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 Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on November 18th, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on September 16th, 2025.
Objections of claims 7 and 9 due to minor informalities
Rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed November 18th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Craig et al. (US 20180372941 A1).
Applicant argues the combination of Huang and Seo does not disclose or suggest generating a recess via additive manufacturing that cannot be reached by at least one machining tool. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejections are based on a combination of Huang and Seo, wherein Huang discloses generating a blank of the light guide (Col. 16, 2nd ¶; making lightguide comprising providing a bulk of optical material) with a recess (Fig. 1-2B; Col. 5, 4th ¶ and Col. 16, 2nd ¶; light extraction features that can be voids or hollows or depressions) by additive manufacture (Col. 7, 1st ¶; lightguide with the light extraction features may be provided by three-dimensional printing). These light extraction features, corresponding to recesses, may be internal (Fig. 4B; internal light extraction features 150) and/or surficial (Fig. 4B; surficial light extraction features 140). The light guide comprising these light extraction features may be formed by a combination of three-dimensional printing and machining ([0086]). Seo teaches a method of reworking a light guide (Fig. 4; Pg. 3, last ¶; polishing an optical PCB comprising an optical waveguide), the method comprising: providing the light guide with a recess (Marked Fig. 4; recess with at least one surface portion) and reworking the light guide with at least one machining tool (Fig. 4; Pg. 9, Ln. 2-3; wheel 112 with polishing pad 120). The polishing pad 120 on wheel 112 is a planar circular polishing tool. Applying the polishing pad 120 of Seo to the surface of the light guide with surficial light extraction features of Huang would prevent the inside of the surficial light extraction features from being polished. This combination is shown in the annotated figure 4B of Huang below.
PNG
media_image1.png
407
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, the combination of Huang and Seo provides the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues the wheel of Seo is able to access and polish the surface of the light guide used as a light decoupling structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Seo teaches a method of reworking a light guide (Fig. 4; Pg. 3, last ¶; polishing an optical PCB comprising an optical waveguide), the method comprising: providing the light guide with a recess (Marked Fig. 4; recess with at least one surface portion) and reworking the light guide with at least one machining tool (Fig. 4; Pg. 9, Ln. 2-3; wheel 112 with polishing pad 120), wherein the light guide is exclusively reworked in at least one region of the light guide that is not provided as a light decoupling point (Marked Fig. 4; Pg. 9, Ln. 2-8; only inner wall of groove 210 is polished, which is not provided as a light decoupling point), and wherein the recess is provided on at least one predetermined portion of the light guide such that the at least one machining tool is configured such that at least one surface portion of the light guide in the recess cannot be reached with the at least one machining tool (Marked Fig. 4; wheel 112 with polishing pad 120 cannot reach the at least one surface portion of the recess). Polishing is a well-known process for smoothing a surface and therefore a smooth surface would be formed by the rework process.
PNG
media_image2.png
489
990
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s amendment to the claims necessitates a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 , lines 13-14, “a light decoupling point” should say “the light decoupling point” for claim language consistency.
Claim 14, line 8, “exhibit total internal reflection” should say “exhibit the total internal reflection” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a sufficiently smooth surface” in lines 12-13. The term “sufficiently” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of this term renders the degree of reworking indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “a smooth surface”.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 9091411 B2; hereafter Huang), in view of Seo et al. (KR 20050110328 A; hereafter Seo) and Craig et al. (US 20180372941 A1; hereafter Craig).
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses a method for producing a light guide (Col. 16, 2nd ¶), the method comprising:
generating a blank of the light guide (Col. 16, 2nd ¶; making lightguide comprising providing a bulk of optical material) with a recess (Fig. 1-2B; Col. 5, 4th ¶ and Col. 16, 2nd ¶; light extraction features that can be voids or hollows or depressions) by additive manufacture (Col. 7, 1st ¶; lightguide with the light extraction features may be provided by three-dimensional printing);
and reworking the blank of the light guide with at least one machining tool (Col. 7, 1st ¶; providing the lightguide with the light extraction features may include a process of machining, which would necessarily be done using a machining tool), wherein at least one region of the blank of the light guide is not provided as a light decoupling point (Fig. 1-2B; Col. 16, 2nd ¶; regions of the lightguide without the light extraction features).
Huang further discloses the light guide may be configured such that light is totally internally reflected (Col. 3, 4th ¶).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the blank of the light guide is exclusively reworked in at least one region of the blank of the light guide that is not provided as a light decoupling point, and wherein the recess is generated on at least one predetermined portion of the blank of the light guide such that the at least one machining tool is configured such that at least one surface portion of the blank of the light guide in the recess cannot be reached with the at least one machining tool, and wherein the reworking the blank of the light guide produces a smooth surface of the at least one region of the blank of the light guide that is not provided as the light decoupling point so that light is totally internally reflected.
However, Seo teaches a method of reworking a light guide (Fig. 4; Pg. 3, last ¶; polishing an optical PCB comprising an optical waveguide), the method comprising: providing the light guide with a recess (Marked Fig. 4; recess with at least one surface portion) and reworking the light guide with at least one machining tool (Fig. 4; Pg. 9, Ln. 2-3; wheel 112 with polishing pad 120), wherein the light guide is exclusively reworked in at least one region of the light guide that is not provided as a light decoupling point (Marked Fig. 4; Pg. 9, Ln. 2-8; only inner wall of groove 210 is polished, which is not provided as a light decoupling point), and wherein the recess is provided on at least one predetermined portion of the light guide such that the at least one machining tool is configured such that at least one surface portion of the light guide in the recess cannot be reached with the at least one machining tool (Marked Fig. 4; wheel 112 with polishing pad 120 cannot reach the at least one surface portion of the recess). Polishing is a well-known process for smoothing a surface and therefore a smooth surface would be formed by the rework process.
PNG
media_image2.png
489
990
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang and Seo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of providing light guides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang with the teachings of Seo by applying the polishing wheel of Seo to the light guide blank of Huang to provide the blank of the light guide is exclusively reworked in at least one region of the blank of the light guide that is not provided as a light decoupling point, and wherein the recess is generated on at least one predetermined portion of the blank of the light guide such that the at least one machining tool is configured such that at least one surface portion of the blank of the light guide in the recess cannot be reached with the at least one machining tool, and wherein the reworking the blank of the light guide produces a smooth surface of the at least one region of the blank of the light guide that is not provided as a light decoupling point. Doing so would improve the optical transmission characteristics of the light guide in a cost effective manner (Seo Pg. 11, Ln. 1-5).
Furthermore, Craig teaches a surface of a three-dimensionally printed light guide ([0205]) may be smooth ([0187]) in order to totally internally reflect light ([0187]). Craig further teaches light interacting with a rough surface will allow the light to externally refract towards a viewer ([0079]), corresponding to a light decoupling. Engraved marks, corresponding to grooves/depressions in the light guide, have a rough surface that allows the internally reflecting light to partially externally refract and escape the light guide ([0002]).
Huang and Craig are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of providing light guides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang, in view of Seo, with the teachings of Craig to recognize that smoothing the surface of the light guide provides for totally internally reflection of the light and not reworking the rough surface of grooves/engravings allows those grooves/engravings to function as light decoupling points. By the combination of these references, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that reworking the blank of the light guide produces a smooth surface of the at least one region of the blank of the light guide that is not provided as a light decoupling point so that light is totally internally reflected. Doing so would allow for the manufacture of optical signs where the image appears to “hover” in space (Seo [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Huang further discloses the recess is generated by the additive manufacture (Col. 7, 1st ¶; lightguide with the light extraction features may be provided by three-dimensional printing).
Modified Huang does not explicitly disclose the at least one machining tool is configured such that a length, a width, a diameter, or a clear width of an opening of the recess is respectively smaller than a length, a width, a diameter, or a surface area of the at least one machining tool, or a depth of the recess is greater than a height of the at least one machining tool.
However, Seo further teaches the at least one machining tool is configured such that a width, a diameter, or a clear width of an opening of the recess is respectively smaller than a width, a diameter, or a surface area of the at least one machining tool (Marked Fig. 4; an opening of the recess with the at least one surface portion has a width, a diameter and a clear width smaller than a width, a diameter and a surface area of the wheel 112 with the polishing pad 120), or a depth of the recess is greater than a height of the at least one machining tool (Marked Fig. 4; the recess with the at least one surface portion has a depth greater than a height of the wheel 112 with the polishing pad 120).
Huang and Seo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of providing light guides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang with the teachings of Seo to provide the at least one machining tool is configured such that a length, a width, a diameter, or a clear width of an opening of the recess is respectively smaller than a length, a width, a diameter, or a surface area of the at least one machining tool, or a depth of the recess is greater than a height of the at least one machining tool. Doing so would improve the optical transmission characteristics of the light guide in a cost effective manner (Seo Pg. 11, Ln. 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Huang further discloses the additive manufacture of the blank of the light guide generates the recess with constant dimensions (Fig. 2B; Col. 6, 3rd ¶; light extraction features 150 can be rectangle shaped, therefore having a constant width and length) or with at least one dimension that changes over a course of the recess (Fig. 2B; Col. 6, 3rd ¶; light extraction features can be cone shaped, for example 140, therefore having a changing width).
Regarding claim 10, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7.
Seo further teaches the reworking is grinding (Pg. 9, Ln. 8-9; abrasive may be attached to polishing pad, wherein the abrasive would grind against the surface) or polishing (Pg. 9, Ln. 6-8; polishing with polishing pad).
Huang and Seo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of providing light guides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang with the teachings of Seo to provide the reworking is grinding or polishing. Doing so would improve the optical transmission characteristics of the light guide in a cost effective manner (Seo Pg. 11, Ln. 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Huang further discloses the additive manufacture of the blank of the light guide generates the recess having a constant depth and an evenly increasing width (Col. 6, Ln. 3rd ¶; light extraction feature may have a conical frustum shape, which has a constant depth and evenly increasing width; please note that as per Col. 7, Ln. 65 to Col. 8, Ln. 3, any of the materials, geometries/shapes, and/or techniques/processes described for the internal light extraction features 150 apply to the surficial light extraction features 140) towards an end-face of the light guide (Fig. 4B; a surficial light extraction feature 140 shaped as a conical frustum would have its width increasing towards the surface).
Regarding claim 12, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Huang further discloses the additive manufacture of the blank of the light guide generates the recess having a constant depth and a width increasing more significantly (Col. 6, Ln. 3rd ¶; light extraction feature may have a tapered conical frustum shape, which has a constant depth and an increasing width more significant at the end of the taper; please note that as per Col. 7, Ln. 65 to Col. 8, Ln. 3, any of the materials, geometries/shapes, and/or techniques/processes described for the internal light extraction features 150 apply to the surficial light extraction features 140) towards an end-face of the light guide compared to away from the end-face (Fig. 4B; a surficial light extraction feature 140 shaped as a tapered conical frustum would have its width increasing towards the surface).
Regarding claim 13, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Huang further discloses the blank of the light guide is generated with a plurality of recesses (Fig. 4B; plurality of surficial light extraction features 140), including the recess, by the additive manufacture. By applying the polishing wheel of Seo to the surface of light guide of Huang, as outlined in the rejection of claim 7 above, the plurality of surficial light extraction features 140 would not be reached by the polishing wheel.
Regarding claim 14, modified Huang discloses the method of claim 7. As outlined in rejection of claim 7 above, the combination of Huang, Seo and Craig would provide the reworking of the blank of the light guide comprises smoothing, to achieve the total internal reflection, the at least one region of the blank of the light guide that is not provided as the light decoupling point, and the additive manufacture of the blank of the light guide produces the at least one surface portion of the blank of the light guide in the recess having a surface roughness so that the at least one surface portion of the blank of the light guide in the recess does not exhibit total internal reflection.
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754