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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19-21, 24-25, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0018176 A1 of record, “Kuznetsov”) in view of Sato et al (US Publication No.: US 2008/0137188 A1, “Sato”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kuznetsov discloses an optical polarizer (Figure 1E) comprising:
A multi-layer dielectric substrate (Figure 1E, multi-dielectric substrate 102/106; Paragraph 0077; Paragraph 0075);
A plurality of elongated dielectric ridges positioned or disposed in spaced relation on a surface of the dielectric substrate (Figure 1E, dielectric ridges 104; Paragraph 0073);
A coating on each side of each conductive ridge (Figure 1E, coating 108; Paragraph 0075);
A groove or trench defined between the coatings on the facing sides of adjacent or proximate pairs of dielectric ridges (Figure 1E, there are grooves/trenches between the dielectric coatings 108 to make space for conductive ridges 104); and
A solid dielectric material in each groove or trench between the facing sides of the adjacent or proximate pairs of conductive ridges, wherein said solid dielectric material also covers tops of the plurality of conductive ridges disposed opposite to the multi-layer dielectric substrate (Figure 1E, dielectric material 108 is disposed between each ridge and on top of the ridges).
Kuznetsov fails to disclose that the coatings are electrically conductive coatings, wherein the electrically conductive coatings on the sides of each dielectric ridge are galvanically isolated from each other.
However, Sato discloses a similar polarizer where the coatings are electrically conductive coatings, wherein the electrically conductive coatings on the sides of each dielectric ridge are galvanically isolated from each other (Sato, Figure 1A, galvanically isolated electrically conductive coatings 13, dielectric ridge 12; Paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the coatings as disclosed by Kuznetsov to be electrically conductive as disclosed by Sato. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a high aspect ratio (Sato, Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 20, Kuznetsov in view of Sato discloses the optical polarizer of claim 19.
Kuznetsov fails to explicitly disclose that the multi-layer dielectric substrate comprises: a layer of silicon(Si); a layer of zinc selenide (ZnSe) between the layer of silicon(Si) and the plurality of dielectric ridges; and a layer of magnesium fluoride (MgF2) between the layer of zinc selenide(ZnSe) and the plurality of dielectric ridges.
However, Kuznetsov discloses a general environment of using a multi-layer dielectric substrate for the purpose of optimizing polarization characteristics (Kuznetsov, Paragraphs 0073-0075). Silicon, zinc selenide, and magnesium fluoride are all well-known dielectric materials used in optical polarizers for optimizing polarization characteristics, particularly reducing absorption and electrically isolating adjacent layers. The applicant has not shown, nor does the specification indicate, that the selection of materials for the layers yields any unexpected results relative to the prior art configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-layer dielectric substrate as disclosed by Kuznetsov to select these particular materials, since these materials are known to perform the same function and are suitable materials (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 21, Kuznetsov in view of Sato discloses the optical polarizer of claim 18.
Kuznetsov fails to explicitly disclose a layer of fused silica (FS); a layer of tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) between the layer of fused silica (FS)and the plurality of dielectric ridges; and a layer of magnesium fluoride (MgF2) between the layer of tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5) and the plurality of dielectric ridges.
However, Kuznetsov discloses a general environment of using a multi-layer dielectric substrate for the purpose of optimizing polarization characteristics (Kuznetsov, Paragraphs 0073-0075). Fused silica, tantalum pentoxide, and magnesium fluoride are all well-known dielectric materials used in optical polarizers for optimizing polarization characteristics, particularly reducing absorption and electrically isolating adjacent layers. The applicant has not shown, nor does the specification indicate, that the selection of materials for the layers yields any unexpected results relative to the prior art configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-layer dielectric substrate as disclosed by Kuznetsov to select these particular materials, since these materials are known to perform the same function and are suitable materials (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 24, Kuznetsov in view of Sato discloses the optical polarizer of claim 19, wherein the solid dielectric material is epoxy or SiO2 (Paragraph 0075 discloses SiO2 as the solid dielectric material).
Regarding Claim 25, Kuznetsov in view of Sato discloses the optical polarizer of claim 19, wherein the solid dielectric material has a refractive index (n) of 1.54 (Paragraph 0066 discloses that solid dielectric material has the same refractive index as that of the substrate, where Paragraph 0070 discloses that the refractive index of the substrate is between 1 and 2; further, Paragraph 0075 discloses a material of SiO2 for the solid dielectric material which is known to have a refractive index around 1.54).
Regarding Claim 35, Kuznetsov discloses the optical polarizer of claim 19, wherein the plurality of elongated dielectric ridges are formed of SiO2 (Paragraph 0073).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznetsov in view of Sato in further view of Shim et al (US Publication No.: US 2007/0177289 A1 of record, “Shim”).
Regarding Claim 22, Kuznetsov in view of Sato discloses the optical polarizer of claim 19.
Kuznetsov fails to disclose that the multi-layer dielectric substrate comprises: a bottom layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2); a layer of zinc selenide (ZnSe) between the bottom layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and the plurality of dielectric ridges; an intermediate layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) between the layer of zinc selenide (ZnSe) and the plurality of dielectric ridges; and a top layer of zinc sulfide (ZnS) between the intermediate layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and the plurality of dielectric ridges.
Shim also fails to explicitly disclose that the multi-layer dielectric substrate comprises: a bottom layer of silicon dioxide (SiOa); a layer of zinc selenide (ZnSe) between the bottom layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and the plurality of dielectric ridges; an intermediate layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) between the layer of zinc selenide (ZnSe) and the plurality of dielectric ridges; and a top layer of zinc sulfide (ZnS) between the intermediate layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and the plurality of dielectric ridges. However, Shim discloses a general environment of using layers of silicon dioxide, zinc selenide, and zinc sulfide to form a multi-layer dielectric substrate (Shim, Paragraph 0032). Zinc selenide, silicon dioxide, and zinc sulfide are all well-known dielectric materials used in optical polarizers for optimizing polarization characteristics, particularly reducing absorption and electrically isolating adjacent layers. The applicant has not shown, nor does the specification indicate, that the selection of materials for the layers yields any unexpected results relative to the prior art configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the multi-layer dielectric substrate as disclosed by Kuznetsov to select these particular materials as disclosed by Shim, since these materials are known to perform the same function and are suitable materials (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Davis (US 2012/0250154 A1) discloses a wire grid polarizer with varying pitches
-Lee (US 2012/0086887 A1) discloses a wire grid polarizer with first and second base layers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights