Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action in response to a non-final Office Action reply filed 1/22/26 in which claims 6 and 12 were amended and claims 7-8 were canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peroz et al (US 2021/0109278).
For claims 1 and 5, Peroz et al teach an apparatus, comprising: an integrated mold designed to imprint a diffractive optical structure and an anti-reflective structure into a substrate, wherein the diffractive optical structure is an optical grating, incoupler, or outcoupler ([0207]-[0209], [0221] and [0250]).
For claim 2, Peroz et al teach the anti-reflective structure includes a plurality of tapered rods (Fig. 22B – element 2230a).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peroz et al (US 2021/0109278).
Peroz et al teach the invention as discussed above.
Though Peroz et al do not explicitly teach the plurality of tapered rods each have a maximum diameter of about 60 nanometers and a height of about 250 nanometers, and the plurality of tapered rods comprises a resin having a refractive index of 1.5 to 2, Peroz et al do teach the widths and heights of the light trapping structures ranges from 0.5 to 100 um ([0245]) and the material of the waveguide, which would include the plurality of tapered rods, has a refractive index of greater than 1.5 ([0199]), and since the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/22/26 were fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that while paragraphs [0129] and [0206] of Peroz disclose anti-reflective coatings formed of single- or multi-layer thin-film materials applied to spacer surfaces to prevent light leakage, these passages relate to deposited coating materials and do not describe an anti-reflective structure formed by imprinting, so Peroz fails to disclose or otherwise contemplate an integrated mold designed to imprint an anti-reflective structure into a substrate, nor does it associate the disclosed molds with the formation of anti-reflective features.
Examiner, however, points out that as cited in the rejection above, [0207]-[0209], [0221] and [0250] teach an integrated mold designed to imprint a diffractive optical structure and an anti-reflective structure into a substrate. Regarding anti-reflective features, [0250] teaches the mold may include relief features for defining light trapping structures.
Applicant also asserts that claim 2 recites the additional features of "the anti-reflective structure includes a plurality of tapered rods," and at page 3 of the Office Action, the Office asserts that Peroz teaches these features with reference to FIG. 22B, element 2230a of Peroz. However, contrary to the assertions of the Office, nowhere in the disclosure of Peroz are the light trapping structures 2230a described as rods, much less tapered rods.
Examiner, however, points out that though there is no written description of the light trapping structures 2230a, they are shown as tapered rods in Fig. 22B.
Applicant asserts too that claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites the additional features of "wherein the plurality of tapered rods each have a maximum diameter of about 60 nanometers and a height of about 250 nanometers," but in contrast, Peroz teaches that the "light-trapping structures" 2230a and 2230b have widths and heights ranging from 0.5 µm to 100 µm (500 nm - 100,000 nm) (Peroz, [0245]), and the minimum dimensions in Peroz are therefore approximately 8x larger in diameter and 2x larger in height than the claimed rods. Thus, the Office has failed to explain how such a difference in dimensional scale would have rendered the dimensions recited in claim 3 obvious in view of Peroz.
Examiner, however, points out that in [0245], Peroz teaches the design of the light trapping structures 2230a and 2230b may vary depending on the indices of refraction of the waveguide and light absorbing materials, the wavelength(s) of light propagating through the waveguide, and among other factors, and in some embodiments the widths and heights of the light trapping structures 2230a and 2230b ranges from 0.5 µm to 100 µm, so the difference in dimensions that Applicant notes would have been obvious for other variations of the result-effective factors suggested by Peroz.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743