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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 05/12/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 12, 17, and 23 are amended, Claims 18 and 23 are canceled/withdrawn, Claims 25 and 26 have been added, and Claims 1-17 and 23, 25, and 26 remain pending in the application, claims 10-17 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered.
On page 6 paragraph 3 of the remarks, applicant emphasizes that there is support for the amendment to claim 1 in the specification.
On page 6 paragraph 4 of the remarks, applicant summarizes the opinion of the Office offered in the last action. In order to reject the different embodiments in the claims, the Office used two different interpretations of Waldern in the Non-Final Rejection. One interpretation mapped the compensator layer to the ‘fold grating 104’ and the other interpretation mapped the compensator layer to the ‘light control layer 107.’
On page 6 paragraph 4 of the remarks, applicant expresses their traversal to these interpretations. Applicant notes that Walderns fold grating is designed to ‘direct light to the output grating and provide a first beam expansion,” paragraph [0013]. Applicant further asserts that there is no disclosure or suggestion in Waldern that the fold grating is can read on the amended limitation of: "configured to compensate for a polarization state change related to total internal reflection of light as it propagates in the waveguide," nor that it could be suitable for this purpose. The Office agrees with the assertion that Walderns fold grating cannot teach to the amendment to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection mapping the compensator layer to the ‘fold grating 104’ has been withdrawn.
On page 6 paragraph 5 continuing on to page 7 paragraph 1 of the remarks, applicant asserts that Walderns light control layer 107 cannot map to the amendment of claim 1. The Office disagrees with this assertion. Waldern teaches in para [0059]; “the light control layer has at least one region having reflection characteristics dependent on at least one property of the light incident on the region. In many embodiments, the property can be selected from spectral bandwidth, incidence angle range, and polarization state.” Further, Waldern teaches in para [0010]: “data modulated light into a total internal reflection path in said waveguide.” Therefore, paragraphs [0059] and [0010] of Waldern, taken as a whole, can teach to the amended limitation of “the first compensator layer is configured to compensate for a polarization state change related to total internal reflection of light as it propagates in the waveguide.” Therefore, the mapping of the compensator layer to the ‘light control layer 107’ is maintained and used as the primary rejection in the Final Rejection below.
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, 2-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), previously cited.
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 (annotated Figure 1 below);
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]);
wherein the first compensator layer (107) is configured to compensate for a polarization state change (“the light control layer has at least one region having reflection characteristics dependent on at least one property of the light incident on the region. In many embodiments, the property can be selected from spectral bandwidth, incidence angle range, and polarization state”; [0059]) related to total internal reflection of light as it propagates in the waveguide (“data modulated light into a total internal reflection path in said waveguide”; [0010]).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig 1 of Waldern
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 1 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 4, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the first compensator layer (107) 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, “a light control layer can be provided by a micro louvre film, which controls reflections by using a louvre structure to control the distribution of light perpendicular to the film”; [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 1: the first compensator layer (107) is continuous (see Fig. 1 in which 107 is continuous).
An alternate rejection of claim 1 is entered for the purpose of rejecting claim 2. This rejection flips the relative orientation of the ‘first surface’ and the ‘second surface’, see Figure 2 below.
Regarding claim 1, Waldern teaches in Fig. 2: a waveguide assembly (Fig. 2) comprising:
a waveguide (“waveguide 101”; [0054]) comprising a first surface and a second surface (annotated Figure 2 below);
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 (114) is disposed on the outer face of the waveguide”; [0058]) on the first surface (first surface being the top portion of 101, see annotated Figure 2 below) of the waveguide (101), the first compensator layer (114) 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]);
wherein the first compensator layer (114) is configured to compensate for a polarization state change (“the light control layer has at least one region having reflection characteristics dependent on at least one property of the light incident on the region. In many embodiments, the property can be selected from spectral bandwidth, incidence angle range, and polarization state”; [0059]) related to total internal reflection of light as it propagates in the waveguide (“data modulated light into a total internal reflection path in said waveguide”; [0010]).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated fig 2 of Waldern
Regarding claim 2, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern further teaches in Fig. 2: the input deflection (103) grating and the output deflection grating (105) are located on the first surface of the waveguide (see annotated Figure 2 above which shows the gratings on the first surface of the waveguide).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), previously presented.
Regarding claim 5, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Waldern fails to teach to the limitations of claim 5. However, in an alternate embodiment as described in Fig. 4, Waldern teaches a first light control layer 116 as well as: a second compensator layer on the second surface (see annotated Figure 3 below) of the waveguide (upper light control layer 117; [0059]), the second compensator layer (117) comprising a second material selected from the group consisting of aligned liquid crystal reactive mesogens, birefringent polymers, and inorganic birefringent materials (“a light control layer can be provided by a birefringent film, which can be used to perform various polarization control functions such as but not limited to retardation and/or polarization selection”; [0060]).
Waldern further teaches this configuration such that “the light control layer can be applied directly to an outer surface of a waveguide substrate” (Waldern, [0060]). Further teaching that, “the light control layer is formed by a stack of layers each containing a region providing reflection in spectral bandwidth substantially narrower than the first spectral band or the second band” (Waldern, [0062]).
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 the embodiments of Waldern to provide a device comprising “a second compensator layer on the second surface of the waveguide, the second compensator layer comprising a second material selected from the group consisting of aligned liquid crystal reactive mesogens, birefringent polymers, and inorganic birefringent materials,” for the purpose of providing reflection for a predetermined spectral bandwidth (Waldern, [0062]).
PNG
media_image3.png
218
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Annotated Fig 4 of Waldern
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waldern (US 20190285796 A1), hereinafter Waldern796, previously cited.
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]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), previously cited, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Huck (US 20050123229 A1), previously cited.
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]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waldern (US 20190212588 A1), hereinafter Waldern588, previously cited.
Regarding claim 23, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to explicitly teach: the first material comprises a birefringent material having 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 first material comprises a birefringent material having 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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), previously cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 12379596 B2), newly cited.
Regarding claim 25, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to explicitly teach: the input deflection grating and/or the output deflection grating comprises a polarization volume grating (PVG).
However, in a related invention in the field of polarization compensators, Lee teaches in Fig. 1: the input deflection grating and/or the output deflection grating comprises a polarization volume grating (PVG) (“The input polarization volume grating 12 is disposed to deflect an input polarized electromagnetic wave 11 into a waveguide 13 in a total internal reflection manner. The input polarization volume grating 12 is, for example, a reflective polarization volume grating”; col 3 lines 41-45, Fig. 1).
Furthermore, Lee teaches this configuration such that “[t]he input polarization volume grating 12 is, for example, a reflective polarization volume grating. It can reduce the light leakage at input side with a thin waveguide” (Lee, col 3 lines 43-46).
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 Lee to provide a device in which the input deflection grating and/or the output deflection grating comprises a polarization volume grating (PVG), for the purpose of reducing the light leakage at the input side with a thin waveguide (Lee, col 3 lines 43-46).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldern (US 20200225471 A1), precisely cited, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodgate (US 20190215509 A1), newly cited.
Regarding claim 26, Waldern teaches the waveguide assembly of claim 1. Waldern fails to teach: the first compensator layer comprises a positive A-plate with optical axis along the direction of light propagation in the waveguide (Ax+).
However, in an alternate invention in the field of waveguides, Woodgate teaches: the first compensator layer comprises a positive A-plate with optical axis along the direction of light propagation in the waveguide (Ax+) (“The pair of retarders may each comprise a single A-plate”; [0021], “A positive A-plate refers to positively birefringent A-plates, i.e. A-plates with a positive Δn”; [0230], “In the present disclosure an ‘A-plate’ refers to an optical retarder utilizing a layer of birefringent material with its optical axis parallel to the plane of the layer”; [0229]).
Furthermore, Woodgate teaches this configuration such that “said retarders are arranged to provide compensation for the variation in birefringence of liquid crystal molecules with viewing angles. Such compensation is arranged to provide increased display contrast for off-axis viewing locations. The contrast viewing angle properties of the display may thus be increased” (Woodgate, [0244]).
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 Woodgate to provide a device in which the first compensator layer comprises a positive A-plate with optical axis along the direction of light propagation in the waveguide (Ax+), for the purpose of providing increased display contrast for off-axis viewing locations (Woodgate, [0244]).
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.
US 9915825 B2 - An apparatus for use in replicating an image associated with an input-pupil to an output-pupil includes a planar optical waveguide including a bulk-substrate, and also including an input-coupler, an intermediate-component and an output-coupler. See Fig. 8.
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 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
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary 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)).
Prosecution Insights