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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/4/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 6, 10, and 19, the limitation “having a shape that is within hundreds of microns of the targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets” is ambiguous as to the metes and bounds of the claims. A targeted shape has not been identified or claimed, so it is not possible to compare the facets to a “targeted shape”. Further, it is not clear how a smoothness would be measured in microns. For this reason, these limitations are not given any patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al (US Publication No.: US 2016/0334562 A1 of record, “Richards”) in view of Thapliya et al (US Publication No.: US 2008/0260322 A1, “Thapliya”).
Regarding Claim 1, Richards discloses a method comprising:
Forming a coarse substrate of a reflective waveguide structure (Figure 3, coarse substrate 320),
The coarse substrate having a series of facets and comprising a first major surface and a second major surface opposite to the first major surface (Figure 3, series of facets 322);
Coating the first major surface of the coarse substrate with a veneer (Paragraph 0034); and
Shaping the veneer to a targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets (Paragraphs 0033-0034).
Richards fails to disclose that the veneer comprises a curable polymer.
However, Thapliya discloses a similar method where the veneer comprises a curable polymer (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the veneer as disclosed by Richards to include a curable polymer as disclosed by Thapliya. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of forming precise facets with a light-transmitting property (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 2, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: coating the second major surface of the coarse substrate with the veneer (Paragraph 0056; Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising coating the veneer with a reflective coating (Paragraph 0050; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 4, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the reflective coating comprises a thin film dielectric stack (Paragraph 0042; Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the veneer comprises a curable index-matched epoxy (Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 6, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the coarse substrate comprises compression injection molding a plastic substrate to form a near-form substrate that is within hundreds of microns of the targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets (Paragraph 0025; Paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 8, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising embedding the reflective waveguide structure in plastic (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 9, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses a method, comprising: applying a veneer to a first major surface of a coarse substrate having a series of facets (Paragraph 0034; Figure 3, coarse substrate 320, facets 322/324); and
Shaping the veneer to produce a reflective waveguide structure having a targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets (Paragraph 0034).
Richards fails to disclose that the veneer comprises a curable polymer.
However, Thapliya discloses a similar method where the veneer comprises a curable polymer (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the veneer as disclosed by Richards to include a curable polymer as disclosed by Thapliya. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of forming precise facets with a light-transmitting property (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 10, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising compression injection molding a plastic substrate to produce the coarse substrate with the series of facets having a shape and smoothness approximating the targeted shape and smoothness of the series of faces (Paragraph 0025; Paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 11, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: coating a second major surface of the coarse substrate with the veneer (Paragraph 0056; Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: coating the veneer with a reflective coating (Paragraph 0050; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 13, Richards discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising embedding the reflective waveguide structure in plastic (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 14, Richards discloses a waveguide (Figure 3), comprising:
A coarse substrate having a series of facets and comprising a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface (Figure 3, coarse substrate 320, facets 322/324); and
A veneer coating the first major surface, wherein the veneer is shaped to a targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets (Paragraph 0034).
Richards fails to disclose that the veneer comprises a curable polymer.
However, Thapliya discloses a similar method where the veneer comprises a curable polymer (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the veneer as disclosed by Richards to include a curable polymer as disclosed by Thapliya. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of forming precise facets with a light-transmitting property (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 15, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the waveguide of claim 14, further comprising: a veneer coating the second major surface (Paragraph 0056; Figure 8).
Richards fails to disclose that the veneer comprises a curable polymer.
However, Thapliya discloses a similar method where the veneer comprises a curable polymer (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the veneer as disclosed by Richards to include a curable polymer as disclosed by Thapliya. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of forming precise facets with a light-transmitting property (Thapliya, Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 16, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the waveguide of claim 14, further comprising a reflective coating on the veneer (Paragraph 0050; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 17, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the waveguide stack of claim 16, wherein the reflective coating comprises a thin film dielectric stack (Paragraph 0042; Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the waveguide of claim 14, wherein the veneer comprises a curable index-matched epoxy (Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 19, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the waveguide of claim 14, wherein the coarse substrate comprises a compression injection molded plastic substrate having a shape that is within hundreds of microns of the targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets (Paragraph 0025; Paragraph 0043).
Regarding Claim 20, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the waveguide of claim 14, wherein the waveguide is embedded in plastic (Paragraph 0025).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Thapliya in further view of Alim et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0125794 A1 of record, “Alim”).
Regarding Claim 7, Richards in view of Thapliya discloses the method of claim 1.
Richards fails to disclose that shaping the veneer comprises using a diamond turned tool to mold the veneer to produce the reflective wavelength structure having the targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets.
However, Alim discloses a similar method where a step of shaping the veneer comprises using a diamond turned tool to mold the veneer to produce the reflective wavelength structure having the targeted shape and smoothness of the series of facets (Alim, Paragraph 0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Richards to include a step of using a diamond turned tool as disclosed by Alim. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a desired surface finish (Alim, Paragraph 0137).
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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Michael 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871