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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 6, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 23, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 14, 17 and has canceled claim 7.
Claims 1-6, and 8-20 remain pending in this application.
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 1-6 and 8-20 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 1 and claim 14 have been amended to include the phrase “a plurality of diffractive optical elements including a plurality of diffractive gratings” that is confusing and indefinite, since it is not clear what is the difference between the cited the plurality of diffractive optical elements and the plurality of diffraction gratings? The specification of originally filed of the instant application includes only a plurality of blazed regions, it is not clear that each of the blazed region is a diffractive optical element or a diffraction grating.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Jacob et al (PN. 10,241,269) in view of the US patent issued to Maker et al (US 6,480,333).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Jacob et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a grating coupler serves as serves as the diffractive optical element, (please see Figures 3D and 5B), that is comprised of a semiconductor slab (12) serves as the bulk material substrate having a bulk material surface and implicitly a Bulk Material index of refraction, a grating layer (14b, Figure 5D) that may comprise a amorphous material, (please see column 4, lines 58-65), which therefore serves as the amorphous material film that may be deposited directly onto the bulk material surface, (12, please see Figure 3D). Jacob et al teaches that the amorphous material film layer having a film thickness and an amorphous material film index of refraction. The amorphous material film layer (14b) may be extended continuously across an entirety the bulk material surface, (please see Figure 5D).
The grating layer (14b, Figure 5D) comprises a plurality of diffraction optical elements including a plurality of diffraction gratings (14b, Figure 5D) that is machined into an upper surface of the amorphous material film layer. The plurality of diffraction gratings extend continuously in contact with one another across an entirety of the upper surface of the amorphous material film layer (please see Figures 5J and 5K) and wherein each of the plurality of diffraction optical elements includes the diffraction optical element thickens and a diffractive optical element profile.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein each of the diffraction gratings includes a first blaze surface having a first blaze surface width and a second blaze surface, wherein the first blaze surface of a first diffraction grating among the plurality of diffraction gratings directly contacts the second blaze surface of a second direction grating among the plurality of gratings that is located directly adjacent to the first diffraction grating”.
Jacob et al teaches that each of the diffraction grating includes a first blaze surface having a first blaze surface width and a second grating surface, (please see Figure 5B). It however does not teach that the second grating surface is also a blaze surface. Maker et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffraction optical element that is comprised of a plurality of diffraction grating, (please see Figure 11) wherein each of the diffraction grating comprises a first blaze surface having a first blaze width and a second blaze surface. Maker et al teaches the first blaze surface of a first diffraction grating among the plurality of diffraction gratings directly contacts the second blaze surface of a second diffraction grating among the plurality of diffraction gratings that is located directly adjacent to the first diffraction grating, (please see Figure 11).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Maker et al to modify the diffraction gratings to have two blazed surfaces for the benefit of the allowing the diffraction gratings to have a desired diffraction property.
With regard to claim 6, Jacob et al in light of Maker et al teaches that the plurality of gratings (please see Figure 5D of Jacob et al and Figure 11 of Maker et al) are formed into the amorphous material layer film layer to include a grating spacing and a grating thickness. The limitation concerning "machined" is considered to be product-by-process limitation that is not given patentable weight since it does not differentiate the final product from the prior art, (please see MPEP 2173.05(p)). The etching method or lithographic method for fabricating the diffraction elements is considered to machine the diffraction elements.
With regard to claim 8, Jacob et al teaches that the bulk material surface include a flat bulk material surface, (please see Figure 3D and 5I).
With regard to claim 10, these references do not teach explicitly the bulk material surface includes a bulk material substrate thickness which ranges from about 1 mm to greater than 3 inches. However, such feature is considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art to make the diffractive optical element to meet desired application requirement.
With regard to claim 11, Jacob et al teaches that the amorphous material layer may comprise amorphous silicon, (please see column 4, line 63-64).
With regard to claim 13, Maker et al also teaches that the diffractive optical elements may comprise a plurality of concentric rings, (please see Figures 2A and 2B). In light of Franke et al the diffractive rings may be machined into the amorphous material layer.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al and Maker et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Ishihara et al (US 2001/0050815 A1).
The diffractive optical element taught by Jacob et al in combination with the teachings of Maker et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 3, this references do not teach explicitly to include a spectral film coating deposited on the amorphous material film. Ishihara et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a blazed grating device wherein a separation coating (83, Figures 25-27) is deposited on a diffraction grating layer (82) that may reflect or transmit light incident thereon with certain wavelength, (please see paragraph [0165]). This makes the separation coating a spectral coating. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ishihara et al to provide a coating on the diffraction gratings of the amorphous layer for the benefit of providing additional spectral properties.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al and Maker et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Hansson et al (US 2025/0224548 A1).
The diffractive optical element taught by Jacob et al in combination with Maker et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 4 and 9, these references do not teach explicitly that the amorphous
material layer is index matched to the bulk material substrate at desired wavelength of operation.
Hansson et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a blazed grating with a grating layer (12, Figure 1B) deposited on a substrate (10) wherein the refractive index of the substrate is matched
to the refractive index of the gratings, (please see paragraph [0010]). It would then have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hansson et al to make the amorphous
material layer index matched to the bulk material substrate for the benefit of reducing noise light
caused by reflection of light from the interface of the amorphous material layer and the bulk
material substrate. The matching of the refractive indices may be at certain wavelength.
Franke et al teaches that the bulk material substrate (610 or 810, Figures 6 and 8) has a
predetermined shape and accuracy which implicitly required certain manufacturing process
implicitly or obviously modified by one skilled in the art to include cutting and polishing. With
regard to claim 12, the slow tool servo method and the fast tool servo method are both well-
known in the art to use either one to manufacture the bulk material substrate is considered
obvious matters of choices of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al and Maker et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Hobbs (US 2006/0262250 A1).
The diffractive optical element taught by Jacob et al in combination with the teachings of Maker et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 5, these references do not teach explicitly that the bulk material substrate and the amorphous material layer each comprises a zinc sulfide (ZnS). Hobbs in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element that is comprised of a surface relief grating structure (46 or 56, Figures 16 and 18) that is formed on a surface of a material layer (44 or 54) that may be considered as the bulk material substrate layer. Hobbs teaches that both the surface relief grating structure and the material layer are made of zinc sulfide, (please see paragraphs [0092] to [0095]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hobbs to modify the diffractive optical element of Jacob et al to make both the amorphous material layer and the Bulk material substrate comprise zinc sulfide for the benefit of using art well known material and the same material to neglect possible refractive index difference between the two elements. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the zinc sulfide is amorphous zinc sulfide, such modifications are well known in the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Jacob et al (PN. 10,241,269) in view of the US patent application publication by Hansson et al (US 2025/0224548 A1) and US patent issued to Marker et al (PN. 6,480,333).
Claim 14 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Jacob et al teaches a method for manufacturing a diffractive optical element article that is comprised of a semiconductor slab (12, Figure 3D) that serves as the bulk material substrate and a grating layer (14b, Figure 5B) that may comprise an amorphous material, (please see column 4, lines 58-65), which therefore serves as the amorphous material film layer and a plurality of diffractive optical elements (14b, Figure 5B) etched or machined into the amorphous material film layer.
The manufacturing method comprises a step of providing the bulk material substrate that has a predetermined size. This means certain preparation process such as cutting is implicitly included to provide the substrate with the predetermined shape and size.
The manufacturing method further comprises the step of depositing an amorphous material film layer constructed from an amorphous material directly onto the bulk substrate material surface, (please see column 2 lines 45-46), wherein the amorphous material film layer may extend continuously in contact with one another across an entirety the bulk material surface, (please see Figure 5B), as desired. The amorphous material film layer has a material film layer thickness.
The manufacturing method also comprises the step of forming a plurality of diffractive optical elements into an upper surface of amorphous material film layer using lithographic and etching methods (column 3, lines 17-18) which means the plurality of diffractive optical elements is machined into the upper surface. The diffractive optical elements extending continuously across an entirety of the upper surface of the amorphous material film layer and the plurality of diffractive optical element include a diffractive optical element spacing and a diffractive optical element thickness, (please see Figures 5B, and 5F).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the amorphous material layer is indexed matched to the bulk material substrate at desired wavelengths of operation.
Hansson et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a blazed grating with a grating layer (12, Figure 1B) deposited on a substrate (10) wherein the refractive index of the substrate is matched to the refractive index of the gratings, (please see paragraph [0010]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hansson et al to make the amorphous material layer index matched to the bulk material substrate for the benefit of reducing noise light caused by reflection of light from the interface of the amorphous material layer and the bulk material substrate. The matching of the refractive indices may be at certain wavelength.
Claim 14 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein machining the plurality of diffractive optical elements includes machining a plurality of gratings, each of the plurality of gratings includes a first blaze surface and a second blaze surface, wherein the first blaze surface of a first grating among the plurality of gratings directly contacts the second blaze surface of a second grating among the plurality of gratings that is located directly adjacent to the first diffraction grating”.
Jacob et al teaches that each of the diffraction grating includes a first blaze surface having a first blaze surface width and a second grating surface, (please see Figure 5B). It however does not teach that the second grating surface is also a blaze surface. Maker et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffraction optical element that is comprised of a plurality of diffraction grating, (please see Figure 11) wherein each of the diffraction grating comprises a first blaze surface having a first blaze width and a second blaze surface. Maker et al teaches the first blaze surface of a first diffraction grating among the plurality of diffraction gratings directly contacts the second blaze surface of a second diffraction grating among the plurality of diffraction gratings that is located directly adjacent to the first diffraction grating, (please see Figure 11).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Maker et al to modify the diffraction gratings to have two blazed surfaces for the benefit of the allowing the diffraction gratings to have a desired diffraction property.
With regard to claim 15, it is implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to polish the bulk material surface to create the bulk material substrate having a polished bulk material surface and having the shape and accuracy. It is obvious to one skilled in the art to test the polished bulk material surface to meet the art well known standard.
With regard to claim 17, it is implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art that the method of manufacturing the diffractive optical element include cutting the bulk material substrate to obtain the bulk material substrate and machine the plurality of diffractive optical elements to include the plurality of diffraction gratings or ridges (Figures 3B and 5B, of Jacob et al). Jacob et al teaches that the diffraction gratings may include a blazed grating, (please see Figure 5B). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the blaze gratings form diffractive rings and include a first blaze surface and a second blaze.
Maker et al in teaches a blaze grating that is comprised of a plurality of concentric rings, (please see Figures 2A and 2B). In light of Jacob et al the diffractive rings may be machined into the amorphous material layer.
With regard to claim 20, Jacob et al teaches that the amorphous material film layer may comprise depositing an amorphous silicon, (please see column 4, lines 63-65).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al, Hansson et al and Maker et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Ishihara et al (US 2001/0050815 A1).
The diffractive optical element taught by Jacob et al in combination with the teachings of Hansson et al and Maker et al as described in claim 14 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 16, these references do not teach explicitly to include a spectral film coating deposited on the amorphous material film. Ishihara et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a blazed grating device wherein a separation coating (83, Figures 25-27) is deposited on a diffraction grating layer (82) that may reflect or transmit light incident thereon with certain wavelength, (please see paragraph [0165]). This makes the separation coating a spectral coating. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Ishihara et al to provide a coating on the diffraction gratings of the amorphous layer for the benefit of providing additional spectral properties.
With regard to claim 18, it is either implicitly true or obvious to one skilled in the art to inspect the plurality of diffractive optical elements to confirm accuracy.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al, Hansson et al and Maker et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Hobbs (US 2006/0262250 A1).
The diffractive optical element taught by Jacob et al in combination with the teachings of Hansson et al and Maker et al as described in claim 14 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 19, theses references do not teach explicitly that the bulk material substrate is Zinc Sulfide material and the amorphous material layer is an amorphous zinc sulfide (ZnS). Hobbs in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element that is comprised of a surface relief grating structure (46 or 56, Figures 16 and 18) that is formed on a surface of a material layer (44 or 54) that may be considered as the bulk material substrate layer. Hobbs teaches that both the surface relief grating structure and the material layer are made of zinc sulfide, (please see paragraphs [0092] to [0095]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hobbs to modify the diffractive optical element of Jacob et al to make both the amorphous material layer and the Bulk material substrate comprise zinc sulfide for the benefit of using art well known material and the same material to neglect possible refractive index difference between the two elements. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the zinc sulfide is amorphous zinc sulfide, such modifications are well known in the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amened claims have been fully considered and rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights