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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-19 are original; and claim 20 is currently amended. The amendment dated February 26, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claim 20 was previously objected to for informalities. The objection is now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claim.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that “because the second layer 220 is actually a spin-coated metal oxide layer on the device structures of the first patterned layer 214, the second layer 220 cannot be considered the claimed substrate as suggested by the Examiner” (Remarks, Pages 7-8).
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 1 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons: the applicant does not further specify "the substrate" in the claim. For example, while the applicant argues the claimed substrate is not fabricated by a spin-coating method, the applicant is silent on how the substrate is fabricated. Is “the substrate” an etched glass substrate having a thickness in the micrometer range? It appears the thickness of "the substrate" is as thin as the index-matched layer made by spin-coating (Paragraphs [0031] “the index-matched layer 108 may be disposed over the top surface 110 of the substrate 100 by a spin-on coating processes” and see Fig. 2A below annotated by the examiner, where the thickness of parts of “the substrate” is even thinner than the thickness of parts of the index-matched layer (see two arrows added by the examiner having the same thickness)).
<Fig. 2A, annotated by the examiner>
[AltContent: textbox (The thickness of “the substrate” is as thin as, or even thinner than the index-matched layer 108, which is made by a spin coating method (see the two double-headed arrows annotated by the examiner having the same thickness).)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
236
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because the applicant does not further specify “the substrate” in the claim, “the substrate” is construed as a layer or a film based on the present specification and drawings.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that claim 1 recites a product (i.e., an optical device, but not a fabrication method). Even if the substrate is formed by a different method, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (See MPEP 2113).
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 1, 5, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu (US 2020/0003936), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses an optical device (Figure 4D; see Paragraphs [0011] and [0014] identifying the embodiment shown in Figure 4D), comprising:
a substrate (220), the substrate having a substrate depth defined by a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate (see the top surface and the bottom surface of 220), wherein the substrate depth varies across the optical device;
an index-matched layer (214; see Figures 1 and 2A-2C and Paragraph [0017] teaching 214, i.e., 204 in Figures 2A-2B, having a refractive index (RI) the same as the substrate 202, thereby becoming an index-matched layer) disposed over the substrate, the index-matched layer having a layer depth defined by an upper surface of the index-matched layer and a lower surface of the index-matched layer, wherein the layer depth varies across the optical device (Figure 4D);
a plurality of optical device structures (316) formed over the index-matched layer, wherein adjacent structure top surfaces of the plurality of optical device structures are planar (see Figure 4D); and
an encapsulation material (202) disposed between the plurality of optical device structures and the index-matched layer.
Regarding claim 5, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the encapsulation material is an encapsulation layer (a layer of 202) disposed between the plurality of optical device structures and the index-matched layer, the encapsulation layer conformal to the upper surface of the index-matched layer (see Figure 4D).
Regarding claim 9, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of optical device structures are angled relative to the bottom surface of the substrate (see Figure 4D).
Regarding claim 10, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a device height defined from the bottom surface to each of the structure top surfaces is constant (see Figure 4D).
Regarding claim 12, Fu discloses a method of forming an optical device (Figures 1 and 4D; see Paragraphs [0011] and [0014] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 4D), comprising:
disposing an index-matched layer over a substrate (214 disposed on 220; see Figures 1 and 2A-2C and Paragraph [0017] teaching 214, i.e., 204 in Figures 2A-2B, having a refractive index (RI) the same as the substrate 202, thereby becoming an index-matched layer), the substrate having a substrate depth defined by a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate (see the top surface and the bottom surface of 220), wherein the substrate depth varies across the optical device such that a lower surface of the index-matched layer varies according to the substrate depth (Figure 4D);
patterning the index-matched layer (Figures 2B-2C and Paragraph [0018]), wherein the index-matched layer and the substrate define a target thickness distribution that varies across the substrate (Figure 4D);
disposing an encapsulation layer (202 on 214 in Figure 3A) over an upper surface of the index-matched layer;
disposing an optical device film (316 being disposed in Figure 3D; Paragraph [0023]) over the encapsulation layer; and
patterning a plurality of optical device structures in the optical device film (316 being patterned; Paragraph [0023]), wherein adjacent structure top surfaces of the plurality of optical device structures are planar (Figure 4D), wherein a device height defined from the bottom surface to each of the structure top surfaces is constant (Figure 4D).
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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Chen (US 2015/0131035), of record.
Regarding claim 8, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fu does not disclose the encapsulation material is a nitrogen containing material.
However, Chen teaches providing an encapsulation material which includes a nitrogen containing material (Paragraph [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the encapsulation material as disclosed by Fu with the teachings of Chen, wherein the encapsulation material is a nitrogen containing material, for the purpose of forming a moisture barrier layer (Chen: Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fu does not disclose the index-matched layer is polymer material or a nanoparticle based material.
However, Chen teaches an index-matched layer is polymer material (Paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the index-matched layer as disclosed by Fu with the teachings of Chen, wherein the index-matched layer is polymer material or a nanoparticle based material., for the purpose of using known index-materials forming an index-matched layer (Chen: Paragraph [0068]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Franke (US 2022/0082936), of record.
