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
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 22 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant believes (1) the claims are not independent and distinct, and (2) that there is not a serious search or examination burden if restriction is not required.
Regarding applicant’s first argument, applicant argues that because: (a) groups I-III all recite a light turning element, (b) the subject matter of groups I-IV substantially overlaps, and (c) that a device that infringes claims 11 or 16 would infringe claim 1, the claims cannot be independent and distinct. This argument is not persuasive. As noted in the restriction requirement dated 23 October 2025, group I is directed to a light turning element, which includes any optical element capable of turning light, such as a prism, refractor, reflector, and/or diffractor. Group II is directed to a light guide assembly that includes a waveguide, such as an optical fiber or housing. Group III is directed to a display system that includes its own light source. Group IV is directed to a process to manufacture a light turning element including radiation curing. Thus, the four distinct claimed inventions have materially different designs, modes of operation, and functions or effects. Moreover, the independent claims of the groups merely having a common element does not negate the fact that the invention claimed in each group have materially different and/or added components that, taken together, render the claimed inventions independent and distinct. Additionally, the subject matter of the groups do not overlap. By way of example, and to appreciate the breadth and scope of the claimed inventions, a prism (group I), an optical fiber or a housing (group II), a holographic projector (group III), and a method to manufacture a deflector (group IV) cannot reasonably be deemed as failing to be independent and distinct. Furthermore, it is not agreed that a device which infringes either claim 11 or 16 would necessarily infringe independent claim 1. As currently drafted, claim 11 includes a waveguide which is not recited in independent claim 1, and claims 2-10 which depend upon claim 1, claim different structures and features compared to those recited in claims 12-15, which depend upon claim 11. Additionally, claims 17-18 which depend upon claim 16, recite different structures and features compared to those recited in claims 2-10 and 12-15.
Regarding applicant’s second argument, applicant asserts only that there should be no serious search or examination burden since a search should yield substantially the same set of references. This argument is not persuasive. A serious search and/or examination burden is demonstrated by showing any of the following: the inventions are separately classified, the inventions have a separate status in the art when classified together, or the inventions would require a different field of search (MPEP § 808.02). In the present case, the inventions are both separately classified (per the 23 October 2025 restriction requirement, group I is classified in G02F1/1337, group II in G02B6/0001, group III in G02B27/01, and group IV in B05D3/06) and the inventions would require different fields of search, as indicated by at least their differing classifications. Therefore, a serious search and/or examination burden has been established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-10 are original, and claims 11-25 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 12 May 2023, 09 November 2023, 01 October 2024, and 12 December 2024 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to:
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the polymer matrix comprising a pluralities, and the liquid crystal material being located within the cavities, as recited in claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the meaning of the limitation “the polymer matrix comprises a plurality of cavities” is unclear. Neither the written or illustrated portions of the specification disclose pertinent details showing or describing the matrix, such as where such a matrix is located, what other component(s) it might be comprised of other than a cavity, and where liquid crystal material would be disposed within the cavity. Because the examiner is not in good faith able to construe the meaning of this claim limitation, it has not been further examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan (US 20110027494).
Re: claim 1, Tan discloses a layer of liquid crystal material 40 (para. 77 discloses liquid crystal; see also Fig. 2a), wherein the layer of liquid crystal material defines a plane (Fig. 2a discloses X-Z plane), wherein the layer of liquid crystal material is configured such that an angle between a director of the liquid crystal material and a first dimension changes as a function of position in the first dimension (Fig. 2a & para. 77, which discloses angles of 0°, 33.6°, 53.1°, and 90° with respect to the x-axis), and wherein the first dimension is a dimension within the plane (Fig. 2a, the x-axial direction is within the X-Z plane).
Re: claim 2, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Tan further discloses that the angle between the director and the first direction changes as an oscillating function, wherein the oscillating function is one of a periodic function or a non-periodic function (Fig. 2a discloses periodic oscillating function along the x-axis, creating a triangular / sawtooth shape).
Re: claim 4, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Tan further discloses that the periodic function is a function selected from a group of functions consisting of: a sawtooth function, a square function, a triangle function, and a trigonometric function (triangular / sawtooth disclosed in Fig. 2a).
Re: claim 6, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Tan further discloses that a birefringence of the liquid crystal material is between 0.10 and 0.40 (para. 77 discloses that at a wavelength of 400 nm, 1.61 and 1.75 are the ordinary and extraordinary indexes of refraction, and their difference is 0.14, which falls within the claimed range, where applicant has defined the term “birefringence” as meaning the difference between refractive indexes ni and nt on page 31, lines 21-23 of the present specification as filed).
Re: claim 7, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Tan further discloses a polymer matrix interspersed with the layer of liquid crystal material (paras. 81-82 disclose a photo-polymerizable alignment precursor layer added to the liquid crystal material).
Re: claim 8, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 7, and Tan further discloses that, wherein the polymer matrix is more rigid than the liquid crystal material (para. 81 discloses UV curing, which inherently makes a material hard / solid, and where liquid crystal is inherently a state of matter softer than a solid).
Re: claim 10, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Tan further discloses that a refractive index of the layer of liquid crystal material oscillates along the first dimension (para. 77 discloses a phase difference oscillation per unit length [i.e., the x-axis direction] as being 0, -0.0461, -0.0921, and -0.1382) and the refractive index is in a direction perpendicular to the plane (para. 77 discloses the tilt angles of 0, 33.6, 53.1, and 90 degrees are out-of-plane tilt angles, where the plane is the X-Z plane disclosed in Fig. 2a).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan.
Re: claim 3, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 2, and while Tan does not explicitly disclose that a period of the periodic function is between 5 to 5000 microns, Tan does disclose a period having a size conducive to its use as a hologram (para. 9). Other components present in the disclosed apparatus have micron-scale and nanoscale dimensions (para. 77 discloses LC film thickness of 2.17 µm, paras. 83, 164, 174 disclose alignment layer thickness of 50 nm, nanoscale wavelengths disclosed throughout). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 5, Tan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Tan further discloses that a size of the layer of liquid crystal material in a direction that is perpendicular to the plane is between 10 and 5000 microns (para. 77 discloses a thickness of 2.17µm, which is close to the claimed range, where MPEP § 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights