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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 5, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on December 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaroshchuk et al. (US 20220091323).
Regarding claim 1, Yaroshchuk discloses (Figs. 3A-10C; in particular Figs. 3A, 7, 9D, 10C) a light diffraction element comprising: microcells (315, 715, 915, 1015) disposed along a plane and each of which includes subcells (305, 705, 905, 1005), wherein each of the subcells has a refractive index with respect to at least one of in-plane directions of the plane (sections 0052-0053), and the refractive index is one of n predetermined refractive indexes (sections 0074, 0097-0098, 0113).
Yaroshchuk does not necessarily disclose n is an integer of not less than 2.
Yaroshchuk discloses (sections 0053-0054, 0074, 0109-0110) various materials similar to the materials in the present invention (for example, mesogens). Therefore it necessarily follows that n is an integer of not less than 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have particular refractive indexes, 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have particular refractive indexes to obtain patterns of material with high customizability to stabilize the alignment or orientation of the molecules of the optically anisotropic material.
Regarding claim 2, Yaroshchuk discloses (Figs. 3A-10C; in particular Figs. 3A, 7, 9D, 10C) the subcells (305, 705, 905, 1005) are substantially uniform in thickness (section 0077).
Regarding claim 8, Yaroshchuk discloses (Figs. 3A-10C; in particular Figs. 3A, 7, 9D, 10C) when light having a predetermined wavelength enters the microcells (315, 715, 915, 1015), each of the microcells shifts a phase of the light according to the refractive index of each of microcells (sections 0105, 0108-0110).
Regarding claim 9, Yaroshchuk does not necessarily disclose each of the microcells has a cell size equal to or smaller than the wavelength.
Yaroshchuk discloses (sections 0074, 0077, 0109, 0111, 0114) various cell thicknesses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular cell size and wavelength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular cell size and wavelength to allow for expansion of the field of view by multiplexing different portions of the field of view.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or suggest the light diffraction elements of claims 3-4, in particular the limitations of each of the subcells includes: multi-block copolymers each of which includes a first segment that includes a block polymer containing a mesogenic group having liquid crystallinity and a second segment that includes a block copolymer not containing the mesogenic group; and a guide that makes the multi-block copolymers self-organized, the mesogenic group in each of the plurality of subcells has an orientation direction which is one of n predetermined orientation directions, the first segment and the second segment are alternately attached to each other, and a total number of segments of each of the first segment and the second segment is not less than 2. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the light diffraction elements of claims 5-7, in particular the limitations of each of the subcells contains a polymer matrix including polymers, each of the polymers has a part to which a bound colorant and nanoparticles are bound in this order, and the nanoparticles have a refractive index larger than the polymer matrix does.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/CHARLES S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871