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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on PRO 63/199,004 dated 12/01/2020.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 including Claims 1-9, 21, and 23 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Offices’ use of Wheelwright (WO 2020251758 A1) is in error. Applicant asserts that the Office cited to element 450 to satisfy both the input coupler and cementation layer which therefore would not satisfy the constraints of the instant application.
The Office notes that the Restriction Requirement dated September 16, 2025 did not correctly address the rejection of the special technical feature of the instant application due to the incorrect assertion using Wheelwright. However, there is still clearly a lack of unity between the independent claims of the instant application. Furthermore, there is no shared special technical feature between the independent claims as taught by newly introduced art Waldern (US 20200225471 A1). See the Non-Final rejection below in which Waldern anticipates independent claim 1.
Therefore, the argument is not found to be persuasive due to newly cited Waldern.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additionally, Applicant notes that the ISR Written Opinion encompassed both Groups I and II and therefore would not place undue burden on the Examiner. The Office notes that the findings of the ISR are nonbinding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldern (US 20200225471 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Waldern teaches in Fig. 1: a waveguide assembly (Fig. 1) comprising:
a waveguide (“waveguide 101”; [0054]) comprising a first surface and a second surface (see Fig. 1);
an input deflection grating (“an input coupler grating 103”; [0054]);
an output deflection grating (“an output grating 105”; [0054]); and
a first compensator layer (“a fold grating 104”; [0054]) on the first surface (first surface being a top portion of 101, see annotated Figure 1 in which the first surface of the waveguide 101 is represented by the interface between the waveguide and the layer above it containing the input and output couplers) of the waveguide (101), the first compensator layer (104) comprising a first material (“The gratings can be implemented in multiple layers or in a single layer. In many embodiments, the gratings are Bragg gratings recorded in a holographic photopolymer, in a HPDLC material, or in a uniform modulation holographic liquid crystal polymer material”; [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
247
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 1 of Waldern
Regarding claim 2, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the input deflection grating (103) and the output deflection grating (105) are located on the first surface of the waveguide (101) (see Fig. 1 in which 103 and 105 are located on the first surface of 101).
Regarding claim 4, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the first compensator layer (104) has an optical axis aligned perpendicular to a direction of light propagation in the waveguide (101) (see Fig. 1 in which light generally propagates from left to right such that the optical axis of 104 is perpendicular to the direction of light travel).
Regarding claim 5, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: a second compensator layer (“a light control layer 107”; [0054]) on the second surface (bottom surface of 101) of the waveguide (101), the second compensator layer (107) comprising a second material selected from the group consisting of aligned liquid crystal reactive mesogens, birefringent polymers, and inorganic birefringent materials (“at least one light control layer comprises at least one layer comprising at least one selected from the group of a narrow band interference filter, a dichroic filter, a reflection hologram, a micro louvre film, a birefringent film, a reflective polarizer, a polarization selective film, a film containing microparticles, a transparent substrate and an air space”; [0019], Waldern does not specify whether the “birefringent film” is made from organic or inorganic materials which therefore means either type of film is possible).
The following secondary rejection of Claim 1 is entered for the purpose of rejecting Claims 3 and 6:
Regarding claim 1, Waldern teaches in Fig. 1: a waveguide assembly (Fig. 1) comprising:
a waveguide (“waveguide 101”; [0054]) comprising a first surface and a second surface (see Fig. 5);
an input deflection grating (“an input coupler grating 103”; [0054]);
an output deflection grating (“an output grating 105”; [0054]); and
a first compensator layer (“a light control layer 107”; [0054]) on the first surface (first surface being the bottom portion of 101) of the waveguide (101), the first compensator layer (107) comprising a first material (“at least one light control layer comprises at least one layer comprising at least one selected from the group of a narrow band interference filter, a dichroic filter, a reflection hologram, a micro louvre film, a birefringent film, a reflective polarizer, a polarization selective film, a film containing microparticles, a transparent substrate and an air space”; [0019]).
PNG
media_image2.png
245
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Fig 1 of Waldern - alternative interpretation
Regarding claim 3, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the input deflection grating (103) and the output deflection (105) grating are located on the second surface of the waveguide (101) (see annotated Figure 2 in which the second surface corresponds to the top portion of waveguide 101 which is represented by the interface between the waveguide and the layer above it containing the input and output couplers).
Regarding claim 6, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the first compensator layer (107) is continuous (“a light control layer 107 applied to an external surface of the waveguide overlapping the grating layer. For the purposes of explaining embodiments, the light control layer will be considered to be a coating or film applied to the outer surface of one or both of the waveguide substrates sandwiching the grating layer”; [0054], see Fig. 1).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waldern (US 20190285796 A1), hereinafter Waldern796.
Regarding claim 7, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to explicitly teach: the first material comprises aligned liquid crystal reactive mesogens.
However, in a related invention in the field of waveguides, Waldern796 teaches in Fig. 3: the first material comprises aligned liquid crystal reactive mesogens (“the birefringence control layer is formed at least in part from a Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP) Network. LCPs, which have also been referred to in the literature as reactive mesogens, are polymerizable liquid crystals containing liquid crystalline monomers that include, for example, reactive acrylate end group”; [0105], see birefringence control layer 307 in Fig. 3).
Furthermore, Waldern796 teaches this configuration such that “reactive mesogens, are polymerizable liquid crystals containing liquid crystalline monomers that include, for example, reactive acrylate end groups, which polymerize with one another in the presence of photo-initiators and directional UV light to form a rigid network. The mutual polymerization of the ends of the liquid crystal molecules can freeze their orientation into a three-dimensional pattern” and “birefringence control layers… based on LCPs or LPPs provide quarter or half-wave retardation layers” (Waldern796, [0105]).
Furthermore, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waldern to incorporate the teachings of Waldern796 to provide a device in which the first material comprises aligned liquid crystal reactive mesogens, for the purpose of freezing the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules in order to provide quarter or half wave retardation layers (Waldern796, [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to explicitly teach: the first material comprises a birefringent polymer.
However, in a related invention in the field of waveguides, Waldern796 teaches in Fig. 3: the first material comprises a birefringent polymer (“the birefringence control layer is a liquid crystal and polymer material system”; [0013], see birefringence control layer 307 in Fig. 3, “the birefringence control layer is formed at least in part from a Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP) Network”; [0105]).
Furthermore, Waldern796 teaches this configuration such that “birefringence control layers… based on LCPs or LPPs provide quarter or half-wave retardation layers” (Waldern796, [0105]).
Furthermore, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waldern to incorporate the teachings of Waldern796 to provide a device in which the first material comprises a birefringent polymer, for the purpose of proving a quarter or half wave retardation layers (Waldern796, [0105]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waldern (US 20190212588 A1), hereinafter Waldern588.
Regarding claim 21, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to explicitly teach: the first material comprises a birefringent material.
However, in a related invention in the field of waveguides, Waldern588 teaches in Fig. 1A: the first material comprises a birefringent material (“Nematic LC materials can provide a range of birefringence”; [0093]).
Furthermore, Waldern588 teaches this configuration such that “Nematic LC materials can provide a range of birefringence (which can translate to refractive index modulation)” (Waldern588, [0093]).
Furthermore, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waldern to incorporate the teachings of Waldern588 to provide a device in which the birefringent material has a birefringence in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.5, for the purpose of refractive index modulation (Waldern588, [0093]).
Regarding claim 23, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to explicitly teach: the birefringent material has a birefringence in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.5.
However, in a related invention in the field of waveguides, Waldern588 teaches in Fig. 1A: the birefringent material has a birefringence in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.5 (“Nematic LC materials can provide a range of birefringence (which can translate to refractive index modulation). Low to medium birefringence typically covers the range of 0.09-0.12. However, gratings can be designed using much lower birefringence values”; [0093]).
Furthermore, Waldern588 teaches this configuration such that “Nematic LC materials can provide a range of birefringence (which can translate to refractive index modulation)” (Waldern588, [0093]).
It has been held 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 Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the birefringence in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.5, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.09-0.12, since it has been held 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) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waldern and Waldern796 to incorporate the teachings of Waldern588 to provide a device in which the birefringent material has a birefringence in the range of about 0.05 to about 0.5, for the purpose of refractive index modulation (Waldern588, [0093]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Huck (US 20050123229 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the first material comprises an inorganic birefringent material (“at least one light control layer comprises at least one layer comprising at least one selected from the group of a narrow band interference filter, a dichroic filter, a reflection hologram, a micro louvre film, a birefringent film, a reflective polarizer, a polarization selective film, a film containing microparticles, a transparent substrate and an air space”; [0019], Waldern does not specify whether the “birefringent film” is made from organic or inorganic materials which therefore means either type of film is possible).
Waldern does not explicitly state that the birefringent material is inorganic.
However, in related invention in the field of waveguides, Huck teaches in para [0049]: “Optically anisotropic material may be inorganic such as inorganic birefringent crystals or organic, such as liquid crystalline material.”
Furthermore, Huck teaches this configuration such that “the optical waveguide or the material present in the recesses is selected to be optically anisotropic to allow polarization-selective beam reflection and refraction at the interface when unpolarized waveguided light is incident thereon. As optically anisotropic material liquid crystal material may be suitably used” (Huck, [0003]).
Therefore, with the provision that the birefringent material can be organic or inorganic as taught by Huck in para [0049], this is a genus of only 2 species, (a) the birefringent material is organic, (b) the birefringent material is inorganic. Thus, because this is a genus with only two species all of them would be at once envisaged by an ordinary skilled artisan1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waldern to incorporate the teachings of Huck to provide a device in which the first material comprises an inorganic birefringent material, for the purpose of allowing for polarization-selective beam reflection and refraction (Huck, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12072492 B2 – optical waveguide wherein the input and output grating are on same surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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 Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).