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 .
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20210286113, Yang).
As per claim 1, Yang teaches (in figures 1A-1B) a diffractive beam splitter with immersed continuous surface (paragraph 18), wherein the diffractive beam splitter includes at least one single-period structure in array (paragraph 18 and 20); the single-period structure includes a base structure layer (polymer substrate, see paragraph 28), a first optical medium (first optical layer 125), and a second optical medium (second optical layer 145) sequentially from bottom to top, the first optical medium and the second optical medium having different refractive indexes (paragraph 23); and a surface sagittal height h (H, see paragraph 24) between the first optical medium and the second optical medium.
Yang does not explicitly teach that th surface sagittal height h satisfies a formula of: h=1/2*λ*ϕ*|n1-n2|/π where λ represents a wavelength, ϕ represents a phase, nl represents a refractive index of the first optical medium, and n2 represents a refractive index of the second optical medium.
However, Yang teaches that the value of h is a result effective variable in that as h increases the intensity of the first diffraction order increases and the intensity of the zero diffraction order decreases (paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set h such that it is equal to 1/2*λ*ϕ*|n1-n2|/π, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 3, Yang teaches (in figures 1A-1B) that that the base structure layer (polymer substrate, see paragraph 28) is a quartz layer, a glass layer, or an optical plastic layer (paragraph 28)
Yang does not explicitly teach that and a thickness of the base structure layer is about 2 mm or 3 mm.
However, the thickness of the base structure layer is a result effective variable in that if its is too small the film will become fragile and if it is too thick transparency will be reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the thickness of the base structure layer to be about 2 mm or 3 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 4, Yang teaches (in figures 1A-1B) that the first optical medium (first optical layer 125) is optical glass, optical plastic, or optical resin (paragraph 21), and a refractive index difference between the first optical medium and air is from 0.4 to 1.2 (0.565 taught in table 1).
As per claim 5, Yang teaches (in figures 1A-1B) that the second optical medium is optical glass, optical plastic, or optical resin (paragraph 21), a refractive index difference between the first optical medium and the second optical medium is from 0 to 0.9 (0.1-0.2, see paragraph 23).
Yang does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the second optical medium is from 20µm to 30µm.
However, the thicknesses of the first and second optical mediums are result effective variables in that if they are too small the film will become fragile and if they are too thick transparency will be reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the thickness of the second optical medium to be in the range of 20µm to 30µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20210286113, Yang) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wang et al. (US Pub. 20050275944, Wang).
As per claim 2, Yang does not teach a lower anti-reflection film and an upper anti-reflection film, wherein the lower anti-reflection film covers a lower surface of the base structure layer, and the upper anti-reflection film covers an upper surface of the second optical medium.
However, Wang teaches (in figure 1) providing a lower anti-reflection film (antireflection film 160) and an upper anti-reflection film (antireflection film 150), wherein the lower anti-reflection film covers a lower surface of a base structure layer (substrate 140), and the upper anti-reflection film covers an upper surface of a second optical medium (cap layer 120) in order to reduce the reflectance of light from the grating (paragraph 69).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the anti-reflection films from Wang in the device of Yang in order to reduce the reflectance of light from the grating.
As per claim 6, Yang teaches (in figures 1A-1B) an upper base layer (hardcoat layer, paragraph 21), wherein the upper base layer covers an upper surface of the second optical medium (second optical layer 145).
Yang does not specifically teach that the upper base layer is a quartz layer, a glass layer, or an optical plastic layer, and a thickness of the upper base layer is from 2mm to 3mm.
However, Wang teaches forming hardcoats out of plastic (paragraph 101).
Additionally, thicknesses of base layers/hardcoats are result effective variables in that if they are too small the base layers/hardcoats will fail to protect the grating and if they are too thick transparency will be reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the thickness of the base layer/hardcoat to be in the range of 2mm to 3mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B)) and to form the base layer/hardcoat out of plastic since a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20210286113, Yang) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ukuda et al. (US Pub. 20190346597, Ukuda) and Mohanty et al. (US Pub. 20200018875, Mohanty).
As per claim 7, Yang teaches (in figures 1A-1B) a preparation method of the diffractive beam splitter with immersed continuous surface according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and paragraph 27-28).
Yang does not explicitly teach the steps of: (1) manufacturing a master mask, wherein a surface structure of the master mask matches a surface between the first optical medium and the second optical medium;(2) providing the viscous first optical medium on the base structure layer, impressing with the master mask to fill a gap between the master mask and the base structure layer with the first optical medium, heating and curing, and removing the master mask; and(3) providing the viscous second optical medium on a substrate obtained in step (2), impressing with a horizontal master mask, and curing after the surface is flattened to obtain the diffractive beam splitter with immersed continuous surface.
However, Ukuda teaches (in figures 3-4D) a method of forming a diffractive beam splitter (diffractive optical element 1000) comprising the steps of (1) providing a master mask (mold 12), wherein a surface structure of the master mask matches a surface between a first optical medium (first resin layer 900) and the second optical medium (second resin layer 910) (see figures and paragraphs 58-61) ;(2) providing the viscous first optical medium (resin composition 900a) on a base structure layer (first substrate 700), impressing with the master mask to fill a gap between the master mask and the base structure layer with the first optical medium, heating and curing (figure 4A and paragraph 58), and removing the master mask (figure 4B and paragraph 59); and (3) providing the viscous second optical medium (uncured reson composition 910a) on a substrate obtained in step (2) (figure 4C and paragraph 60), impressing with a horizontal master mask (second substrate 800), and curing after the surface is flattened to obtain the diffractive beam splitter (figure 4D and paragraph 61).
Additionally, Mohanty teaches (in figures 9A-9D and 15) manufacturing a master mask (mold 930) for imprinting a grating (step 1510) by laser direct writing (paragraph 100).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diffractive beam splitter with immersed continuous surface in Yang using the process suggested by Ukuda and Mohanty in order to provide an accurate and repeatable process for forming the diffractive beam splitter.
As per claim 8, Yang in view of Ukuda and Mohanty teaches that in step (1), the surface structure of the master mask is processed by laser direct writing, grayscale photolithography, or ultra-precision machining (see paragraph 100 in Mohanty).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871