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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claims 9, 20 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 15-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneda WO 2019009151A1 (see document of 18095322_2025-12-17_WO_2019009151_A1_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 9, Kaneda discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer for the ultraviolet spectrum (line 5 of page 10), in at least figs.1(a), 2, 5, 9(d), 16 and 17, the wire grid polarizer comprising:
an array of wires (2) on a substrate (1) with a channel (see figs.1(a) and 2) between each pair of proximate wires;
each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (21 or AI) and a silicon layer (22 or Si)(see figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d)); and
T1>T2 (fig.9(d)), where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d)).
Regarding claim 11, Kaneda discloses T1/T2 ≥1.25 (see fig.9(d)).
Regarding claim 15, Kaneda discloses a thickness of the silicon layer is at least 30% of a thickness of the wire (see fig.9(d)).
Regarding claim 16, Kaneda discloses the silicon layer is nearer the substrate and the metal layer farther from the substrate (figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d)).
Regarding claim 17, Kaneda discloses the metal layer includes aluminum, iridium, magnesium, rhodium, or combinations thereof (see fig.9(d)).
Regarding claim 19, Kaneda discloses a method of polarizing ultraviolet light with the wire grid polarizer (10) of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), to improve overall ultraviolet light throughput (see abstract and Example 2 and figs.9(d) and 5), the method comprising: emitting ultraviolet light (L1, line 5 of page 10) through a quarter-wave-plate (40) to the wire grid polarizer; splitting the light into a first beam (L2) and a second beam (L3), the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state (P-wave) and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state (S-wave) with respect to the first polarization state; passing the first beam through the wire grid polarizer (see fig.5); reflecting the second beam off of the wire grid polarizer (see fig.5); passing the second beam through the quarter-wave-plate to a reflector (30) and reflecting the second beam off of the reflector back through the quarter-wave-plate, thus converting the second beam to predominately the first polarization state (see fig.5); and passing the second beam through the wire grid polarizer (see fig.5).
Regarding claim 20, Kaneda discloses a system for polarizing ultraviolet light (line 5 of page 10), the system, in at least figs.1(a), 2, 5, 9(d), 16 and 17, comprising:
a group of components in the following order, a reflector (30), a light source (20), a quarter-wave-plate (40), and the wire grid polarizer (10);
the wire grid polarizer including an array of wires (2) on a substrate (1) with a channel (see figs.1(a) and 2) between each pair of proximate wires, each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (21 or AI) and a silicon layer (22 or Si)(see figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d)), and T1>T2 (fig.9(d)), where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d));
the light source configured to shine ultraviolet (line 5 of page 10) through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer (see fig.5); the wire grid polarizer (a) configured to split the light (L1) into a first beam (L2) and a second beam (L3), the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state (P-wave) and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state (S-wave) with respect to the first polarization state, (b) configured to transmit the first beam (see fig.5), and (c) oriented to reflect the second beam back through the quarter-wave-plate to the reflector (see fig.5); and the reflector configured to reflect the second beam from the quarter-wave-plate back through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer (see fig.5), where the second beam is predominately transmitted as the first polarization state (see fig.5).
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(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda WO 2019009151A1.
Regarding claim 10, Kaneda discloses the silicon layer includes silicon (see fig.9(d)).
Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Kaneda for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Kaneda discloses the metal layer includes aluminum (see fig.9(d)).
Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the metal layer includes at least 90 mass percent aluminum. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the metal layer includes at least 90 mass percent aluminum through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the metal layer includes at least 90 mass percent aluminum in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Kaneda for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wangensteen US 2016/0291208 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599.
Regarding claim 9, Wangensteen discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer for the ultraviolet spectrum (para.25 and 105), in at least figs.1-6, the wire grid polarizer comprising:
an array of wires (12) on a substrate (11) with a channel (G) between each pair of proximate wires;
each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (14; or 15) and a silicon layer (15; or 14)(para.72 discloses one of 14 or 15 can be silicon, the other one of 14 or 15 can be aluminum); and
where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (see figs.1-3 and 5).
Wangensteen does not explicitly disclose T1>T2.
Wang discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.5a,6a,3a,1a and 1c, having T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) as taught by Wang in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Wangensteen for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device.
Regarding claim 10, Wangensteen discloses the silicon layer includes silicon (para.72).
Wangensteen does not explicitly disclose the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Wangensteen for the purpose of forming a wire for a wire grid polarizer (para.72).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses T1/T2 ≥1.25 (107/80=1.3375, see fig.5a) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8). The reason for combining is the same as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a thickness of the silicon layer is at least 30% of a thickness of the wire (107/(107+67+44+80))=107/298=35.91%) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8). The reason for combining is the same as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, Wangensteen discloses the silicon layer is nearer the substrate and the metal layer farther from the substrate (para.72 discloses one of 14 or 15 can be silicon, the other one of 14 or 15 can be aluminum, so that 14 can be silicon and 15 can be aluminum).
Regarding claim 17, Wangensteen discloses the metal layer includes aluminum, iridium, magnesium, rhodium, or combinations thereof (see para.72).
Regarding claim 18, Wangensteen discloses the metal layer includes aluminum (see para.72).
Wangensteen does not explicitly disclose the metal layer includes at least 90 mass percent aluminum. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the metal layer includes at least 90 mass percent aluminum through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the metal layer includes at least 90 mass percent aluminum in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Wangensteen for the purpose of forming a wire for a wire grid polarizer (para.72).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wangensteen US 2016/0291208 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Perkins US 20080055719.
Regarding claim 19, Wangensteen in view of Wang discloses a method of polarizing ultraviolet light with the wire grid polarizer of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Wangensteen in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose the method of polarizing ultraviolet light with the wire grid polarizer, to improve overall ultraviolet light throughput, the method comprising: emitting ultraviolet light through a quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer; splitting the light into a first beam and a second beam, the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state with respect to the first polarization state; passing the first beam through the wire grid polarizer; reflecting the second beam off of the wire grid polarizer; passing the second beam through the quarter-wave-plate to a reflector and reflecting the second beam off of the reflector back through the quarter-wave-plate, thus converting the second beam to predominately the first polarization state; and passing the second beam through the wire grid polarizer.
Perkins discloses the method of polarizing ultraviolet light with the wire grid polarizer, to improve overall ultraviolet light throughput (para.84), the method in at least fig.21b, comprising: emitting ultraviolet light (para.84 discloses an ultraviolet light can be used) through a quarter-wave-plate (412) to the wire grid polarizer (10); splitting the light into a first beam and a second beam (see fig.21b), the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state (p) and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state (s) with respect to the first polarization state; passing the first beam through the wire grid polarizer (see fig.21b); reflecting the second beam off of the wire grid polarizer (see fig.21b); passing the second beam through the quarter-wave-plate to a reflector (a reflector of the light source 404, para.92) and reflecting the second beam off of the reflector back through the quarter-wave-plate (see fig.21b), thus converting the second beam to predominately the first polarization state (see fig.21b and para.93); and passing the second beam through the wire grid polarizer (see fig.21b and para.93) for the purpose of forming light recycling system (para.93).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of polarizing ultraviolet light with the wire grid polarizer, to improve overall ultraviolet light throughput, the method comprising: emitting ultraviolet light through a quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer; splitting the light into a first beam and a second beam, the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state with respect to the first polarization state; passing the first beam through the wire grid polarizer; reflecting the second beam off of the wire grid polarizer; passing the second beam through the quarter-wave-plate to a reflector and reflecting the second beam off of the reflector back through the quarter-wave-plate, thus converting the second beam to predominately the first polarization state; and passing the second beam through the wire grid polarizer as taught by Perkins in the method of Wangensteen in view of Wang for the purpose of forming light recycling system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wangensteen US 2016/0291208 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599 and Perkins US 20080055719.
Regarding claim 20, Wangensteen discloses a system for polarizing ultraviolet light (see para.25 and 105), the system in at least figs.1-6, comprising: a wire grid polarizer (10,20,30,40, 50 or 60); the wire grid polarizer including an array of wires (12) on a substrate (11) with a channel (G) between each pair of proximate wires, each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (14; or 15) and a silicon layer (15; or 14)(para.72 discloses one of 14 or 15 can be silicon, the other one of 14 or 15 can be aluminum), and where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (see figs.1-3 and 5).
Wangensteen does not explicitly disclose T1>T2.
Wang discloses a system, in at least figs.5a,6a,3a,1a and 1c, having T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) as taught by Wang in the system of Wangensteen for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device.
Moreover, Wangensteen in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose the system for polarizing ultraviolet light, the system comprising: a group of components in the following order, a reflector, a light source, a quarter-wave-plate, and the wire grid polarizer; the light source configured to shine ultraviolet through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer; the wire grid polarizer (a) configured to split the light into a first beam and a second beam, the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state with respect to the first polarization state, (b) configured to transmit the first beam, and (c) oriented to reflect the second beam back through the quarter-wave-plate to the reflector; and the reflector configured to reflect the second beam from the quarter-wave-plate back through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer, where the second beam is predominately transmitted as the first polarization state.
Perkins discloses the system for polarizing ultraviolet light (para.84), the system in at least fig.21b, comprising: a group of components in the following order, a reflector (a reflector of the light source 404, para.92), a light source (a light source in 404), a quarter-wave-plate (412), and the wire grid polarizer (10); the light source configured to shine ultraviolet through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer (see fig.21b); the wire grid polarizer (a) configured to split the light into a first beam and a second beam (see fig.21b), the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state (p) and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state (s) with respect to the first polarization state (see fig.21b), (b) configured to transmit the first beam (see fig.21b), and (c) oriented to reflect the second beam back through the quarter-wave-plate to the reflector (see fig.21b); and the reflector configured to reflect the second beam from the quarter-wave-plate back through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer (see fig.21b and para.93), where the second beam is predominately transmitted as the first polarization state (see fig.21b and para.93) for the purpose of forming light recycling system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system for polarizing ultraviolet light, the system comprising: a group of components in the following order, a reflector, a light source, a quarter-wave-plate, and the wire grid polarizer; the light source configured to shine ultraviolet through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer; the wire grid polarizer (a) configured to split the light into a first beam and a second beam, the first beam having predominantly a first polarization state and the second beam having predominantly a second, orthogonal polarization state with respect to the first polarization state, (b) configured to transmit the first beam, and (c) oriented to reflect the second beam back through the quarter-wave-plate to the reflector; and the reflector configured to reflect the second beam from the quarter-wave-plate back through the quarter-wave-plate to the wire grid polarizer, where the second beam is predominately transmitted as the first polarization state as taught by Perkins in the system of Wangensteen in view of Wang for the purpose of forming light recycling system.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson US 2021/0018670 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599.
Regarding claim 21, Nielson discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer for the ultraviolet spectrum (para.26 and 31), in at least fig.1,3 and 4, the wire grid polarizer comprising:
an array of wires (12) on a substrate (11) with a channel (13) between each pair of proximate wires;
each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (RL) and a silicon layer (HL), and a silicon dioxide layer (LL) between the metal layer and the silicon layer (see figs.1 and 3, para.45 and 31 disclose HL can be silicon, RL is aluminum and LL is silicon dioxide); and
where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (see figs.1 and 3).
Nielson does not explicitly disclose T1>T2.
Wang discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.5a,6a,3a,1a and 1c, having T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) as taught by Wang in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device.
Regarding claim 22, Nielson discloses the silicon layer includes silicon (para.45 and 31).
Nielson does not explicitly disclose the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson for the purpose of forming a wire for a wire grid polarizer (para.31 and 45).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses T1/T2 ≥ 1.25 (107/80=1.3375, see fig.5a) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 25, Nielson discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see figs.1 and 3); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see figs.1 and 3).
Nielson in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson in view of Wang for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device.
Regarding claim 26, Wang discloses a thickness of the silicon layer is at least 30% of a thickness of the wire (107/(107+67+44+80))=107/298=35.91%) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 27, Nielson discloses the silicon layer is nearer the substrate and the metal layer farther from the substrate (see figs.1 and 3).
Regarding claim 28, Nielson discloses the metal layer includes aluminum, iridium, magnesium, rhodium, or combinations thereof (para.31).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson US 2021/0018670 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wangensteen US 2016/0291208.
Regarding claim 25, Nielson discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see figs.1 and 3); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see figs.1 and 3).
Nielson in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick.
Wangensteen discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.1-6, the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (13) is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick (para.52 discloses, less than 5 nm or less than 10 nm) for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance (para.52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick as taught by Wangensteen in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson in view of Wang for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins 2008/0278811 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599.
Regarding claim 21, Perkins discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer (10c) for the ultraviolet spectrum (para.25), in at least fig.2, the wire grid polarizer comprising:
an array of wires (18) on a substrate (14) with a channel (see fig.2) between each pair of proximate wires;
each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (AI) and a silicon layer (34b, para.32 and 34 discloses 34b can be silicon), and a silicon dioxide layer (30c, see fig.2) between the metal layer and the silicon layer (see fig.2); and
where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (see fig.2).
Perkins does not explicitly disclose T1>T2.
Wang discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.5a,6a,3a,1a and 1c, having T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T1>T2 (see figs.5a, 6a and 3a and claim 13 disclose a layer 18c can be silicon or carbon, the thickness of the layer 18c can be changed accordingly with the metal layer, and the positions of the layer 18c and the metal layer can be exchanged (para.44)) as taught by Wang in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device.
Regarding claim 22, Perkins discloses the silicon layer includes silicon (para.32 and 34).
Perkins does not explicitly disclose the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins for the purpose of forming a wire for a wire grid polarizer (para.14).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses T1/T2 ≥ 1.25 (107/80=1.3375, see fig.5a) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 25, Perkins discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see fig.2); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see fig.2).
Perkins in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins in view of Wang for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device.
Regarding claim 26, Wang discloses a thickness of the silicon layer is at least 30% of a thickness of the wire (107/(107+67+44+80))=107/298=35.91%) for the purpose of forming a reflection repressed wire-grid polarizer device (claim 8). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 27, Perkins discloses the silicon layer is nearer the substrate and the metal layer farther from the substrate (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 28, Perkins discloses the metal layer includes aluminum, iridium, magnesium, rhodium, or combinations thereof (see fig.2).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins 2008/0278811 in view of Wang US 2008/0316599 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wangensteen US 2016/0291208.
Regarding claim 25, Perkins discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see fig.2); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see fig.2).
Perkins in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick.
Wangensteen discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.1-6, the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (13) is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick (para.52 discloses, less than 5 nm or less than 10 nm) for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance (para.52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick as taught by Wangensteen in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins in view of Wang for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson US 2021/0018670 in view of Kaneda WO 2019009151A1.
Regarding claim 21, Nielson discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer for the ultraviolet spectrum (para.26 and 31), in at least fig.1,3 and 4, the wire grid polarizer comprising:
an array of wires (12) on a substrate (11) with a channel (13) between each pair of proximate wires;
each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (RL) and a silicon layer (HL), and a silicon dioxide layer (LL) between the metal layer and the silicon layer (see figs.1 and 3, para.45 and 31 disclose HL can be silicon, RL is aluminum and LL is silicon dioxide); and
where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (see figs.1 and 3).
Nielson does not explicitly disclose T1>T2.
