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 12/01/2025 has been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 7-9 of the remarks received 12/01/2025) with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 13, and 19 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regard to the position taken in the previous office action addressing certain claim limitations as product-by-process limitations. These rejections have been reevaluated and the claims have been rejected as explained below.
The following is examiners understanding of the equations used in the instant claims. The equation ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| has two terms. The second term ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| represents a change in a value. The value is determined by multiplying the term (DT-1) by the height of each first structure in the first part of the first pattern of the claimed SRG. If each first structure has the same height, then the change in heights of the first structures is zero and the second term ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| = 0. If ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| = 0, then claim equation is satisfied when ∆|RLT| = 0.
Singh discloses an SRG having a first pattern with a first part where in the first part, the first structures have uniform height. Thus, Singh does disclose at least one embodiment adhering to ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG| and ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hp|, and by extension discloses the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 19 (See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 section of this office action).
Examiner’s note: The examiner further notes that according the instant disclosure “…A thickness of the residual layer depends on the initial volume of dispensed resist and the feature sizes of the patterns or structures of the mold or template that imprints the resist….”, and the desired outcomes with regard to the variation of ∆RLT is achieved “…by controlling a duty cycle of SRG structures on the template and/or by controlling a floor height of the SRG structures on the template…” (Spec. [0031]). The current claims include equations that relate the ∆RLT with duty cycle, but they do not address 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 SRG to achieve the desired result, all of which appear to be significant aspects of the inventive concept surrounding the formation of the SRG.
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 teaches a waveguide, comprising:
a substrate (Singh/Fig3/Substrate 102 [Substrate]); and
a surface relief grating (SRG) comprising at least one waveguide material on the substrate (Singh/Fig3/SRG 180 [Patterned layer]), the at least one waveguide material (Singh/Fig3/Material composing element 180) including a first pattern (Singh/Fig3/Pattern defined by T2) that alternates between first structures (Singh/Fig3/First structures 182b [Protrusions]) and first indentations (Fig3/First indentations 184b [Recessions; rightmost instance of label 184b]), the first pattern having a substantially same first pitch (Singh/Fig3/First pitch [Unlabeled; identical distances between equivalent points on structures across substrate]) over at least a first part of the substrate (Singh/Fig3/First part of substrate [Unlabeled; region defined by T2]), wherein
a change in residual layer thickness (∆RLT) of the at least one waveguide material on the substrate over a length of the first part of the substrate (Fig3/Length defined by presence of T1 and features 182a) adheres to ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG|, wherein DT is a duty cycle of the first pattern and hSRG is a height of each first structure (Fig3/[Discloses condition where ∆RLT = 0]).
With regards to claim 3, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein ∆RLT over the length of the first part of the substrate is less than about 10nm/mm (Singh/Fig3 [∆RLT = 0]).
With regards to claim 4, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the duty cycle of the first pattern is between 20% and 80% (Singh/Fig3/approx. 50% duty cycle visible).
With regards to claim 5, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the duty cycle of the first pattern is between 10% and 90% (Singh/Fig3/approx. 50% duty cycle visible).
With regards to claim 6, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the first structures have substantially same heights (Singh/Fig3).
With regards to claim 7, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 1 as previously discussed, wherein the at least one waveguide material includes a second pattern (Singh/Fig3/Pattern defined by T1) that alternates between second structures (Singh/Fig3/Second structures 182a [Protrusions]) and second indentations (Singh/Fig3/Second indentations 184b [Recessions; leftmost instance of label 184b]), the second pattern having the first pitch over at least a second part of the substrate (Singh/Fig3/Second part of the substrate [Unlabeled; region defined by T1]), and wherein the first structures have different heights than the second structures (Singh/Fig3/Different structure heights [Heights A and B labeled by examiner as shown below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 9, Singh teaches the waveguide of claim 7 as previously discussed, wherein ∆RLT over the length of the first part of the substrate and a length of the second part of the substrate (Fig3/Length defined by presence of T2 and features 182b) are each less than 50nm/mm (Fig3/[Discloses conditions where ∆RLT = 0 for each individual length]).
With regards to claim 13, Singh teaches 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/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/Substrate 102 [Substrate]);
and a surface relief grating (SRG) comprising at least one waveguide material on the substrate (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/SRG 180 [Patterned layer]), the at least one waveguide material including a first pattern that alternates between first structures (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/First structures 182b [Protrusions]) and first indentations (Fig3/First indentations 184b [Recessions; rightmost instance of label 184b]), the first pattern having a substantially same first pitch over at least a first part of the substrate (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/First pitch [Unlabeled; identical distances between equivalent points on structures across substrate]), wherein
a change in residual layer thickness (∆RLT) of the at least one waveguide material on the substrate over a length of the first part of the substrate (Fig3/Length defined by presence of T1 and features 182a) adheres to ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hSRG|, wherein DT is a duty cycle of the first pattern and hSRG is a height of each first structure (Fig3/[Discloses condition where ∆RLT = 0]), and
an image generating device that generates light input to the waveguide (Singh/Paragraph 82/"…The system 800 can receive data representing image (e.g., from a processor) and project the image onto a region 802 on a lens 804 of the system 800…").
With regards to claim 14, Singh teaches the HMD of claim 13 as previously discussed, wherein the at least one waveguide material includes a second pattern that alternates between second structures (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/Second structures 182a [Protrusions]) and second indentations (Fig3/Second indentations 184b [Recessions; leftmost instance of label 184b]), the second pattern having the first pitch over at least a second part of the substrate (Singh/ Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/First pitch [Unlabeled; identical distances between equivalent points on structures across substrate]), and wherein the first structures have different heights than the second structures (Singh/Paragraph 84/Lines 1-5; Fig3/Different structure heights [Heights A and B labeled by examiner as shown below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 19, Singh teaches a template for imprinting optical gratings, comprising:
a base (Singh/Fig4b/404b/Base [Unlabeled; upper portion of template 112, above any protrusions]); and
a plurality of structures (Singh/Fig4b/404b/Base [Unlabeled; protrusions disposed on lower portion of element 112 within region 421]) protruding from the base and arranged at a substantially same pitch (Singh/Fig4b/404b/Pitch [Unlabeled; identical distances between equivalent points on structures across substrate within region 421) over at least part of the base, wherein
a duty cycle DT of the plurality of structures is based on a target residual layer thickness (∆RLT) of a material to be imprinted by the template such that ∆|RLT| = ∆|(DT-1)*hp|, where hp is a height of each structure (Fig4b/[Discloses condition where ∆RLT = 0]).
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/Fig3/approx. 50% duty cycle visible).
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 about 20nm for the residual layer. 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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
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