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 .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/29/2026 has been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the change of claim scope brought about by modified claim limitations. The claims as currently written do not clearly describe the SRG to someone skilled in the art. Because of this confusion the claims have been rejected under 35 USC 11(b), with a full explanation regarding the issues.
Based on the instant disclosure, it is the examiner’s understanding that the inventive concept coupled to the claimed devices relates to controlling of the thickness of a residual layer present when forming a grating device by; taking into consideration correlations between the variation of resist volume and the height of the structures that makeup the gratings, and applying the knowledge of said correlations in the production of templates whose implementation allow the total volume of the displaced resist to remain constant and be independent of the height of the structures that comprise the SRG. This concept seems to be explained in the specification paragraph [0031]. It is the examiner’s understanding that the current claims include equations that relate residual thickness to duty cycle, but they do not address quantities such as the initial volume of the dispensed resist, the floor height of the SRG structures on the template, or any other physical characteristics of the either the template or the resulting grating to achieve the desired result, all of which appear to be significant aspects of the inventive concept. It is not apparent how the current claims, with the current equations capture the concepts described in paragraph [0031] where the change in resist volume remains constant or vary as little as possible, as described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 1 and 13, the claims recite both “…the at least one waveguide material including patterns that alternate between structures and∆RLT) over the SRG which adheres to ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| wherein DT is a duty cycle of pattern and hSRG is a height of a structure…”. It is unclear what does and does not constitute a “pattern” (and by extension a “first pattern” and a “second pattern” as the terms appear in claims 1 and 13, or their dependents) (see the claim interpretation section below for further discussion). Thus, it is unclear
whether the referenced alternation is occurring within an individual pattern, or whether the change defining an instance of alternation only occurs when transitioning from one pattern to the next,
whether patterns that do not have a substantially same first pitch over at least a first part of the substrate adhere to the equation in the same way as the first pattern,
whether the equation applies to individual patterns, or to all patterns collectively (I.E, whether DT is s duty cycle of the first pattern, another pattern, or some combination thereof),
whether the referenced change in RLT occurs between patterns or between locations within an individual pattern, and
which hSRG is to be considered when solving for a given term.
Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes a “structure”. Thus, it is unclear
whether or not the residual layer thickness at a particular location is a part of said structure.
The claims are indefinite because the create a great deal of confusion regarding the structure of the device.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recites “…a duty cycle DT of the plurality of structures is based on a nonzero target change in residual layer thickness (∆RLT) of a material to be imprinted by the template on a substrate such that ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hp|, where hp is a height of a structure…”. The phrase “…is based on…” does not bound the structure of the claimed device beyond noting the existence of some relationship involving DT. It is unclear if said relationship is between DT and ∆|RLT|, between DT and the particular condition wherein the target delta RLT is 0, or some other interpretation. Furthermore, it is unclear if different structures can have different heights, and in turn whether or not hp changes depending on which structure is to be considered. The claim is indefinite because it creates a great deal of confusion regarding the structure of the device.
Claim groups 2-11, 14-18, and 20 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1, 13, and 19, on which the groups respectively depend.
The above 112(b) rejections are made with a broadest reasonable claim interpretation, made in light of the specification, while not incorporating the specification into the claims, consistent with guidance in MPEP § 2111. The specification shows, in fig. 2, a surface relief grating 108 on the right side having substrate 208, resist 212, pillar structures 224 and indentations 228. In fig. 2, right side, the pillar structures 224 on the left are taller and the pillar structures on the right are shorter. Similarly, the indentations 228 on the left are deeper and the indentations 228 on the right are shallower. It is not apparent from the figure if the structures on the left and right have the same or different duty cycles. The description of fig. 2 does not discuss the duty cycle. From a claim interpretation point of view, it is not apparent if what is shown on the right side of fig. 2 is all of the claimed “patterns” or if it is only the “first pattern”. Claim 7 introduces the “second pattern” with structures having a different height from the first structures. Is this shown in fig. 2 or a different figure?
It is recommended that the claims accurately reflect the inventive concepts as described in the specification, where different portions of the SRGs have relationships between the structure height and the indentation depth (which correlates to the residual layer thickness) and how that impacts the change or non-change in resist volume. It is further recommended that the claims use the language from the specification so that the skilled artisan can clearly understand where the claimed invention is disclosed, where the first pattern and second pattern are shown in the figures and where they are described in the specification. Claims with clear claim language describing the disclosed invention would likely avoid similar 112(b) issues.
