DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14, 17-19, 21-22 and 24-27 are pending before the Office for review.
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Claims 21-22 and 24-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 27,2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14 and 17-19) in the reply filed on October 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH et al (WO 2020/185954).
With regards to claim 1, Singh discloses: providing a substrate (1601) having a multi-layer structure (1605, 1607, 1609) disposed thereon, wherein the multi- layer structure comprises a meta-layer comprising a hard mask layer (1609) comprising a hard mask material (silicon oxide), and a spacer layer (1607) on which the hard mask layer is disposed, the spacer layer comprising a spacer material (silicon nitride), and wherein a replication material (1603) is disposed on a surface of the multi-layer structure (Paragraphs [0805]-[0807]); imprinting, into the replication material, a replication pattern comprising a first replication feature and a second replication feature, wherein the first replication feature and the second replication feature have different heights (Figure 16A-1 Paragraph [0807]); and performing a plurality of etching processes on the replication material, the multi-layer structure, and the substrate, to obtain a substrate pattern comprising a first substrate feature and a second substrate feature, wherein the first substrate feature is aligned with a position of the first replication feature and the second substrate feature is aligned with a position of the second replication feature, and wherein the first substrate feature and the second substrate feature have different heights (Figures 16A-1 -16C-2, 22A-22D Paragraphs [0807]-[0810]; [0830]-[0831]).
Singh does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi- layer structure comprises a plurality of meta-layers, each meta-layer comprising a hard mask layer comprising a hard mask material, and a spacer layer on which the hard mask layer is disposed, the spacer layer comprising a spacer material.
However Singh discloses the including of a multilayer structure comprising three layers 1605, 1607 and 1609; wherein the additional layers may be employed in other designs (Paragraphs [0807]-[0810]) therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add additional layers in order to duplicated the parts to form the desired waveguide including wherein the multi- layer structure comprises a plurality of meta-layers, each meta-layer comprising a hard mask layer comprising a hard mask material, and a spacer layer on which the hard mask layer is disposed, the spacer layer comprising a spacer material.. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Singh to include the multilayer structure with a plurality of meta-layers as rendered obvious the reference of Singh teaches that the additional multiple layers can be used to adjust the light propagating through the coating for the waveguide (Paragraph [0806]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired patterning using the multilayer structure as rendered obvious by Singh. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious wherein a height of the first replication feature is smaller than a height of the second replication feature, and wherein the plurality of etching processes comprise a first etching process comprising: etching the replication material until the first replication feature is removed and a portion of the second replication feature remains on the multi-layer structure. (Figures 16B1- 16B2 Paragraphs [0805]-[0810] discloses forming the etch mask which has multiple heights and etching the wafer until the etch mask is etched away at a portion).
With regards to claims 3-4, the modified teachings of Sing renders obvious wherein the plurality of etching processes comprise a second etching process, performed after the first etching process, the second etching process comprising: etching away a portion of a hard mask layer of a first meta-layer, the etched-away portion of the hard mask layer aligned with the position of the first replication feature; and etching away a portion of a spacer layer of the first meta-layer, the etched-away portion of the spacer layer aligned with the position of the first replication feature and with a position of the etched-away portion of the hard mask layer of the first meta-layer; wherein the second etching process causes a portion of the multi-layer structure aligned with the position of the first replication feature to include fewer meta-layers than a portion of the multi-layer structure aligned with the position of the second replication feature. (Figures 16A1- 16B2 Paragraphs [0805]-[0810] discloses forming the mask area with separate regions of different heights and etching the variation of the heights into the underlying multilayer structure wherein the etching may be a single etching method or a multi-step etch method).
With regards to claims 6-8, the cited prior art renders obvious wherein a first part of the plurality of etching processes causes the multi-layer structure to include a first portion and a second portion, the first portion thinner than the second portion, and wherein a second part of the plurality of etching processes comprises: etching the substrate to form a first intermediate substrate feature and a second intermediate substrate feature, wherein the first intermediate substrate feature is aligned with the position of the first portion of the multi-layer structure and the second intermediate substrate feature is aligned with the position of the second portion of the multi-layer structure; subsequent to etching the substrate to form the first and second intermediate substrate features: etching away the first portion of the multi-layer structure to expose the first intermediate substrate feature and to leave in place at least some of the second portion of the multi-layer structure; and etching away a portion of the first intermediate substrate feature, the second intermediate substrate feature being protected from etching by the second portion of the multi-layer structure and subsequent to etching away the portion of the first intermediate substrate feature: etching away at least some of the second portion of the multi-layer structure; and etching the substrate to form the first substrate feature and the second substrate feature. (Figures 16A1- 16B2 Paragraphs [0805]-[0810] discloses forming the mask area with separate regions of different heights and etching the variation of the heights into the underlying multilayer structure wherein the etching may be a single etching method or a multi-step etch method; wherein the multilayer structure is etched based on the height of the masking layer wherein the masking layer is removed from different potions at a different rate based on the height of the etching mask in the region Figure 23A-23C Paragraphs [0832]-[0834] discloses etching the features into a substrate wherein the different heights are).
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious subsequent to imprinting the replication pattern, etching away a residual layer of the replication material remaining on the surface of the multi-layer structure, wherein the replication material comprises at least one of a polymer, an epoxy, or a resin, and wherein imprinting the replication pattern comprises curing the replication material. (Paragraphs [0773], [0775]-[0776], [0807] discloses using a pattern layer comprising a patternable material including a polymer or resist which can be imprinted and then cured).
With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious wherein the had mask material is a metal or a metal oxide (Paragraph [0805]-[0807] discloses forming a silicon oxide layer rendering metal oxide).
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious wherein the spacer material comprises at least one of a photoresist, an oxide or a nitride (Paragraphs [0805]-[0807] discloses silicon nitride).
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious a first etch that selectively etches the replication material compared to the hard mask material; a second etch that selectively etches the hard mask material compared to the spacer material; and a third etch that selectively etches the spacer material compared to the hard mask material. (Paragraphs [0805]-[0807] discloses performing a multistep etch process wherein each layer is selectively etched in the order in which the layers are deposited on the substrate).
With regards to claim 17, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious wherein the first replication feature adjoins the second replication feature, and wherein the first substrate feature adjoins the second substrate feature (Figure 16A-1 Paragraphs [0805]-[0810] discloses left, center, and right portions of a pattern where each region had a different height and is connected).
With regards to claim 18, the modified teachings of Singh renders obvious wherein the first substrate feature and the second substrate feature together form some or all of an optical metastructure (Paragraphs [0846], [0848])
With regards to claim 19, the modified teachings of Sing renders obvious wherein the substrate has a refractive index of greater than 1.8 which render obvious greater than 2.5 for at least one of ultraviolet light, visible light, or infrared light. (Paragraph [0799] discloses material with a refractive index of greater than 1.8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713