Kaneda discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.1-5 and 9(d), having T1>T2 (see figs.1(a) and 9(d), each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (21 or AI) and a silicon layer (22 or Si)(see figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d))) for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T1>T2 as taught by Kaneda in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave.
Regarding claim 22, Nielson discloses the silicon layer includes silicon (para.45 and 31).
Nielson in view of Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson in view of Kaneda for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave.
Regarding claim 23, Kaneda discloses T1/T2 ≥ 1.25 (see fig.9(d)) for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 25, Nielson discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see figs.1 and 3); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see figs.1 and 3).
Nielson in view of Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson in view of Kaneda for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Kaneda discloses a thickness of the silicon layer is at least 30% of a thickness of the wire (see fig.9(d)) for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 27, Nielson discloses the silicon layer is nearer the substrate and the metal layer farther from the substrate (see figs.1 and 3).
Regarding claim 28, Nielson discloses the metal layer includes aluminum, iridium, magnesium, rhodium, or combinations thereof (para.31).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson US 2021/0018670 in view of Kaneda WO 2019009151A1 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wangensteen US 2016/0291208.
Regarding claim 25, Nielson discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see figs.1 and 3); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see figs.1 and 3).
Nielson in view of Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick.
Wangensteen discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.1-6, the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (13) is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick (para.52 discloses, less than 5 nm or less than 10 nm) for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance (para.52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick as taught by Wangensteen in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Nielson in view of Kaneda for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins 2008/0278811 in view of Kaneda WO 2019009151A1.
Regarding claim 21, Perkins discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer (10c) for the ultraviolet spectrum (para.25), in at least fig.2, the wire grid polarizer comprising:
an array of wires (18) on a substrate (14) with a channel (see fig.2) between each pair of proximate wires;
each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (AI) and a silicon layer (34b, para.32 and 34 discloses 34b can be silicon), and a silicon dioxide layer (30c, see fig.2) between the metal layer and the silicon layer (see fig.2); and
where T1 is a thickness of the silicon layer and T2 is a thickness of the metal layer (see fig.2).
Perkins does not explicitly disclose T1>T2.
Kaneda discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.1-5 and 9(d), having T1>T2 (see figs.1(a) and 9(d), each wire consisting essentially of a metal layer (21 or AI) and a silicon layer (22 or Si)(see figs.1(a), 2, 5 and 9(d))) for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T1>T2 as taught by Kaneda in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave.
Regarding claim 22, Perkins discloses the silicon layer includes silicon (para.32 and 34).
Perkins in view of Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the silicon layer includes at least 95 mass percent silicon in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins in view of Kaneda for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Kaneda discloses T1/T2 ≥ 1.25 (see fig.9(d)) for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 25, Perkins discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see fig.2); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see fig.2).
Perkins in view of Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 the thickness is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins in view of Wang for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Kaneda discloses a thickness of the silicon layer is at least 30% of a thickness of the wire (see fig.9(d)) for the purpose of forming a wire grid polarizer with both high transmittance and extinction ratio for a P wave and a high reflectance for an S wave (abstract). The reason for combining is the same as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 27, Perkins discloses the silicon layer is nearer the substrate and the metal layer farther from the substrate (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 28, Perkins discloses the metal layer includes aluminum, iridium, magnesium, rhodium, or combinations thereof (see fig.2).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins 2008/0278811 in view of Kaneda WO 2019009151A1 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wangensteen US 2016/0291208.
Regarding claim 25, Perkins discloses a thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (see fig.2); and the silicon dioxide layer adjoins the metal layer and the silicon layer (see fig.2).
Perkins in view of Kaneda does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick.
Wangensteen discloses a reflective wire grid polarizer, in at least figs.1-6, the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer (13) is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick (para.52 discloses, less than 5 nm or less than 10 nm) for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance (para.52).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the silicon dioxide layer is at least 2 nm thick and not greater than 7 nm thick as taught by Wangensteen in the reflective wire grid polarizer of Perkins in view of Kaneda for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing degradation of WGP performance.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871