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, 3-9, 12, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 20180107110 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Singh discloses a waveguide, comprising:
a substrate (Singh/Fig4a/Substrate 102); and
a surface relief grating (SRG) comprising at least one waveguide material on the substrate, the at least one waveguide material including patterns that alternate between structures and
the patterns have a nonzero change in residual layer thickness (∆RLT) (Fig4a/Step 406/Residual layer 182) over the SRG which adheres to ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| wherein DT is a duty cycle of pattern and hSRG is a height of a structure (Fig4a/Step 406/∆RLT between instances of 428).
With regards to claim 3, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein ∆RLT over a length of a first part of the substrate is less than about 10nm/mm (Singh/Figs3-4a; Paragraph 44).
With regards to claim 4, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the duty cycle is between 20% and 80% (Singh/Fig4a/Steps 404 and 406).
With regards to claim 5, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the duty cycle is between 10% and 90% (Singh/Fig4a/Steps 404 and 406).
With regards to claim 6, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein at least some of the structures have substantially same heights (Singh/Fig4a/Steps 404 and 406).
With regards to claim 7, Singh discloses the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein at least a second pattern has the first pitch over at least a second part of the substrate (Singh/Fig3), and wherein heights of structures (Singh/Fig3/Different structure heights [Heights A and B labeled by examiner as shown below]) of the first pattern are different than heights of the structures of the second pattern (Fig3/Heights A and B as indicated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 9, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 7, wherein ∆RLT over a length of the first part of the substrate and a length of the second part of the substrate (Singh/Figs3-4a; Paragraph 44).
With regards to claim 13, Singh discloses a head mounted device (HMD), comprising:
a wearable frame (Singh/Fig8a/Wearable frame 854 [Glasses]);
a waveguide attached to the frame (Singh/Fig8a/Waveguide 850 [Waveguide]), the waveguide including:
a substrate (Singh/Fig4a/Substrate 102); and
a surface relief grating (SRG) comprising at least one waveguide material on the substrate, the at least one waveguide material including patterns that alternate between structures and indentations, at least a first pattern having a substantially same first pitch over at least a first part of the substrate (Fig4a/Step 406/Waveguide material 180 and patterns 428), wherein
the at least one waveguide material has a nonzero change in residual layer thickness (∆RLT) (Fig4a/Step 406/Residual layer 182) over the SRG which adheres to ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| wherein DT is a duty cycle of pattern and hSRG is a height of a structure (Fig4a/Step 406/∆RLT between instances of 428).
With regards to claim 14, Singh teaches the HMD of claim 13 wherein at least a second pattern has the first pitch over at least a second part of the substrate (Fig3), and wherein heights of structures of the first pattern are different than heights of the structures of the second pattern (Fig3/Heights A and B as indicated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 19, Singh discloses a template for imprinting optical gratings, comprising:
a base (Singh/Fig4a/Step 404/Portion of element 112 above elements 424); and
a plurality of structures protruding from the base and arranged at a substantially same pitch over at least part of the base (Singh/Fig4a/Step 404/Portion of element 112 at the depth of elements 424), wherein a duty cycle DT of the plurality of structures is based on a nonzero target change in residual layer thickness (∆RLT) (Fig4a/Step 406/Residual layer 182) of a material to be imprinted by the template on a substrate such that ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hp|, where hp is a height of a structure (Fig4a/Step 406/∆RLT between instances of 428).
With regards to claim 20, Singh teaches the template of claim 19 as previously discussed, wherein the duty cycle of the plurality of structures is between 20% and 80% (Singh/Fig4a/Steps 404 and 406).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180107110 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tanaka (US 20150234287 A1).
With regards to claim 2, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, but does not specifically teach a RLT value of at least one pattern to be about 20nm. However, the practice of selecting a RLT of about 20nm exists in the art as exemplified by Tanaka. Singh and Tanaka are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Tanaka discloses a maximum RLT of about 20nm (Tanaka/Paragraph 69/Lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an RLT of around 20nm since doing so would provide a base for the structures that does not significantly increase the overall thickness of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180107110 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mohanty (US 11307357 B2).
With regards to claim 8, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 7 as previously discussed, wherein the heights of the structures in the first pattern are greater than the heights of the structures in the second pattern (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/Different structure heights [Heights A and B as labeled by examiner as shown below]),
PNG
media_image1.png
280
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but does not teach the duty cycle of the second pattern as being greater than the duty cycle of the first pattern. However, the practice of including feature patterns with different duty cycles within a grating exists in the art, as exemplified by Mohanty. Singh and Mohanty are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Mohanty discloses a waveguide comprising feature patterns with different duty cycles (Mohanty/Fig9a/Waveguide 900 [Waveguide display]; First and second patterns p1 and p2). 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 duty cycle of the second set of structures within the waveguide taught by Singh such that the duty cycle of the second pattern was greater than the duty cycle of the first pattern, as suggested by Mohanty, since doing so would allow for a greater degree of choice with regards to the possible outputs of the waveguide.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180107110 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colburn (US 10613268 B1).
With regards to claim 10, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, but does not teach the at least one waveguide material as comprising a first waveguide material with a first refractive index and a second waveguide material with a second refractive index different from the first refractive index, or by extension, the first pattern as comprising structures formed in the first waveguide material and structures formed in the second waveguide material. However, the practice of forming positive waveguide grating features from layered materials exists in the art as exemplified by Colburn. Singh and Colburn are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Colburn discloses positive grating structures comprising different materials with distinct refractive indices (Colburn/Fig3/Column 14/Lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first structures of the waveguide taught by Singh from different materials with distinct refractive indices as suggested by Colburn, since doing so would allow for a greater degree of choice and control with regards to the optical properties of the first structures.
With regards to claim 11, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, but does not teach the at least one waveguide material as comprises a first waveguide material with a first refractive index and a second waveguide material with a second refractive index different from the first refractive index, or by extension, at least one of the structures as comprising a stacked structure of the first waveguide material and the second waveguide material. However, the practice of forming positive waveguide grating features from layered materials exists in the art as exemplified by Colburn. Singh and Colburn are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Colburn discloses positive grating structures comprising different materials with distinct refractive indices (Colburn/Fig3/Column 14/Lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first structures of the waveguide taught by Singh from different materials with distinct refractive indices in a stacked configuration as suggested by Colburn, since doing so would allow for a greater degree of choice and control with regards to the optical properties of the first structures.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180107110 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mohanty (US 11307357 B2).
With regards to claim 15, Singh teaches the HMD of claim 14 as previously discussed, wherein the first structures have greater heights than the second structures (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/Different structure heights [Heights A and B as labeled by examiner as shown below]),
PNG
media_image1.png
280
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but does not teach a duty cycle of the second pattern as being greater than the duty cycle of the first pattern. However, the practice of including feature patterns with different duty cycles within a grating exists in the art, as exemplified by Mohanty. Singh and Mohanty are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Mohanty discloses a waveguide comprising feature patterns with different duty cycles (Mohanty/Fig9a/Waveguide 900 [Waveguide display]; First and second patterns p1 and p2). 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 duty cycle of the second set of structures within the waveguide taught by Singh such that the duty cycle of the second pattern was greater than the duty cycle of the first pattern, as suggested by Mohanty, since doing so would allow for a greater degree of choice with regards to the possible outputs of the waveguide.
With regards to claim 16, Singh and Mohanty together teach the HMD of claim 15 as previously discussed, wherein ∆|RLT| over the length of the first part of the substrate and the second part of the substrate is less than 50nm/mm (Singh/Paragraph 16).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20180107110 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Colburn (US 10613268 B1).
With regards to claim 17, Singh teaches the HMD of claim 13 as previously discussed, but does not teach the at least one waveguide material as comprising a first waveguide material with a first refractive index and a second waveguide material with a second refractive index different from the first refractive index, or by extension, the first structures in the first pattern as comprising structures formed in the first waveguide material and structures formed in the second waveguide material. However, the practice of forming positive waveguide grating features from layered materials exists in the art as exemplified by Colburn. Singh and Colburn are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Colburn discloses positive grating structures comprising different materials with distinct refractive indices (Colburn/Fig3/Column 14/Lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first structures of the waveguide taught by Singh from different materials with distinct refractive indices as suggested by Colburn, since doing so would allow for a greater degree of choice and control with regards to the optical properties of the first structures.
With regards to claim 18, Singh teaches the HMD of claim 13 as previously discussed, but does not teach the at least one waveguide material as comprises a first waveguide material with a first refractive index and a second waveguide material with a second refractive index different from the first refractive index, or by extension, at least one of the first structures as comprising a stacked structure of the first waveguide material and the second waveguide material. However, the practice of forming positive waveguide grating features from layered materials exists in the art as exemplified by Colburn. Singh and Colburn are considered to be analogous in the field of waveguide gratings.
Colburn discloses positive grating structures comprising different materials with distinct refractive indices (Colburn/Fig3/Column 14/Lines 15-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first structures of the waveguide taught by Singh from different materials with distinct refractive indices in a stacked configuration as suggested by Colburn, since doing so would allow for a greater degree of choice and control with regards to the optical properties of the first structures.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights