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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/18/24 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 2019/0227316 A1) in view of Brown et. al. (US 2024/0058840 A1) in further view of Wall et. al. (US 9,891,436 B2).
Regarding claim 1 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method comprising:
forming a first layer (2320) on a glass substrate, the first layer comprising a high refractive index material (para. 0140);
forming a pattern in the first layer comprising one or more grating regions (A: see annotated fig.4 below) and one or more blanketing regions (B: see annotated fig. 4 below);
Lee does not teach forming a second layer only on the one or more blanketing regions.
Brown teaches (figs.6,8, and 22-23) forming a second layer only on the one or more blanketing regions (para. 0161).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the varying deposition as taught by Brown for the benefit of controlling the light transmission in the waveguide structure verses the output grating region.
Lee as modified by Brown further does not teach that the second layer comprising a low refractive index material.
Wall teaches (figs. 6A-6B, and 7) that the second layer comprising a low refractive index material (col. 18, lines 20-31, and 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the reflectivity deposition as taught by Wall for the benefit of controlling the light reflectivity in the waveguide structure to reduce the amount of light leaking out and increase the image quality (Brown, col.17, lines 43-53).
PNG
media_image1.png
162
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, where forming the first layer comprises: spin coating the high refractive index material onto the glass substrate (para. 0118).
Regarding claim 3 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, where forming the pattern in the first layer comprises: nanoimprinting the pattern into the first layer using a nanoimprint mold (para. 0132).
Regarding claim 4 Lee inherently teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, where forming the pattern in the first layer further comprises: after the pattern has been nanoimprinted into the first layer, curing the first layer. Although the prior art does not specifically disclose the claimed curing of the material post nano imprinting, this feature is seen to be an inherent teaching of that device since Lee teaches the nanoimprinting into resin and to harden the resin curing is required is disclosed, and it is apparent that curing must be present for the device to function as intended.
Regarding claim 5 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, except where forming the second layer comprises: inkjet depositing the low refractive index material only onto the one or more blanket regions of the first layer.
Brown teaches (figs.6,8, and 22-23) forming the second layer comprises: inkjet depositing the low refractive index material only onto the one or more blanket regions of the first layer (para. 0137).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the varying deposition as taught by Brown for the benefit of controlling the light transmission in the waveguide structure verses the output grating region.
Regarding claim 6 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, further comprising: forming a uniform low refractive index thin film from the second layer (col. 18, lines 20-31, and 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the reflectivity deposition as taught by Wall for the benefit of controlling the light reflectivity in the waveguide structure to reduce the amount of light leaking out and increase the image quality (Brown, col.17, lines 43-53).
Regarding claim 7 Lee as modified by Brown teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, where forming the uniform low refractive index thin film comprises: nanoimprinting the uniform low refractive index thin film by applying a nanoimprint mold to the second layer (para. 0132).
Regarding claim 8 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method a method comprising:
forming a first layer (2320) on a substrate, the first layer comprising a high refractive index material (para. 0140);
nanoimprinting a pattern in the first layer by applying a first nanoimprint mold to the first layer, the pattern comprising one or more grating regions (A: see annotated fig.4 from Lee above in the rejection of claim 1) and one or more blanketing regions (A: see annotated fig.4 from Lee above in the rejection of claim 1) (para. 0132).
Lee does not teach performing an inkjet deposition process to form a second layer only on the blanketing regions of the pattern.
Brown teaches (figs.6,8, and 22-23) performing an inkjet deposition process to form a second layer only on the blanketing regions of the pattern (para. 0137).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the varying deposition as taught by Brown for the benefit of controlling the light transmission in the waveguide structure verses the output grating region.
Lee as modified by Brown further does not teach that the second layer comprising a low refractive index material.
Wall teaches (figs. 6A-6B, and 7) that the second layer comprising a low refractive index material (col. 18, lines 20-31, and 45-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the reflectivity deposition as taught by Wall for the benefit of controlling the light reflectivity in the waveguide structure to reduce the amount of light leaking out and increase the image quality (Brown, col.17, lines 43-53).
Lee as modified by Brown and Wall further teaches nanoimprinting a uniform low refractive index thin film by applying a second nanoimprint mold to the second layer (para. 0132).
Regarding claim 9 Lee as modified by Brown and further modified by Wall teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) a method, further comprising: after applying the first nanoimprint mold to the first layer, curing the first layer; and after applying the second nanoimprint mold to the second layer, curing the uniform low refractive index thin film. Although the prior art does not specifically disclose the claimed curing of the material post nano imprinting, this feature is seen to be an inherent teaching of that device since Lee teaches the nanoimprinting into resin and to harden the resin curing is required is disclosed, and it is apparent that curing must be present for the device to function as intended.
Regarding claim 10 Lee teaches (figs. 4, 19c, 23A-23B, 24A-24D, and 25A-25D) an optical structure comprising:
a first layer (2320) on a glass substrate, the first layer comprising a high refractive index material (para. 0140);
a pattern in the first layer comprising one or more grating regions (A: see annotated fig.4 from Lee above in the rejection of claim 1) and one or more blanketing regions (B: see annotated fig. 4 from Lee above in the rejection of claim 1).
the second layer is an antireflection layer comprising a resin-based uniform low refractive index thin film (para. 0087).
Lee does not teach forming a second layer only on the one or more blanketing regions.
Brown teaches (figs.6,8, and 22-23) forming a second layer only on the one or more blanketing regions (para. 0161).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the varying deposition as taught by Brown for the benefit of controlling the light transmission in the waveguide structure verses the output grating region.
Lee as modified by Brown further does not teach an antireflection layer comprising a resin-based uniform low refractive index thin film.
Wall teaches (figs. 6A-6B, and 7) that the second layer comprising a low refractive index material (col. 12, lines 11-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the wave guide structure as taught by Lee with the antireflection deposition as taught by Wall for the benefit of controlling the light to enter the waveguide structure to reduce the amount of the rainbow effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further VR imprinting grating systems includes Yamada et. al. (US 2011/0127090 A1), Tervo et. al. (US 2019/0056591 A1), Guo et. al. (US 2021/0180183 A1), Peroz et. al. (US 11,953,653 B2), and Lin (US 2009/0080077 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872