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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/362,567 filed on 07/31/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 200, 214, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application CN202110177022.5 (People’s Republic of China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
Claims 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunnari (US 20150253570 A1)(Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Sunnari discloses a grating, in at least Figures 3a-3b, at least comprising:
a first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) configured to diffract light to obtain first diffracted light (paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0015); and
a second grating layer (32 "second grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) disposed at one side of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", Figure 3a shows that 32 "second grating layer" is disposed at one side of 31 "first grating layer") and configured to diffract the light to obtain second diffracted light (paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0015),
wherein a phase difference P between the second diffracted light and the first diffracted light satisfies: (2N+1)π - π/2 ≤ P ≤ (2N+1)π + π/2, wherein N ≥ 0 and N is an integer (paragraph 0015 states “The destructive interference occurs between two waves propagating in the same direction when the phase difference is larger than 90 and smaller than 270 deg and is the strongest with the 180 deg phase difference”, therefore when N = 0, π/2 ≤ P ≤ 3π/2 which is equivalent to 90° ≤ P ≤ 270°, and therefore the claim limitation is met).
Regarding claim 15, Sunnari discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses wherein a height of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") ranges from 10nm to 1um (paragraph 0052 states "h.sub.1=h.sub.2=50 nm", therefore a height of 31 "first grating layer" is 50 nm which falls within the claimed range, Figure 3a), and a height of the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") ranges from 10nm to 1um (paragraph 0052 states "h.sub.1=h.sub.2=50 nm", therefore a height of 32 "second grating layer" is 50 nm which falls within the claimed range, Figure 3a).
Regarding claim 16, Sunnari discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses wherein an interval of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") is identical to an interval of the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer", Figure 3a shows that an interval of 31 "first grating layer" is identical to an interval of 32 "second grating layer"), the interval of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") ranges from 300nm to 600nm (paragraph 0052 states ".LAMBDA.=450 nm" and Figure 3b shows that Λ = 450 nm which falls within the claimed range), and the interval of the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") ranges from 300nm to 600nm (paragraph 0052 states ".LAMBDA.=450 nm" and Figure 3b shows that Λ = 450 nm which falls within the claimed range).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnari (US 20150253570 A1)(Figure 3), in view of Polack (US 20050270647 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sunnari discloses a grating, in at least Figures 3a-3b, at least comprising:
a first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) comprising first grating portions (31B "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) and second grating portions (31A "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B", Figure 3a shows that 31A and 31B "material zones" are alternately arranged at regular intervals), wherein a refractive index of each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones") is greater than a refractive index of each of the second grating portions (31A "material zones”, paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31B has a refractive index of 1.7 which is greater than 31A which has a refractive index of 1.3); and
a second grating layer (32 "second grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) disposed at one side of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", Figure 3a shows that 32 "second grating layer" is disposed at one side of 31 "first grating layer"), wherein the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") comprises third grating portions (32B "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) and fourth grating portions (32A "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones ... 32A, 32B"), a refractive index of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") is greater than a refractive index of each of the fourth grating portions (32A "material zones", paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32B has a refractive index of 1.7 which is greater than 32A which has a refractive index of 1.3), at least part of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") is aligned with each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones", Figure 3a shows that at least part of 32B "material zones" is aligned with each 31B "material zones").
However, Sunnari does not disclose a cross- sectional shape of each of the first grating portions is a first trapezoid, a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions is a second trapezoid, and a long base of the second trapezoid is away from the first grating portions.
Polack teaches a cross- sectional shape of each of the first grating portions (7 “first material”, Figure 3) is a first trapezoid (paragraph 0078 states “The substrate 2 thus prepared shows at its surface 3 embossed parallel lines 11 having a rectangular lamellar profile, possibly trapezoidal with a small-flanked width”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape … if the width of the flanks of the trapezoids is sufficiently small relative to the period p, the diffraction gratting thus obtained enables to select the orders of diffraction and to reinforce the diffraction efficiency”, see examiner’s markup of Figure 3), a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions (7 “first material”, Figure 3) is a second trapezoid (paragraph 0078 states “The substrate 2 thus prepared shows at its surface 3 embossed parallel lines 11 having a rectangular lamellar profile, possibly trapezoidal with a small-flanked width”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape … if the width of the flanks of the trapezoids is sufficiently small relative to the period p, the diffraction gratting thus obtained enables to select the orders of diffraction and to reinforce the diffraction efficiency”, see examiner’s markup of Figure 3), and a long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) is away from the first grating portions (7 “first material”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape” and paragraph 0079 states “On this substrate 2, one deposits, by an in-situ deposition method, alternately the thin layers of a first 7 and of a second 8 materials”, so therefore since the layers are stacked upwards from 2 “substrate” and the patterns have a regular trapezoidal shape, the long base of the second trapezoid must be away from the first grating portion).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 3 of Polack pointing out a first trapezoid and a second trapezoid.
PNG
media_image1.png
917
1143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the grating of Sunnari modified by a cross- sectional shape of each of the first grating portions is a first trapezoid, a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions is a second trapezoid, and a long base of the second trapezoid is away from the first grating portions, as taught by Polack, in order to allow for easier manufacturing of the grating (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Sunnari further discloses wherein the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") is attached and fixed to the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer", Figure 3a shows that 31 "first grating layer" is attached and fixed to 32 "second grating layer").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Sunnari further discloses wherein the refractive index of each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones") ranges from 1.4 to 3.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31B has a refractive index of 1.7 which falls within the claimed range), and the refractive index of each of the second grating portions (31A "material zones") ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31A has a refractive index of 1.3 which falls within the claimed range); and the refractive index of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") ranges from 1.4 to 3.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32B has a refractive index of 1.7 which falls within the claimed range), and the refractive index of each of the fourth grating portions (32A "material zones") ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32A has a refractive index of 1.3 which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein the first trapezoid and the second trapezoid each are an isosceles trapezoid, and at least one of an angle between a long base of the first trapezoid and a leg of the first trapezoid or an angle between the long base of the second trapezoid and a leg of the second trapezoid is greater than 80°.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first trapezoid and the second trapezoid be isosceles trapezoids, since applicant has not disclosed that the use of isosceles trapezoids solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any other type of trapezoid. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a first trapezoid and a second trapezoid such that at least one of an angle between a long base of the first trapezoid and a leg of the first trapezoid or an angle between the long base of the second trapezoid and a leg of the second trapezoid is greater than 80°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein an orthographic projection of an endpoint of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is completely coincident with an endpoint of the long base of the second trapezoid adjacent to the first trapezoid.
Polack teaches wherein an orthographic projection of an endpoint of a long base of the first trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) is located is completely coincident with an endpoint of the long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) adjacent to the first trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the grating of Sunnari modified by wherein an orthographic projection of an endpoint of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is completely coincident with an endpoint of the long base of the second trapezoid adjacent to the first trapezoid, as taught by Polack, in order to improve the diffraction efficiency (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein an orthographic projection of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located at least partially overlaps the long base of the second trapezoid; or the orthographic projection of the long base of the first trapezoid on the plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is spaced apart from the long base of the second trapezoid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a first trapezoid and a second trapezoid such that an orthographic projection of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located at least partially overlaps the long base of the second trapezoid; or the orthographic projection of the long base of the first trapezoid on the plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is spaced apart from the long base of the second trapezoid, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Sunnari further discloses wherein a height of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") ranges from 10nm to 1um (paragraph 0052 states "h.sub.1=h.sub.2=50 nm", therefore a height of 31 "first grating layer" is 50 nm which falls within the claimed range, Figure 3a), and a height of the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") ranges from 10nm to 1um (paragraph 0052 states "h.sub.1=h.sub.2=50 nm", therefore a height of 32 "second grating layer" is 50 nm which falls within the claimed range, Figure 3a).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Sunnari further discloses wherein an interval of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") is identical to an interval of the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer", Figure 3a shows that an interval of 31 "first grating layer" is identical to an interval of 32 "second grating layer"), the interval of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer") ranges from 300nm to 600nm (paragraph 0052 states ".LAMBDA.=450 nm" and Figure 3b shows that Λ = 450 nm which falls within the claimed range), and the interval of the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") ranges from 300nm to 600nm (paragraph 0052 states ".LAMBDA.=450 nm" and Figure 3b shows that Λ = 450 nm which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Sunnari does not disclose a plurality of first grating layers and a plurality of second grating layers that are alternately arranged at regular intervals.
Polack teaches a plurality of first grating layers (7 “first material”, Figure 3) and a plurality of second grating layers (8 “second material”, Figure 3) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (Figure 3 shows that a plurality of 7 “first material” and a plurality of 8 “second material” are alternately arranged at regular intervals).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the grating of Sunnari modified by a plurality of first grating layers and a plurality of second grating layers that are alternately arranged at regular intervals, as taught by Polack, in order to improve the diffraction efficiency (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 13, Sunnari discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) comprises first grating portions (31B "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) and second grating portions (31A "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B", Figure 3a shows that 31A and 31B "material zones" are alternately arranged at regular intervals), a refractive index of each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones") is greater than a refractive index of each of the second grating portions (31A "material zones", paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31B has a refractive index of 1.7 which is greater than 31A which has a refractive index of 1.3); and the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") comprises third grating portions (32B "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) and fourth grating portions (32A "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones ... 32A, 32B", Figure 3a shows that 31A and 31B "material zones" are alternately arranged at regular intervals), a refractive index of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") is greater than a refractive index of each of the fourth grating portions (32A "material zones", paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32B has a refractive index of 1.7 which is greater than 32A which has a refractive index of 1.3), at least part of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") is aligned with each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones", Figure 3a shows that at least part of 32B "material zones" is aligned with each 31B "material zones").
However, Sunnari does not disclose a cross-sectional shape of each of the first grating portions is a first trapezoid, a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions is a second trapezoid, and a long base of the second trapezoid is away from the first grating portions.
Polack teaches a cross-sectional shape of each of the first grating portions (7 “first material”, Figure 3) is a first trapezoid (paragraph 0078 states “The substrate 2 thus prepared shows at its surface 3 embossed parallel lines 11 having a rectangular lamellar profile, possibly trapezoidal with a small-flanked width”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape … if the width of the flanks of the trapezoids is sufficiently small relative to the period p, the diffraction gratting thus obtained enables to select the orders of diffraction and to reinforce the diffraction efficiency”, see examiner’s markup of Figure 3), a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions (7 “first material”, Figure 3) is a second trapezoid (paragraph 0078 states “The substrate 2 thus prepared shows at its surface 3 embossed parallel lines 11 having a rectangular lamellar profile, possibly trapezoidal with a small-flanked width”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape … if the width of the flanks of the trapezoids is sufficiently small relative to the period p, the diffraction gratting thus obtained enables to select the orders of diffraction and to reinforce the diffraction efficiency”, see examiner’s markup of Figure 3), and a long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) is away from the first grating portions (7 “first material”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape” and paragraph 0079 states “On this substrate 2, one deposits, by an in-situ deposition method, alternately the thin layers of a first 7 and of a second 8 materials”, so therefore since the layers are stacked upwards from 2 “substrate” and the patterns have a regular trapezoidal shape, the long base of the second trapezoid must be away from the first grating portion).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the grating of Sunnari modified by a cross-sectional shape of each of the first grating portions is a first trapezoid, a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions is a second trapezoid, and a long base of the second trapezoid is away from the first grating portions, as taught by Polack, in order to allow for easier manufacturing of the grating (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 13 and Sunnari further discloses wherein the refractive index of each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones") ranges from 1.4 to 3.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31B has a refractive index of 1.7 which falls within the claimed range), and the refractive index of each of the second grating portions (31A "material zones") ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31A has a refractive index of 1.3 which falls within the claimed range); and the refractive index of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") ranges from 1.4 to 3.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32B has a refractive index of 1.7 which falls within the claimed range), and the refractive index of each of the fourth grating portions (32A "material zones") ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32A has a refractive index of 1.3 which falls within the claimed range).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnari (US 20150253570 A1)(Figure 3), in view of Polack (US 20050270647 A1), and further in view of Oi (JP 2018146624 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sunnari and Polack disclose all the limitations of claim 3, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein for each of the second grating portions and each of the fourth grating portions, at least one of the second grating portions or the fourth grating portions is air.
Oi teaches wherein for each of the second grating portions and each of the fourth grating portions, at least one of the second grating portions or the fourth grating portions is air (page 16, paragraph 4 of translation states “the diffraction grating 12 having a periodic structure of convex portions 121 and concave portions 122 (air) is formed on the first surface of the transparent substrate 11”, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the grating of Sunnari modified by wherein for each of the second grating portions and each of the fourth grating portions, at least one of the second grating portions or the fourth grating portions is air, as taught by Oi, in order to utilize fewer materials and improve manufacturing efficiency.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnari (US 20150253570 A1)(Figure 3), in view of Polack (US 20050270647 A1), in view of Oi (JP 2018146624 A)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Shipton (US 20200041791 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sunnari, Polack, and Oi disclose all the limitations of claim 4, however Sunnari does not disclose a carrier substrate, wherein the first grating layer and the second grating layer are fixed to the carrier substrate, and are arranged at opposite sides of the carrier substrate.
Shipton teaches a carrier substrate (510 "spacer layer", Figure 5), wherein the first grating layer (540 "patterned layer", Figure 5) and the second grating layer (550 "patterned layer", Figure 5) are fixed to the carrier substrate (510 "spacer layer", Figure 5 shows that 540 "patterned layer" and 550 "patterned layer" are fixed to 510 "spacer layer"), and are arranged at opposite sides of the carrier substrate (510 "spacer layer", Figure 5 shows that 540 "patterned layer" and 550 "patterned layer" are arranged at opposite sides of 510 "spacer layer").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the grating of Sunnari modified by a carrier substrate, wherein the first grating layer and the second grating layer are fixed to the carrier substrate, and are arranged at opposite sides of the carrier substrate, as taught by Shipton, in order to perform an additional optical function and mitigate the rainbow effect (paragraph 0041).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunnari (US 20150253570 A1)(Figure 3), in view of Polack (US 20050270647 A1), and further in view of Choo (CN 101548214 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Sunnari discloses an optical device, in at least Figures 3a-3b, comprising a grating (31 "first grating layer", 32 "second grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a), wherein the grating (31 "first grating layer", 32 "second grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) at least comprises:
a first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) comprising first grating portions (31B "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) and second grating portions (31A "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B", Figure 3a shows that 31A and 31B "material zones" are alternately arranged at regular intervals), wherein a refractive index of each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones") is greater than a refractive index of each of the second grating portions (31A "material zones", paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 31B has a refractive index of 1.7 which is greater than 31A which has a refractive index of 1.3); and
a second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") disposed at one side of the first grating layer (31 "first grating layer", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a shows that 32 "second grating layer" is disposed at one side of 31 "first grating layer"), wherein the second grating layer (32 "second grating layer") comprises third grating portions (32B "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) and fourth grating portions (32A "material zones", paragraph 0050, Figure 3a) that are alternately arranged at regular intervals (paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones ... 32A, 32B"), a refractive index of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") is greater than a refractive index of each of the fourth grating portions (32A "material zones"), at least part of each of the third grating portions (32B "material zones") is aligned with each of the first grating portions (31B "material zones", paragraph 0050 states "The grating layers are composed of periodic patterns of alternating material zones 31A, 31B; 32A, 32B having different (within each layer) refractive indices n, n.sub.1; n, n.sub.2, respectively", paragraph 0052 states "n.sub.1=n.sub.2=1.7, n=1.3", therefore 32B has a refractive index of 1.7 which is greater than 32A which has a refractive index of 1.3).
However, Sunnari does not disclose a polarizer wherein the grating is disposed at one side of the polarizer, a first grating layer is farther away from the polarizer than a second grating layer, a polarization state of the polarizer is a transverse magnetic (TM) polarization state, a cross-sectional shape of each of the first grating portions is a first trapezoid, a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions is a second trapezoid, and a long base of the second trapezoid is away from the first grating portions.
