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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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 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 (middle most resin layer 11) having a first main surface (upper surface) and a second main surface (lower surface); and a light diffraction structure composed of microcells (middle most resin layer has a cell structure as can be seen in Fig. 8) disposed on the first main surface; a first light-transmissive coating layer (uppermost resin layer 11, which is at least partially transmissive) that covers the first main surface; and a second light-transmissive coating layer (bottommost resin layer 11, is at least partially transmissive) that covers the second main surface, wherein a shape of a main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer and a shape of a main surfaces of the second light-transmissive coating are complementary to each other (top resin layer 11 and bottom resin layer 11 are complimentary to each other), the main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer is disposed opposite one side of the substrate (top resin layer 11 is opposite the top of middle resin layer 11), and the main surface of the second light-transmissive coating layer is disposed opposite another side of the substrate (bottom of middle resin layer 11 is opposite bottom resin layer 11) [Par 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 resin layer 11) having a first main surface (Top side) and a second main surface (bottom side); a light diffraction structure composed of microcells and disposed on the first main surface (diffraction layer on top side of bottom resin layer 11); and a light-transmissive coating layer (middle resin layer 11 is at least partially transmissive) that covers the first main surface, wherein the second main surface is uncovered (bottom of bottommost resin layer 11 is uncovered), and a shape of a main surface of the light-transmissive coating layer (bottom of middle resin layer 11) and a shape of the second main surface (bottom of bottom most resin layer 11 is complimentary with bottom of middlemost resin layer 11) are complementary to each other, and the main surface of the light-transmissive coating layer is disposed opposite one side of the substrate (bottom of middlemost resin layer 11 is opposite the top of bottommost resin layer 11).
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 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) 1-2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argoitia (US 6749936 B2) in view of Han (US 20200174163 A1).
Re Claim 1, Argoitia discloses, on Fig. 6, a light diffraction element unit comprising: a light diffraction element (flake 50 ) including: a substrate (diffractive reflector 52) having a first main surface (upper surface) and a second main surface (lower surface); and a light diffraction structure composed of microcells ( diffraction grating structure 58 is replicated in all layers) [Col 16, Lines 0-15) disposed on the first main surface; a first light-transmissive coating layer (dielectric layer 54a is at least partially transmissive) that covers the first main surface; and a second light-transmissive coating layer (dielectric layer 54b is at least partially transmissive) that covers the second main surface, wherein a shape of a main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer (bottom of dielectric layer 54A) and a shape of a main surfaces of the second light-transmissive coating layer (top of dielectric layer 54B) are complementary to each other (dielectric layers 54A and 54B are complimentary to each other), the main surface of the first light-transmissive coating layer is disposed opposite one side of the substrate (bottom of dielectric layer 54a is opposite the top of reflector 52), and the main surface of the second light-transmissive coating layer is disposed opposite another side of the substrate (top of dielectric layer 54B is opposite the bottom of reflector 52).
But Argoitia 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 Argoitia with Han in order to provide, satisfaction of a target wave, as taught by Han [Par 113].
Re claim 2, Argoitia in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1, and Argoitia further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein the light diffraction structure (reflector 52) is embedded in the first light-transmissive coating layer (reflector 52 is embedded in dielectric layer 54A).
Re Claim 7, Argoitia 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, and Argoitia further discloses on Fig, 7, wherein 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) contacts the second main surface of the second light diffraction element unit (top of reflector 64B) [Col 20, Lines 0-25].
Re Claim 8, Argoitia 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, and Argoitia further discloses 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].
Re Claim 9, Argoitia 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, and Argoitia further discloses 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].
Re Claim 10, Argoitia in view of Han discloses, the light diffraction element unit according to claim 1, and Argoitia further discloses on Fig. 6, 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).
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.
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 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