DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 01/20/2026) with respect to claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-19 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant should consider arguing against the merit of the case law rejections of record.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 10, and 18 each rely upon Basset’s own definitions of ridges and grooves. However, the examiner considers the left half of Basset’s bottom 2 tiers of PMMA to form a first ridge, the right half to form a second ridge, and ZnS to form grooves (see Basset’s Fig. 3). Thus, as claimed, a period between the left and right halves of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA is the same.
Applicant has also amended claim 12, claiming that first and second periodic arrangements of structures are “configured to” produce first, second, and third reflection peaks. Despite such peaks being shown in Figure 24 of Basset, the first and second period arrangements of structures are also inherently configured to produce first/second/third reflection peaks if different types of light are used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-7, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Basset ("Meta Resonant Waveguide-Gratings Providing Selective Diffraction." ARVIX.ORG, Cornell University Library, 201 Olin Library Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853, 9 August 2020; of record).
Regarding claim 1, Basset discloses an optical combiner, comprising:
a first layer (Fig. 3, the bottom 2 tiers of the 4 tiers stacked within the MRWG) comprising a periodic arrangement of structures (Fig. 3, ZnS and PMMA structures), wherein the structures comprise a material with a first refractive index (Fig. 3, ZnS has a refractive index of about 2.37), wherein the structures in the first layer comprise a plurality of parallel ridges extending along a first direction (Fig. 3, the left half of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA forms a first ridge & the right half of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA forms a second ridge), wherein the ridges are separated by linear grooves (Fig. 3, grooves are formed by ZnS), wherein a period between each of the ridges of the plurality of parallel ridges is the same (Fig. 3, the periods of the left and right halves of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA are the same);
a second layer (Fig. 3, the top 2 tiers of the MRWG) that overlies the structures on the first layer (Fig. 3, the top 2 tiers of the MRWG overlie the bottom 2 tiers), wherein the second layer comprises a material with a second refractive index (Fig. 3, PMMA has an index of about 1.49), and wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index, measured at 587.5 nm, is less than 1.5 (wherein a difference between 2.37 and 1.49 is 0.88); and
wherein the periodic arrangement of structures is configured such that the optical combiner produces, for an input signal incident on the first layer from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than 20° (Fig. 24), an output signal comprising three reflection peaks (Fig. 24).
Basset fails to explicitly disclose wherein each reflection peak has an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of designing an optical system includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, materials used, distances between components, and shapes/sizes of optical features, in order to allow a system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless a particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the average reflection of Basset’s reflection peaks, such that each reflection peak was to have an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle, since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the average reflection values of the peaks such that the threshold was satisfied, motivated by optimizing signal transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Basset discloses wherein the elevation angle is between 50° to 60° (Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 3, Basset discloses wherein the input signal is polarized (page 6 line 2).
Regarding claim 4, Basset discloses wherein the input signal is TM polarized (p-polarized) (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Basset discloses wherein the input signal comprises red, blue and green (RGB) wavelengths of visible light (Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 6, Basset discloses wherein the output signal comprises the reflection peaks over a wavelength range of 400 nm to 2 microns (µm) (Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 7, Basset discloses wherein the optical combiner produces the output signal over an azimuthal angular range of -5° to 5° in a plane normal to a plane of incidence of the input signal.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of designing an optical system includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, materials used, distances between components, and shapes/sizes of optical features, in order to allow a system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless a particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the optical combiner such that the output signal was produced over an azimuthal angular range of -5° to 5°, since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the output signal such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by optimizing optical coherence.
Regarding claim 10, Basset discloses an optical combiner film, the film comprising:
a structured layer (Fig. 3, the bottom 2 tiers of the 4 tiers stacked within the MRWG) overlain by a cover layer (Fig. 3, the top 2 tiers of the MRWG), wherein the structured layer comprises a periodic arrangement of structures (Fig. 3, ZnS and PMMA structures), and wherein a difference between a refractive index of the structures and a refractive index of the cover layer, measured at 587.5 nm, is less than 1.5 (Fig. 3, ZnS has an index of about 2.37 & the PMMA within the cover layer has an index of about 1.49, giving a difference of 0.88), wherein the structures in the structured layer comprise a plurality of parallel ridges extending along a first direction (Fig. 3, the left half of the bottom 2 tiers of PPMA forms a first ridge, and the right half of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA forms a second ridge), wherein the ridges are separated by linear grooves (Fig. 3, grooves are formed by ZnS), wherein a period between each of the ridges of the plurality of parallel ridges is the same (Fig. 3, the periods of the left and right halves of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA are the same);
wherein the structures are configured such that the optical combiner film produces, for an input signal incident on the cover layer from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than 20° (Fig. 24), an output signal comprising three reflection peaks (Fig. 24).
Basset fails to explicitly disclose wherein each reflection peak has an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of designing an optical system includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, materials used, distances between components, and shapes/sizes of optical features, in order to allow a system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless a particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the average reflection of Basset’s reflection peaks, such that each reflection peak was to have an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle, since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the average reflection values of the peaks such that the threshold was satisfied, motivated by optimizing signal transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Basset discloses an optical combiner, comprising:
a first structured layer (Fig. 3, the top 2 tiers of the 4 tiers stacks within the MRWG) of a first material (Fig. 3, ZnS) with a first refractive index (Fig. 3, ZnS has an index of about 2.37), wherein the first structured layer comprises a first periodic arrangement of structures (Fig. 3, ZnS and PMMA structures); and
a second structured layer (Fig. 3, the bottom 2 tiers of the MRWG) of a second material (Fig. 3, ZnS) with second refractive index (Fig. 3, ZnS), wherein the second structured layer comprises a second periodic arrangement of structures (Fig. 3, ZnS and PMMA structures) different from the first periodic arrangement of structures (Fig. 3, the periodic arrangements of the top 2 and bottom 2 layers differ), wherein the first structured layer and the second structured layer are stacked on each other (Fig. 3) such that light incident on the first structured layer is diffracted, in succession, by the first structured layer and the second structured layer (Fig. 3);
wherein the first structured layer and the second structured layer are encapsulated in a third material (Fig. 3, PMMA) with a third refractive index (Fig. 3, PMMA has an index of 1.49) such that a refractive index difference, measured at 587.5 nm, between each of the first and the second refractive indices and the third refractive index is less than 1.5 (Fig. 3, the difference between 2.37 and 1.49 is 0.88); and
wherein the structures in the first and the second structured layers are configured such that the optical combiner produces, for an input signal incident on first periodic arrangement of structures from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than 20° (Fig. 24), an output signal comprising three reflection peaks (Fig. 24), and
wherein the first periodic arrangement of structures is configured to produce a first and a second reflection peak in the output signal, and the second periodic arrangement of structures is configured to produce a third reflection peak in the output signal (Figs. 3 & 24; also, the first and second periodic arrangements are inherently configured to produce first/second/third reflection peaks if different light is used).
Basset fails to explicitly disclose wherein each reflection peak has an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of designing an optical system includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, materials used, distances between components, and shapes/sizes of optical features, in order to allow a system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless a particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the average reflection of Basset’s reflection peaks, such that each reflection peak was to have an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle, since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the average reflection values of the peaks such that the threshold was satisfied, motivated by optimizing signal transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, modified Basset discloses wherein the first refractive index is equal to the second refractive index (Fig. 3, ZnS is used for both of the indices).
Regarding claim 15, modified Basset discloses wherein the first arrangement of structures comprises a linear diffraction grating (Fig. 3) with a plurality of parallel ridges extending along a first direction (Fig. 3), wherein the ridges are separated by linear grooves (Fig. 3), and wherein the structures in the second arrangement of structures comprise a linear diffraction grating (Fig. 3) having a plurality of parallel ridges extending along the first direction (Fig. 3), wherein the ridges are separated by linear grooves (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, modified Basset discloses wherein the first structured layer and the second structured layer are a distance of less than 200 nm apart (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Basset discloses a method for making an optical combiner film, the method comprising:
forming a periodic arrangement of structures (Fig. 3, ZnS and PMMA structures) in a polymeric material (Fig. 3, PMMA) with a first refractive index (Fig. 3, PMMA has an index of about 1.49), wherein the structures in the polymeric material comprise a plurality of parallel ridges extending along a first direction (Fig. 3, the left half of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA forms a first ridge, and the right half of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA forms a second ridge), wherein the ridges are separated by linear grooves (Fig. 3, grooves are formed by ZnS), wherein a period between each of the ridges of the plurality of parallel ridges is the same (Fig. 3, the periods of the left and right halves of the bottom 2 tiers of PMMA are the same);
embedding the structures in a dielectric material (Fig. 3, ZnS) with a second refractive index (Fig. 3, ZnS has an index of about 2.37), and wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index, measured at 587.5 nm, is less than 1.5 (Fig. 3, the difference between 2.37 and 1.49 is 0.88); and
wherein the structures in the dielectric material are configured such that the optical combiner film produces, for an input signal incident on the dielectric material from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than about 20° (Fig. 24), an output signal comprising three reflection peaks (Fig. 24).
Basset fails to explicitly disclose wherein each reflection peak has an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of designing an optical system includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, materials used, distances between components, and shapes/sizes of optical features, in order to allow a system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless a particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the average reflection of Basset’s reflection peaks, such that each reflection peak was to have an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ± 3° range of the elevation angle, since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the average reflection values of the peaks such that the threshold was satisfied, motivated by optimizing signal transmission efficiency.
5. Claims 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over modified Basset in view of Stuck et al. (US 8259201 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Basset discloses wherein the first layer comprises a polymeric material with a refractive index of 1.20 to 1.55 over a wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 3, PMMA has a refractive index of about 1.49).
Basset fails to disclose wherein the second layer comprises TiO2.
However, Stuck teaches a diffractive optical system in which TiO2 is disclosed as a suitable high/low index material for zero-order diffractive color filters ([0019]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Basset and Stuck such that the second layer was to comprise TiO2, motivated by improving refractive index contrast within the device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Basset discloses wherein the structured layer comprises a polymeric material with a refractive index of 1.20 to 1.55 (Fig. 3, PMMA has a refractive index of about 1.49).
Modified Basset fails to disclose wherein the cover layer comprises TiO2.
However, Stuck teaches a diffractive optical system in which TiO2 is disclosed as a suitable high/low index material for zero-order diffractive color filters ([0019]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Basset and Stuck such that the cover layer was to comprise TiO2, motivated by improving refractive index contrast within the device.
Regarding claim 17, modified Basset discloses wherein the first structured layer and the second structured layer comprise a polymeric material with a refractive index of 1.20 to 1.55 (Fig. 3, the top and bottom pairs of tiers each include PMMA).
Modified Basset fails to disclose wherein the encapsulating layer comprises TiO2.
However, Stuck teaches a diffractive optical system in which TiO2 is disclosed as a suitable high/low index material for zero-order diffractive color filters ([0019]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Basset and Stuck such that the encapsulating layer was to comprise TiO2, motivated by improving refractive index contrast within the device.
6. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over modified Basset in view of Hitschmann et al. (US 20070279755 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 19, modified Basset discloses laminating the optical combiner film between sheets of glass (chapter IV, section iv, page 16).
Modified Basset fails to explicitly disclose laminating the optical combiner film between sheets of glass to form a windshield laminate.
However, Hitschmann teaches a HUD system including an optical combiner film (Abstract), and discloses wherein the optical combiner film is laminated between sheets of glass to form a windshield laminate ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Basset and Hitschmann such that the optical combiner film was laminated between sheets of glass to form a windshield laminate, motivated by accommodating an automobile ([0026]).
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights