
However, Jeon et al. discloses
wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material (see e.g. abstract where using a stamp to make a metasurface is disclosed).
Given the teachings of Jeon 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 Duparré et al., in view of Tomita, with wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.
Using s stamp to provide a metasurface in a replication material would allow the method to be applied to metasurface applications.
In regard to claim 2, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein exposing the first portion of the replication material 112 to the illumination comprises exposing the first portion of the replication material 112 to the illumination while the face of the stamp 144 is maintained in contact with the first portion of the replication material 112 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] for separation of the stamp after illumination).
In regard to claim 6, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein an aperture 146 defined in the masking layer 150 is aligned with the first portion of the replication material 112 (see e.g. paragraph [0051 and Figure 7a-b).
In regard to claim 7, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein at least a portion of the backplane 142 is transparent to the illumination (see e.g. paragraph [0050] and note it must be transparent to UV which is used to for curing), and wherein exposing the first portion of the replication material 112 to the illumination comprises directing the illumination through backplane 142 (see e.g. paragraph [0050] and Figures 7a-b).
In regard to claim 8, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein removing the second portion of the replication material 112 comprises dissolving the second portion of the replication material 112 using a solvent (see e.g. paragraph [0051] for dissolving of the uncured material).
In regard to claim 9, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and
wherein the solvent selectively dissolves the second portion of the replication material 112 that is not exposed to the illumination, relative to the first portion of the replication material 112 that is exposed to the illumination (see e.g. paragraph [0051] for dissolving of the uncured material).
In regard to claim 10, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and
wherein removing the second portion of the replication material 112 comprises directing the solvent into gaps between the stamp 140 and the substrate 100 while the face of the stamp 140 is maintained in contact with the first portion of the replication material 112 (see e.g. paragraph [0035] where it is noted that solvent may be applied to cavities to dissolve sacrificial material and paragraph [0075] where dissolution of the sacrificial material is disclosed).
In regard to claim 11, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the predetermined characteristic comprises a surface structure of the replication material 112 (see e.g. paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and Figures 7a-b).
In regard to claim 12, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the surface structure provides an optical functionality (i.e. a lens function, see e.g. paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and Figures 7a-b).
In regard to claim 13, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the illumination comprises ultraviolet light (see e.g. paragraph [0051] for UV light).
In regard to claim 14, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the second portion of the replication material 112 is disposed on a first area of a surface of the substrate 100, the method further comprising, subsequent to removing the second portion of the replication material 112, dicing the substrate 100 through the first area (see e.g. paragraphs [0071]-[0073] for dicing of the substrate).
In regard to claim 20, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the backing 142 comprises a first material and the protrusion comprises a second material 144/146 that is different from the first material (see e.g. paragraph [0065] where it is noted that layer 142 and 146 are different materials), wherein the second material comprises a polymer (see e.g. paragraph [0065] for PDMS).
In regard to claim 21, Duparré et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first face is structured (see e.g. Figures 7a and note the first face, i.e. the face contacting the replication material, the stamp includes the protrusion portion).
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duparré et al. (US 2012/0140340 A1) in view of Galarneau et al. (US 5,597,613) and further in view of Tomita (JP 2000-075117).
In regard to claim 15, Duparré et al. discloses an optical device comprising (see e.g. Figures 7a-b):
a substrate 100;
a portion of replication material 112 disposed on a first surface of the substrate 100;
wherein a masking layer 150 defines an aperture aligned with the portion of the replication material 112.
Duparré et al. fails to disclose
the portion of replication material forming one or more diffractive optical elements;
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface,
a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface,
wherein a sidewall of the portion of the replication material has a straight profile.
However, Galarneu et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 7):
the portion of replication material 10 forming one or more diffractive optical elements (see e.g. Column 4, lines 3-14);
wherein a sidewall of the portion of the replication material has a straight profile (see e.g. Figure 7 where the cured material 10 has a straight profile).
Given the teachings of Galarneu 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 Duparré et al. with the portion of replication material forming one or more diffractive optical elements; wherein a sidewall of the portion of the replication material has a straight profile.
Doing so would provide an optical component that may be manufactured using a known method of imprinting and photolithography.
Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al., fails to explicitly disclose
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface,
a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface.
However, Tomita discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
placement of a masking layer external to a substrate 23 for irradiation and curing of a resist layer 27 (see e.g. Figure 2 and page 3, paragraphs 1-7). 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 Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al., with wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and wherein the masking layer is disposed on the backing, based on the placement of Tomita’s masking layer external to the substrate above the resist layer/replication material, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Tomita, 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 Duparré et al. with a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface.
Providing the masking layer external to the area in contact with the resist/replication material prevents unwanted light noise that may be detrimental to the exposure process (see e.g. Tomita, page 3, paragraph 8).
Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al. and Tomita fails to disclose
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Jeon et al. discloses
using a stamp to make a metasurface is disclosed (see e.g. abstract).
Given the teachings of Jeon 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 Duparré et al., in view of Tomita, with wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.
Using s stamp to provide a metasurface in a replication material would allow the method to be applied to metasurface applications/devices.
In regard to claim 16, Duparré et al. discloses an optical device comprising (see e.g. Figures 7a-b):
a substrate 100;
and a replication material 112 disposed on a first surface of the substrate 100.
Duparré et al. fails to disclose
the replication material forming one or more diffractive optical elements,
a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface,
wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile and is sloped with an acute angle with respect to the surface of the substrate,
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Galarneu et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 7):
the replication material 10 forming one or more diffractive optical elements (see e.g. Column 4, lines 3-14), wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile (see e.g. Figure 7 where the cured material 10 has a straight profile).
Further, it would have been obvious to use a shape that is sloped with an acute angle with respect to the surface of the substrate, since a change is shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Galarneu 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 Duparré et al. with the replication material forming one or more diffractive optical elements , wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile and is sloped with an acute angle with respect to the surface of the substrate.
Doing so would provide an optical component that may be manufactured using a known method of imprinting and photolithography and provide a shape that is consistent with a desired application of the component.
Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al., fails to explicitly disclose
a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface, where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Tomita discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
placement of a masking layer external to a substrate 23 for irradiation and curing of a resist layer 27 (see e.g. Figure 2 and page 3, paragraphs 1-7). 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 Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al., with wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and wherein the masking layer is disposed on the backing, based on the placement of Tomita’s masking layer external to the substrate above the resist layer/replication material, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Tomita, 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 Duparré et al. with a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface.
Providing the masking layer external to the area in contact with the resist/replication material prevents unwanted light noise that may be detrimental to the exposure process (see e.g. Tomita, page 3, paragraph 8).
Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al. and Tomita fails to disclose
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Jeon et al. discloses
using a stamp to make a metasurface is disclosed (see e.g. abstract).
Given the teachings of Jeon 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 Duparré et al., in view of Tomita, with wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.
Using s stamp to provide a metasurface in a replication material would allow the method to be applied to metasurface applications/devices.
In regard to claim 17, Duparré et al. discloses an optical device comprising (see e.g. Figures 7a-b):
a substrate 100;
and a replication material 112 disposed on a surface of the substrate 100, wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile (see e.g. Figure 7 where the cured material 10 has a straight profile),
a masking layer 150 (see e.g. Figures 7a-b).
Duparré et al. fails to disclose
the replication material forming one or more diffractive optical elements,
the masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface.
wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile and is sloped with an obtuse angle with respect to the first surface of the substrate,
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Galarneu et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 7):
the replication material 10 forming one or more diffractive optical elements (see e.g. Column 4, lines 3-14), wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile (see e.g. Figure 7 where the cured material 10 has a straight profile).
Further, it would have been obvious to use a shape that is sloped with an obtuse angle with respect to the first surface of the substrate, since a change is shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Galarneu 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 Duparré et al. with the replication material forming one or more diffractive optical elements,
wherein a sidewall of the replication material has a straight profile and is sloped with an obtuse angle with respect to the first surface of the substrate.
Doing so would provide an optical component that may be manufactured using a known method of imprinting and photolithography and provide a shape that is consistent with a desired application of the component.
Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al., fails to explicitly disclose
a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface,
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Tomita discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
placement of a masking layer external to a substrate 23 for irradiation and curing of a resist layer 27 (see e.g. Figure 2 and page 3, paragraphs 1-7). 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 Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al., with wherein the masking layer is disposed on a second face of the stamp, the second face being opposite the face that is pressed into the first portion of the replication material, and wherein the masking layer is disposed on the backing, based on the placement of Tomita’s masking layer external to the substrate above the resist layer/replication material, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Tomita, 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 Duparré et al. with a masking layer disposed on a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being opposite the first surface.
Providing the masking layer external to the area in contact with the resist/replication material prevents unwanted light noise that may be detrimental to the exposure process (see e.g. Tomita, page 3, paragraph 8).
Duparré et al., in view of Galarneu et al. and Tomita fails to disclose
where a surface of the replication material facing away from the first surface of the substrate comprises a plurality of structures forming a metasurface.
However, Jeon et al. discloses
using a stamp to make a metasurface is disclosed (see e.g. abstract).
Given the teachings of Jeon 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 Duparré et al., in view of Tomita, with wherein the first face comprises structures configured to form a metasurface in the replication material.
Using s stamp to provide a metasurface in a replication material would allow the method to be applied to metasurface applications/devices.
In regard to claim 19, Duparré et al., in view of Galaraneu et al., discloses a module comprising: an optical device in accordance with claim 15 (see e.g. above rejection of claim 15).
Duparré et al. further discloses
at least one of a light-emitting device or a light-sensitive device (see e.g. paragraph [0059]); 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. paragraph [0059]).
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 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