Regarding claim 13, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Fu does not necessarily disclose the patterning the index-matched layer is via a gray-tone lithography process, wherein the gray-tone lithography process includes patterning a gray-tone resist with a resist thickness distribution that corresponds to the target thickness distribution.
However, Franke teaches a known lithography process includes patterning a layer via a gray-tone lithography process, wherein the gray-tone lithography process includes patterning a gray-tone resist for a desired resist thickness distribution (Paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Fu with the teachings of Franke, wherein the patterning the index-matched layer is via a gray-tone lithography process, wherein the gray-tone lithography process includes patterning a gray-tone resist with a resist thickness distribution that corresponds to the target thickness distribution, for the purpose of precisely controlling the film thickness (Franke: Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Fu does not necessarily disclose the patterning the plurality of optical device structures includes a nanoimprint lithography process.
However, Franke teaches a known lithography process includes nanoimprint lithography (NIL) molding techniques (Paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Fu with the teachings of Franke, wherein the patterning the plurality of optical device structures includes a nanoimprint lithography process, for the purpose of patterning gratings and filling the gap therebetween (Franke: Paragraph [0106]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu in view of Chiba et al. (US 2019/0391484), of record.
Regarding claim 14, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Fu does not necessarily disclose the patterning the index-matched layer includes an inkjet printing process, wherein the index-matched layer is disposed via the inkjet printing process to have the target thickness distribution.
However, Chiba teaches a known lithography process for patterning includes an inkjet printing process, wherein a layer is disposed via the inkjet printing process to have the target thickness distribution (Paragraph [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Fu with the teachings of Franke, wherein the patterning the index-matched layer includes an inkjet printing process, wherein the index-matched layer is disposed via the inkjet printing process to have the target thickness distribution, for the purpose of patterning disposing a layer with a desired thickness (Chiba: Paragraph [0166]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the substrate has a first refractive index and the index-matched layer has a second refractive index (Paragraphs [0017], [0020]).
However, Fu does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the second refractive index is substantially equal to the first refractive index”. Rather, Fu teaches that the first refractive index is higher than the second refractive index (Paragraph [0020]). The examiner further considered Lee et al. (US 2021/0199971, hereinafter “Lee”) and Calafiore (US 2020/0409151). However, Fu, Franke, Chiba, Lee and Calafiore, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 2.
Dependent claims 3-4 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Fu does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the encapsulation material is infiltrated into the index-matched layer to form an encapsulation material gradient, wherein a concentration of the encapsulation material decreases as a distance from an upper surface of the index-matched layer is increased”.
The examiner further considered Lee and Calafiore. For example, Lee teaches providing a refractive index gradient for a grating (Paragraph [0107]), but fails to disclose the arrangement of elements recited in claim 1. The prior art of Fu, Franke, Chiba, Lee and Calafiore, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Fu does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, ”the encapsulation material is infiltrated into the index-matched layer to form an encapsulation material gradient, wherein a concentration of the encapsulation material in the encapsulation material gradient is higher where the index-matched layer is furthest from the bottom surface of the substrate”.
The examiner further considered Lee and Calafiore. For example, Lee teaches providing a refractive index gradient for a grating (Paragraph [0107]) but fails to disclose the arrangement of elements recited in claim 1. The prior art of Fu, Franke, Chiba, Lee and Calafiore, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 7.
Claims 16-20 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, Fu discloses a method of forming an optical device (Figures 1 and 4D; see Paragraphs [0011] and [0014] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 4D), comprising:
disposing an index-matched layer over a substrate (214 disposed on 220; see Figures 1 and 2A-2C and Paragraph [0017] teaching 214, i.e., 204 in Figures 2A-2B, having a refractive index (RI) the same as the substrate 202, thereby becoming an index-matched layer), the substrate having a substrate depth defined by a top surface of the substrate and a bottom surface of the substrate (see the top surface and the bottom surface of 220), wherein the substrate depth varies across the optical device such that a lower surface of the index-matched layer varies according to the substrate depth (Figure 4D);
patterning the index-matched layer (Figures 2B-2C and Paragraph [0018]), wherein the index-matched layer and the substrate define a target thickness distribution that varies across the substrate (Figure 4D);
disposing an encapsulation layer (202 on 214 in Figure 3A) over an upper surface of the index-matched layer;
disposing an optical device film (316 being disposed in Figure 3D; Paragraph [0023]) over the encapsulation layer; and
patterning a plurality of optical device structures in the optical device film (316 being patterned; Paragraph [0023]), wherein adjacent structure top surfaces of the plurality of optical device structures are planar (Figure 4D), wherein a device height defined from the bottom surface to each of the structure top surfaces is constant (Figure 4D).
However, Fu does not explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, ”to form an encapsulation material gradient, wherein a concentration of the encapsulation material decreases as a distance from an upper surface of the index-matched layer is increased”. The examiner further considered Lee and Calafiore. However, the prior art of Fu, Franke, Chiba, Lee and Calafiore, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 16.
Dependent claims 17-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H Caley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871