Choo teaches a polarizer (34 “polarizer”, Figure 2) wherein the grating (31 “diffraction grating plate”, Figure 2) is disposed at one side of the polarizer (34 “polarizer”, Figure 2), a polarization state of the polarizer (34 “polarizer”) is a transverse magnetic (TM) polarization state (page 11, paragraph 1 of translation states "the polarizing polarization state is selected so that only sensor signal 4 transverse electromagnetic wave (Transverse Magnetic (TM) light)").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Sunnari modified by a polarizer wherein the grating is disposed at one side of the polarizer, a first grating layer is farther away from the polarizer than a second grating layer, a polarization state of the polarizer is a transverse magnetic (TM) polarization state, as taught by Choo, in order to improve image quality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange a first grating layer, a second grating layer, and a polarizer such that a first grating layer is farther away from the polarizer than a second grating layer, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Polack teaches a cross- sectional shape of each of the first grating portions (7 “first material”, Figure 3) is a first trapezoid (paragraph 0078 states “The substrate 2 thus prepared shows at its surface 3 embossed parallel lines 11 having a rectangular lamellar profile, possibly trapezoidal with a small-flanked width”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape … if the width of the flanks of the trapezoids is sufficiently small relative to the period p, the diffraction gratting thus obtained enables to select the orders of diffraction and to reinforce the diffraction efficiency”, see examiner’s markup of Figure 3), a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions (7 “first material”, Figure 3) is a second trapezoid (paragraph 0078 states “The substrate 2 thus prepared shows at its surface 3 embossed parallel lines 11 having a rectangular lamellar profile, possibly trapezoidal with a small-flanked width”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape … if the width of the flanks of the trapezoids is sufficiently small relative to the period p, the diffraction gratting thus obtained enables to select the orders of diffraction and to reinforce the diffraction efficiency”, see examiner’s markup of Figure 3), and a long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) is away from the first grating portions (7 “first material”, paragraph 0111 states “In practice, it is extremely difficult, let alone impossible, to realise engraven patterns exhibiting abrupt profiles perpendicular to the average surface of the substrate 2. One obtains generally patterns of trapezoidal shape” and paragraph 0079 states “On this substrate 2, one deposits, by an in-situ deposition method, alternately the thin layers of a first 7 and of a second 8 materials”, so therefore since the layers are stacked upwards from 2 “substrate” and the patterns have a regular trapezoidal shape, the long base of the second trapezoid must be away from the first grating portion).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Sunnari modified by a cross-sectional shape of each of the first grating portions is a first trapezoid, a cross-sectional shape of each of the third grating portions is a second trapezoid, and a long base of the second trapezoid is away from the first grating portions, as taught by Polack, in order to allow for easier manufacturing of the grating (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sunnari, Polack, and Choo disclose all the limitations of claim 17, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein a size of the polarizer is greater than or equal to a size of the grating, and an orthographic projection of the grating on the polarizer falls into the polarizer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a polarizer and a grating such that a size of the polarizer is greater than or equal to a size of the grating, and an orthographic projection of the grating on the polarizer falls into the polarizer, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sunnari, Polack, and Choo disclose all the limitations of claim 17, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein an orthographic projection of an endpoint of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is completely coincident with an endpoint of the long base of the second trapezoid adjacent to the first trapezoid.
Polack teaches wherein an orthographic projection of an endpoint of a long base of the first trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) is located is completely coincident with an endpoint of the long base of the second trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3) adjacent to the first trapezoid (see examiner’s markup of Figure 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical device of Sunnari modified by wherein an orthographic projection of an endpoint of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is completely coincident with an endpoint of the long base of the second trapezoid adjacent to the first trapezoid, as taught by Polack, in order to improve the diffraction efficiency (paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sunnari, Polack, and Choo disclose all the limitations of claim 17, however Sunnari does not disclose wherein an orthographic projection of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located at least partially overlaps the long base of the second trapezoid; or the orthographic projection of the long base of the first trapezoid on the plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is spaced apart from the long base of the second trapezoid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a first trapezoid and a second trapezoid such that an orthographic projection of a long base of the first trapezoid on a plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located at least partially overlaps the long base of the second trapezoid; or the orthographic projection of the long base of the first trapezoid on the plane where the long base of the second trapezoid is located is spaced apart from the long base of the second trapezoid, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872