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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hatekyama does not explicitly teach the following limitations;
(i) a substrate having a first main surface and a second main surface that are flat and smooth;
(ii) the first light-transmissive coating layer has a third main surface directly contacting the first main surface and a fourth main surface opposite the third main surface and uncovered;
(iii) the second light-transmissive coating layer has a fifth main surface directly contacting the second main surface and a sixth main surface opposite the fifth main surface and uncovered; and
(iv) the fourth main surface and the sixth main surface have complementary shapes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to limitation (i), the claimed substrate is matched to a different element of Hatakeyama’s disclosure in light of the amendments, thus making the argument moot, in regard to limitations (ii-iii), Hatakeyama teaches on Fig. 8 a fourth main surface (top of uppermost resin 11) and a sixth main surface opposite the fifth main surface (bottom of bottommost resin layer), both of which have airgaps between them and the nearest surface thus they are uncovered in a similar way to surface 102c on Fig. 5 of the Instant Application which the Specification specially names as “uncovered” [Par 39], and in regards to limitation (iv), it can be clearly seen in Fig. 8 of Hatakeyama that middle resin 11 and lower resin 11 have complimentary shapes despite Applicant’s argument that they correspond to each other (middle and upper resin 11 correspond to each other).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 in view of Arogitia and Han, 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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (JP 2019041060A Machine Translation, 03-14-2019, Espacenet) in view of Han (US 20200174163 A1).
Re Claim 1, Hatakeyama discloses on Fig. 8, a light diffraction element unit comprising: a light diffraction element (irradiation apparatus 1) including: a substrate (second glass layer 41 counting from the bottom up) having a first main surface (top of second glass layer 41) and a second main surface (bottom of second glass layer 41) [Par 25, 35, 45] that are flat and smooth (Fig. 8: top and bottom of second glass layer 41 are flat and smooth); and a light diffraction structure composed of microcells (middle most resin layer 11 has a cell structure as can be seen in Fig. 8) [Par 25, 35, 45] disposed on the first main surface; a first light-transmissive coating layer (uppermost resin layer 11, which is at least partially transmissive, as a part of diffractive optical element 50) that covers the first main surface; and a second light-transmissive coating layer (bottommost resin layer 11, is at least partially transmissive, as a part of diffractive optical element 50) that covers the second main surface,
wherein the first light-transmissive coating layer (upper most diffractive element 50) has a third main surface directly contacting the first main surface (suppression layer 42 of uppermost diffractive element 50 contacts middlemost resin layer 11 by way of adhesive 60) [Par 25, 35, 45] and a fourth main surface (top of uppermost resin 11) opposite the third main surface and uncovered (uppermost resin 11 is spaced apart from cover glass 40 by adhesive 60) [Par 25, 35, 45], the second light-transmissive coating layer has a fifth main surface (bottommost optical diffractive optical element 50 contacts the suppression layer on the bottom of the second glass layer 31 through adhesive 60) directly contacting the second main surface, and a sixth main surface opposite the fifth main surface (bottom of bottommost resin layer) and uncovered (bottom of bottommost resin layer 11 is uncovered) [Par 25, 35, 45], the fourth main surface and the sixth main surface have complementary shapes (topmost resin layer 11 and bottommost resin layer 11 have complimentary shapes) [Par 25, 35, 45],
But Hatakeyama does not explicitly disclose, wherein the microcells each have an independently set thickness or refractive index.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Han teaches, on Fig. 10-11, that it is desirable in microstructures for the microcells to each have an independently set thickness or refractive index (“A predetermined rule may be set and applied not only to the width w and the pitch p, but also to the height H of the nanostructures NS.sub.k for each region 122_k.”) [Par 114 and 119].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama with Han in order to provide, satisfaction of a target wave, as taught by Han [Par 113].
Re Claim 3, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1, and Hatakeyama further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the first light-transmissive coating layer (top resin layer 11) is apart from the light diffraction structure (top resin layer 11 is apart from middle resin layer 11).
Re Claim 4, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 3, and Hatakeyama further discloses Fig. 5 and 8, wherein a space between the first light-transmissive coating layer (top resin layer 11) and the light diffraction structure (middle resin layer 11) is filled with a gas (Fig. 8: empty area between either side of adhesives 60, wherein Fig. 5 shows an example diffraction grating similar to resin 11 in which air exist in concave portion 112 such that air exists in the entirety of this connected empty region) [Par 28].
Re claim 6, Hatakeyama discloses on Fig. 8, a light diffraction element unit comprising: a light diffraction element including (irradiation element 1): a substrate (bottom most glass layer 41 and bottom resin layer 11) having a first main surface (top of bottom glass layer 41) that is flat and smooth (See Fig. 8: top of bottommost glass layer 41 is flat and smooth) and a second main surface (bottom of bottommost glass layer 41) [Par 25, 35, 45] ; a light diffraction structure composed of microcells and disposed on the first main surface (middle most diffractive optical element 50); and a light-transmissive coating layer (middle resin layer 11 is at least partially transmissive and part of middlemost diffractive optical lement 50) that covers the first main surface,
wherein the light-transmissive coating layer (upper most diffractive element 50) has a third main surface (bottom of middlemost diffractive element 50) directly contacting the first main surface (suppression layer 42 of bottommost diffractive element 50 contacts middlemost diffractive element 50 by way of adhesive 60) [Par 25, 35, 45] and a fourth main surface (top of middlemost diffractive optical element 50) opposite the third main surface and uncovered (middlemost resin 11 is spaced apart from cover glass 40 by adhesive 60) [Par 25, 35, 45],
wherein the second main surface is uncovered (bottom of bottommost resin layer 11 is uncovered), the second main surface and the fourth mains surface complimentary shapes (middlemost resin layer 11 and bottommost resin layer 11 have complimentary shapes) [Par 25, 35, 45].
But Hatakeyama does not explicitly disclose, wherein the microcells each have an independently set thickness or refractive index.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Han teaches, on Fig. 10-11, that it is desirable in microstructures for the microcells to each have an independently set thickness or refractive index (“A predetermined rule may be set and applied not only to the width w and the pitch p, but also to the height H of the nanostructures NS.sub.k for each region 122_k.”) [Par 114 and 119].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama with Han in order to provide, satisfaction of a target wave, as taught by Han [Par 113].
Re Claim 11, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 6.
But Fig. 8 of Hatakeyama in view of Han does not explicitly disclose, wherein the main surface of the first coating layer has recesses, and the second main surface has protrusions.
However, Hatakeyama teaches, on Fig. 11 that it is desirable in diffraction gratings to include wherein, the main surface of the first coating layer has recesses (bottom most side of uppermost resin layer 11 has recesses), and the second main surface has protrusions (bottom most side of middle resin layer 11 has protrusions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama in order to provide different arrangements of the resin layer in relation to the light source, as taught by Hatakeyama [Par 47-48].
Claim(s) 2 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Argoitia (US 6749936 B2).
Re claim 2, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1.
But Hatakeyama in view of Handoes not explicitly disclose, wherein the light diffraction structure is embedded in the first light-transmissive coating layer.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches, on Fig. 6, that it is desirable in diffractive layers to include wherein the light diffraction structure (reflector 52) is embedded in the first light-transmissive coating layer (reflector 52 is embedded in dielectric layer 54A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama in view of Han with Arogitia in order to provide, low background brightness as taught by Argoitia [Col 16, Lines 15-25].
Re Claim 7, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, an optical computing device comprising: first and second light diffraction element units, each of which is the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1.
But Hatakeyama in view of Han does not explicitly disclose, wherein the fourth main surface of the first light diffraction element unit contacts the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches, on Fig. 7, that it is desirable in diffractive layers to include wherein the fourth main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer (Fig. 7 discloses an embodiment, with a bottom of dielectric coating 62) of the first light diffraction element unit (reflector 64a) contacts the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit (top of reflector 64B) [Col 20, Lines 0-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama in view of Han with Arogitia in order to provide, low background brightness as taught by Argoitia [Col 16, Lines 15-25].
Re Claim 8, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, a method for assembling an optical computing device including first and second light diffraction element units, each of which is the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1.
But Hatakeyama in view of Han does not explicitly disclose, the method comprising causing the fourth main surface of the first light diffraction element unit to contact the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit
However, within the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches, on Fig. 7, the method comprising causing the main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer (Fig. 7 discloses an embodiment, with a bottom of dielectric coating 62) of the first light diffraction element unit (reflector 64a) to contact the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit (top of reflector 64B) [Col 20, Lines 0-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama in view of Han with Arogitia in order to provide, low background brightness as taught by Argoitia [Col 16, Lines 15-25].
Re Claim 9, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, a method for manufacturing an optical computing device including first and second light diffraction element units, each of which is the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1.
But Hatakeymaa in view of Han does not explicitly disclose, the method comprising causing the fourth main surface of the first light diffraction element unit to contact the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches, on Fig. 7, the method comprising causing the main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer (Fig. 7 discloses an embodiment, with a bottom of dielectric coating 62) of the first light diffraction element unit (reflector 64a) to contact the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit (top of reflector 64B) [Col 20, Lines 0-25].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama in view of Han with Arogitia in order to provide, low background brightness as taught by Argoitia [Col 16, Lines 15-25].
Re Claim 10, Hatakeyama in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1.
But Hatakeyama in view of Han does not explicitly disclose, wherein the fourth main surface has recesses, and the sixth main has protrusions.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches, on Fig. 7, wherein the main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer (bottom side of dielectric layer 54A) has recesses (layer 54a has recesses), and the main surface of the second light-transmissive coating layer has protrusions (top of dielectric layer 54B has protrusions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hatakeyama in view of Han with Arogitia in order to provide, low background brightness as taught by Argoitia [Col 16, Lines 15-25].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lyu (US 10345506 B1) teaches a similar diffraction grating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights