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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/3/25 and 3/9/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner notes various product-by-process limitations that do not narrowly/specifically limit the structure of the apparatus. For example, the term “substrate” in “a first plurality of optical device structures disposed on the first substrate” refers to a substrate to which a grating is patterned, subsequently trimmed, diced, and positioned on an optical device substrate. While the intermediate products formed during the method of manufacturing would be distinct from a final product (i.e. the combination of the positioned first substrate and optical device substrate), there is not necessarily a structural distinction between the claimed final product and a prior art product formed in a different manner. Taking Applicant’s Fig. 4E depicting distinct first substrate (115) and optical device substrate (101), there is no clear structural distinction from a substrate formed monolithically having an analogous form factor (i.e. an upper surface from which a further body extends).
Additionally, the term “inkjet material” is understood to be directed to a product-by-process limitation on an optical material disposed between the first and second gratings. The inkjet means and steps of depositing the material between the gratings does not structurally distinguish the structure over structures having material deposited by other means, e.g. lithographically.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 9,310,566 to Valera et al. (hereinafter Valera).
Regarding claim 1, Valera discloses an optical device (Figs. 1-4D), comprising: an optical device substrate (optical substrate 3, Fig. 4A-4D); a first grating (“a first circular patch (8) of reflective coating material”, Fig. 4A-4D) comprising: a first substrate (upper portion of first circular patch 8, Figs. 1-4D) disposed on a first portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 1-4D); and a first plurality of optical device structures (corrugation of circular patch 8, Figs. 4B-4D) disposed on the first substrate; a second grating (second circular region 9, Figs. 1-4D) comprising: a second substrate (upper portion of second circular region 9, Figs. 1-4D) disposed on a second portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 1-4D), the second substrate separated from the first substrate by a gap (Fig. 4B-4D); and a second plurality of optical device structures (corrugation of second circular region 9, Figs. 4A-4D) disposed on the second substrate; and an inkjet material (“second optical substrate (4) is applied as a coating over the blazed surface relief grating of the first optical substrate (3) and over the coated parts (8,9) of that blazed grating”; col. 11, ln. 42-col. 12, ln. 20) disposed in the gap to an inkjet height, wherein the inkjet height is planar with or greater than a height of the first plurality of optical device structures and the second plurality of optical device structures (Figs. 4D).
Regarding claim 11, Valera discloses an optical device (Figs. 1-4D), comprising: an optical device substrate (optical substrate 3, Fig. 4A-4D) having a first index; a first grating (“a first circular patch (8) of reflective coating material”, Fig. 4A-4D) comprising: a first substrate (portion of second optical substrate 4 above first circular patch 8, Figs. 1-4D) disposed on a first portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 1-4D) having a second index; and a first plurality of optical device structures (corrugation of circular patch 8, Figs. 4B-4D) disposed on the first substrate; a second grating (second circular region 9, Figs. 1-4D) comprising: a second substrate (portion of second optical substrate 4 above second circular region 9, Figs. 1-4D) disposed on a second portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 1-4D) having a third index, the second substrate separated from the first substrate by a gap (Fig. 4B-4D); and a second plurality of optical device structures (corrugation of second circular region 9, Figs. 4A-4D) disposed on the second substrate; and and an inkjet material (“second optical substrate (4) is applied as a coating over the blazed surface relief grating of the first optical substrate (3) and over the coated parts (8,9) of that blazed grating”; col. 11, ln. 42-col. 12, ln. 20) disposed in the gap and in contact with a first side surface of the first substrate and a second side surface of the second substrate (Fig. 4D), the inkjet material having an inkjet refractive index, wherein the inkjet refractive index, the first refractive index, the second refractive index, and the third refractive index are substantially equal (“material of the second optical substrate (4) has a refractive index matching the material of the first optical substrate (3)”).
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. 2021/0223585 to Waldern et al. (hereinafter Waldern) in view of US PG Pub. 2016/0327705 to Simmonds et al. (hereinafter Simmonds) and Valera.
Regarding claim 1, Waldern discloses an optical device (Figs. 4-9), comprising: an optical device substrate (waveguide 452 of Fig. 4B, waveguide 600 of Fig. 6, substrate 700 of Fig. 7B); a first grating (printed input grating 602 embodied as a surface relief grating, Figs. 5A, 6) comprising a first substrate (SBG 550 of Fig. 5B deposited on a waveguide of Figs. 4, 6, 7B; [0111]-[0119]) disposed on a first portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 4-6), and a first plurality of optical device structures (modulation, Fig. 5A; [0111]-[0119]) disposed on the first substrate (Fig. 5A); a second grating (printed output grating 606 embodied as a surface relief grating, Figs. 5A, 6) comprising a second substrate (SBG 550 of Fig. 5B deposited on a waveguide of Figs. 4, 6, 7B; [0111]-[0119]) disposed on a second portion of the optical device substrate (Fig. 6), the second substrate separated from the first substrate by a gap (Fig. 6), the second grating including a second plurality of optical device structures (modulation, Fig. 5A; [0111]-[0119]); and an inkjet material (additively-printed fold 458 gratings of Fig. 4B, 604 of Fig. 6, and 726 of Fig. 7A; [0111]-[0117]) disposed between the first grating and the second grating (Figs. 4, 6-8), the inkjet material having an inkjet height ([0111],[0117]), wherein the inkjet height is a height related to the first plurality of optical device structures and the second plurality of optical device structures (“the predefined grating characteristic includes … grating layer thickness”; [0017],[0088]-[0089],[0112]).
Waldern discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a portion of a first substrate disposed on the optical device substrate; a portion of a second substrate disposed on the optical device substrate; wherein the inkjet height is planar with or greater than a height of the first plurality of optical device structures and the second plurality of optical device structures.
Simmonds discloses: a first grating comprising a first substrate (see annotated figure below, Fig. 8) disposed on a first portion of the optical device substrate (slab waveguide 20, Fig. 8); a second grating comprising a second plurality of optical device structures (see annotated figure below, Fig. 8) and disposed on a second portion of the optical device substrate (slab waveguide 20, Fig. 8), the second substrate separated from the first substrate by a gap (see figure below); an inkjet material disposed within the gap to an inkjet height (see figure below) wherein the inkjet material height is planar with or greater than a height of the first plurality of optical device structures and the second plurality of optical device structures (profile in Fig. 8; [0084]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1406
2500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed height relationship as taught by Simmonds with the system as disclosed by Waldern. The motivation would have been to avoid “a structural edge to the path of guided light within the waveguide substrate, at which scattering of light can occur … [resulting] in the loss of light which reduces image brightness, and also the contamination of image-bearing light with random scattered light which degrades the output image contrast and resolution” (Fig. 9; [0095]).
In light of the printed surface relief gratings in Waldern and the three printed diffractive structures in Simmonds, a person having ordinary skill in the art would provide the claimed first and second gratings comprising respective first and second substrates disposed on the optical device substrate. There is no explicit disclosure that all coupling gratings provided in Simmonds necessarily have bases, though the teachings of Waldern and Simmonds obviate such a modification.
Valera discloses an optical device (Figs. 1-4D), comprising: an optical device substrate (optical substrate 3, Fig. 4A-4D); a first grating (“a first circular patch (8) of reflective coating material”, Fig. 4A-4D) comprising: a first substrate (upper portion of first circular patch 8, Figs. 1-4D) disposed on a first portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 1-4D); and a first plurality of optical device structures (corrugation of circular patch 8, Figs. 4B-4D) disposed on the first substrate; a second grating (second circular region 9, Figs. 1-4D) comprising: a second substrate (upper portion of second circular region 9, Figs. 1-4D) disposed on a second portion of the optical device substrate (Figs. 1-4D), the second substrate separated from the first substrate by a gap (Fig. 4B-4D); and a second plurality of optical device structures (corrugation of second circular region 9, Figs. 4A-4D) disposed on the second substrate.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second substrates in a same device as taught by Valera with the system as disclosed by Waldern. The motivation would have been to control transmission and reflection efficiencies (col. 3, ll. 19-35).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Waldern discloses the optical device substrate has a first refractive index (“the optical recording material deposited has a similar composition throughout the layer” (Abstract), “Substrates used in the construction of waveguide cells .. an optical plastic … may be fabricated from glass … standard Corning Willow glass substrate (index 1.51)” in [0053], “any single photo-reactive monomer material or mixture of photo-reactive monomer materials having refractive indices from about 1.5 to 1.9” in [0074], “modulation gratings designed to have a refractive index modulation of −0.16” in [0089]).
Waldern discloses substantially equal indexes in substrates and index modulations in the apparatus and does not disclose the use of high index contrast features in the input, folding, and/or output couplers.
