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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on October 14, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10-14 and has canceled claim 9.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 remain pending in this application.
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) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Lu et al (PN. 8,519,325) in view of the patent application publication by Musa et al (US 2007/0222990 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Lu et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an optical radiation concentrator serves as the optical member that is comprised of an angle selective optical filter (14, Figure 6(a)) and a deflection component (26) that may include holographic grating serves as the first diffraction grating configured to diffract the incident light and emits the light to the angle selective optical filter wherein that angular selective optical filter configured to transmit specific light incident at a specific angle among the emitted diffracted incident light (with regard to the amendment to claim 1).
Lu et al teaches that the diffraction grating (26) and the angle selective optical filter (14) are disposed in an order of the first diffractive grating and the angle selective optical filter form an incident side of the incident light, (please see Figure 6(a)).
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the first diffraction grating has an interval smaller than a wavelength of the diffracted incident light emitted from the first diffraction grating”.
This reference does not teach explicitly that the diffraction grating has an interval that is smaller than a wavelength of the light emitted from the diffraction grating. Musa et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a sub-wavelength grating may be utilized as a deflecting component, (please see Abstract). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Musa et al to alternatively use an art well-known sub-wavelength grating as the deflecting component to deflect the light as desired.
With regard to claim 2, Lu et al further teaches the optical member may comprise a second deflecting component (26, Figure 6(a)), comprises a second holographic grating serves as the second diffractive grating that diffracts and emits the light transmitted by the angle selective optical filter (14). Lu et al teaches that the first diffraction grating or the holographic grating (26, Figure 6(a)), the angle selective optical filter (14) and the second holographic grating (26) are disposed in an order of the first diffraction grating or the holographic grating (26, Figure 6(a)), the angle selective optical filter (14) and the second holographic grating (26) from incident side of the light.
With regard to claim 4, Lu et al teaches that the angle selective optical filter (14) may comprise multiple transparent layers of at least two difference refractive indexes including alternating layers of high refractive index and low refractive index layers, (please see column 5, lines 10-22).
Claim(s) 3, 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al and Musa et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the patent issued to Hoshino et al (PN. 7,672,051).\
Lu et al teaches an optical member in combination with the teachings of Musa et al as described in claims 1 and 2 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 3 and 6-8, Lu et al teaches that the first and second deflecting components each comprises a holographic diffractive grating, however this reference does not teach explicitly that the diffraction grating comprises a bilaterial symmetrical shape in a side view. Hoshino et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical film with a diffraction grating (12, Figures 11 and 15) having bilaterial symmetric shape. The diffraction grating is uniformly provided with a plurality of grooves having a shape. Each of the grooves has a shape including two sides of an equal length and one apex angle in a side view, (please see Figures 11 and 15). The apex angle may be around 100 degrees, (please see column 12, lines 35-40). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hoshino et al to modify the diffractive grating of the deflecting component to have the specific geometric structure for the benefit of allowing the deflection component has desired light deflection properties.
With regard to claim 10, these references do not teach explicitly that the diffractive grating includes germanium. However, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al and Musa et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the patent issued to Hiyama et al (PN. 6,104,454).
Lu et al teaches in combination with the teachings of Musa et al teaches an optical member as described in claims 1 and 4 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 5, Lu et al teaches that the angle selective optical filter may comprises alternative layers of high and low refractive index. But it does not teach explicitly that the refractive index materials comprise germanium and zinc sulfide. Hiyama et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an angle selective film with multiplayer of alternative high and low refractive indices materials, (please see Figure 2), wherein the materials may comprise zinc sulfide and germanium, (please see columns 4 and 6 and column 14, lines 52-59). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Hiyama et al to modify the angle selective optical filter to utilize specific layer materials for the benefit of having the desired angle selective properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: of the prior art references considered, none has disclosed an optical apparatus that is comprised of an optical member comprises an angle selection film that transmits light incident at a predetermined angle among incident light and a diffraction grating that diffracts the incident light and emits the light to the angle selection film, wherein the diffraction grating and the angle selection film are disposed in an order of the diffraction grating and the angle selection film from an incident side of the light, a wavelength selector that transmits light of a predetermined wavelength among light transmitted by the optical member and a light receiver that receives light transmitted by the wavelength selector, wherein the optical member, the wavelength selector, and the light receiver are disposed in an order of the optical member, the wavelength selector, and the light receiver from an incident side of the light, as explicitly set forth in claim 11.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the applicant being one skilled in the art must have the basic knowledge that a sub-wavelength hologram or grating is having interval of the interference fringes or grating groves less than the wavelength of incident light.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872