Waldern discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the inkjet material has an inkjet refractive index, the first substrate has a second refractive index, and the second substrate has a third refractive index, wherein the first refractive index, the second refractive index, the third refractive index, and the inkjet refractive index are substantially equal.
Simmonds discloses the inkjet material has an inkjet refractive index (of intermediate grating, Fig. 8), the first substrate has a second refractive index (of input grating, Fig. 8), and the second substrate has a third refractive index (of output grating, Fig. 8), wherein the second refractive index, the third refractive index, and the inkjet refractive index are substantially equal (“input window region may comprise the same material of, and be continuous with, the material of the surrounding diffractive region 25 forming the intermediate diffraction grating” and “material of the intermediate diffraction grating (22, 25) may also be continuous with the material of the output diffraction grating (23, 27) in one or each of these embodiments”; [0083]-[0084]).
While Waldern and Simmonds are silent as to substantial equivalence of all claimed materials, both references would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide an optical device substrate having substantially the same optical characteristics – such as refractive index. As shown in Simmonds, material edges create refractive index discontinuities that cause scattering and degrade brightness characteristics in display applications. A person having ordinary skill in the art would provide substantially matching indexes of refraction for the purpose of improving display brightness ([0095]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Waldern discloses the inkjet refractive index (intermediate grating, Figs. 4-8) is between about 1.6 and about 3.0 (“the optical recording material deposited has a similar composition throughout the layer” (Abstract), “Substrates used in the construction of waveguide cells .. an optical plastic … may be fabricated from glass … standard Corning Willow glass substrate (index 1.51)” in [0053], “any single photo-reactive monomer material or mixture of photo-reactive monomer materials having refractive indices from about 1.5 to 1.9” in [0074], “modulation gratings designed to have a refractive index modulation of −0.16” in [0089]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Waldern discloses the inkjet material is formed from an ink, the ink including a colloidal dispersion of nanoparticles or metal oxide precursors (“the reactive monomer liquid crystal mixture can further include chemically active nanoparticles disposed within the LC domains”; [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, Waldern discloses a third grating (input, intermediate, and output gratings; Figs. 4-8) disposed on a substrate, the third grating including a third plurality of optical device structures (Figs. 4-8), wherein the third grating corresponds to an intermediate grating (Figs. 4-8).
Waldern discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a substrates disposed on the upper surface of the optical device substrate.
Simmonds discloses substrates (lower portions of input and intermediate gratings, Fig. 8).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide substrates as taught by Simmonds with the system as disclosed by Waldern. The motivation would have been to avoid “a structural edge to the path of guided light within the waveguide substrate, at which scattering of light can occur … [resulting] in the loss of light which reduces image brightness, and also the contamination of image-bearing light with random scattered light which degrades the output image contrast and resolution” (Fig. 9; [0095]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Waldern discloses first grating is an input coupling grating (input grating 454 of Fig. 4B, input grating 602 of Fig. 6, input grating 722 of Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Waldern discloses the second grating is an output coupling grating (output grating 456 of Fig. 4B, output grating 606 of Fig. 6, output grating 724 of Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Waldern discloses the inkjet material is operable to optically interconnect the first grating to the second grating to create an optical path for incident light (folding grating 458 of Fig. 4B; [0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Waldern discloses the first plurality of optical device structures are perpendicular relative to the upper surface of the optical device substrate (Fig. 8); and the second plurality of optical device structures are non-perpendicular relative to the upper surface of the optical device substrate (Fig. 8). Note that the claim matching in the rejection of Claim 1 above may be reversed such that input, intermediate, and output gratings are interchanged on account of input and intermediate gratings being disposed between the output grating, further portions of the intermediate grating and respective other portions of the input and intermediate gratings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Waldern fails to disclose the claimed first substrate and second substrate. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Waldern discloses printing coupler structures on the waveguide and that the embodiment of a surface relief grating includes a substrate. Thus the printing of multiple couplers (input and output) necessitates printing gratings and the gratings are disclosed as having finite solutions – a surface relief grating and a switchable Bragg grating. Further, Applicant argues that Simmonds is deficient in disclosing the claimed substrate. The annotated illustrations in the rejections above illuminate the matching between claim elements and features of prior art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited prior art is generally relates to attaching gratings to waveguides and coating gratings with inkjet material.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872