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 . The priority date is March 30th, 2023.
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 2, 9-11, and 13 is/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.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “where each of the secondary grating elements at least partially overlies a respective one of the primary grating elements”. The examiner interprets this to mean that for every grating element in the secondary grating, there is an overlap with a grating element in the primary grating along a cross section, such that a line may be drawn between the two elements without passing through another medium. However, Figure 3 of the instant application clearly shows a lack of this property, where “Grating structure 3” is a grating element part of the second grating layer that overlies the first grating layer, but clearly the corresponding grating element in the bottom layer is not depicted as being positioned such that grating structure 3 overlies it.
As such, the meaning of “overlies” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites the limitation, “wherein respective pairs of the primary and secondary grating elements form a grating structure having an effective slant angle.” The meaning of “slant angle” is unclear, as all depictions of it (see Figure 3) do not indicate where this angle begins or ends – in grating structure 1, it starts to the left of the center of the top grating element and ends to the right of the center of the bottom grating element. In grating structure 2, there is an even larger apparent deviation from the centers of the top and bottom. In grating structure 3, the end of the slant angle line terminating in the bottom grating layer is noticeably closer to the bottom right corner of the grating element (as depicted) than in any other grating element.
The examiner has looked to the specification for clarification, but the meaning of “slant angle” remains unclear. As what defines a “slant angle” is unclear to the examiner, the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, the slant angle is attributed to the grating structure and is singular, meaning a single slant angle is claimed to apply to the entire structure, which is impossible if there is any variation between the offsets of the grating elements as depicted. The examiner interprets a slant angle as being attributed to a pair of grating elements across layers. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9, and recites the term “slant angle”, and is therefore rejected as inheriting the indefiniteness and also for using the indefinite language.
Regarding claims 11 and 13:
Claims 11 and 13 recite the language “slant angle” in their limitations, and are rejected for the same reason(s) as claim 9 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruck (US 20230266545 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Bruck discloses a surface relief grating (Figures 3-6 depict overlying surface gratings 202, 204), comprising:
a primary grating layer including an array of primary grating elements (grating 202 contains multiple scatterers 302 which are grating elements);
and a secondary grating layer including an array of secondary grating elements overlying the primary grating layer (grating 204 contains multiple scatterers 402 and overlies grating primary grating layer 202, as shown schematically in Figure 2, and visually in Figures 5 and 6).
wherein the secondary grating elements are at least partially laterally offset from the primary grating elements (Figures 5 and 6 show this explicitly).
Regarding claim 2:
Bruck teaches the surface relief grating of claim 1, where each of the secondary grating elements at least partially overlies a respective one of the primary grating elements (Figure 5 shows this explicitly).
Regarding claim 3:
Bruck teaches the surface relief grating of claim 1, wherein the primary grating layer comprises a 2D array of the primary grating elements and the secondary grating layer comprises a 2D array of the secondary grating elements (Figure 5, Figure 6, the grating elements clearly span 2 dimensions).
Regarding claim 4:
Bruck teaches the surface relief grating of claim 1, wherein the primary grating elements and the secondary grating elements each comprise substantially vertical sidewalls (Figure 9F-9G shows this explicitly – see grating elements of grating layers 202 and 204 depicted with vertical sidewalls).
Regarding claim 9:
Bruck teaches the surface relief grating of claim 1, wherein respective pairs of the primary and secondary grating elements form a grating structure having an effective slant angle (Figure 9F-9G of Bruck depicts this grating structure arrangement, analogous to Figure 3 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 10:
Bruck teaches the surface relief grating of claim 9, wherein the effective slant angle varies as a function of position across the primary and secondary grating layers
Figures 9F-9G of Bruck depicts this grating layer arrangement, analogous to Figure 3 of the instant application – a varying slant angle as defined in the instant application is inherently present between the grating elements because the grating elements of Bruck are also offset, and thus visually map onto and linguistically read on those claimed.
Regarding claim 11:
Bruck discloses a surface relief grating (Figures 3-6 depict overlying surface gratings 202, 204), comprising:
a primary grating layer including an array of primary grating elements (grating 202 contains multiple scatterers 302 which are grating elements);
and a secondary grating layer including an array of secondary grating elements (grating 204 contains multiple scatterers 402 and overlies grating primary grating layer 202, as shown schematically in Figure 2, and visually in Figures 5 and 6),
wherein respective pairs of the primary and secondary grating elements form a grating structure having a slant angle (Figures 9F-9G of Bruck depict the primary and secondary grating elements, and there is inherently a slant angle present due to the offset between grating elements as visually defined in Figure 3 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 12:
Bruck discloses the surface relief grating of claim 11, wherein the primary grating elements and the secondary grating elements each comprise substantially vertical sidewalls (Figure 9F-9G shows this explicitly – see grating elements of grating layers 202 and 204 depicted with vertical sidewalls).
Regarding claim 13:
Bruck discloses the surface relief grating of claim 11, wherein the slant angle varies as a function of position across the primary and secondary grating layers.
Figures 9F-9G of Bruck depicts this grating layer arrangement, analogous to Figure 3 of the instant application – a varying slant angle as defined in the instant application is inherently present between the grating elements because the grating elements of Bruck are also offset, and thus visually map onto and linguistically read on those claimed.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20230266545 A1) in view of Fattal (US 9103973 B2).
Regarding claim 5:
Bruck teaches the surface relief grating of claim 1.
Bruck does not disclose that the primary grating elements and the secondary grating elements each comprise a substantially oval areal profile or a substantially circular areal profile.
Fattal teaches grating-based optical elements, wherein grating elements (Figure 1B, “posts” 116-118 are grating elements) each comprise a substantially oval areal profile or circular areal profile.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Fattal to utilize circular/ovaloid areal profile gratings. This may be accomplished using ordinary machining and lithography/deposition techniques known in the art, and would predictably result in a device where the grating elements which achieves more uniform diffraction behavior, with reduced polarization dependent effects.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20230266545 A1) in view of Perry (US 5907436 A).
Regarding claim 6:
Bruck discloses the surface relief grating of claim 1.
Bruck does not disclose that the primary grating elements and the secondary grating elements each comprise a high refractive index material.
Perry discloses a multilayer dielectric diffraction grating, wherein the grating layers consistent of alternating high and low index materials (col 4. ln. 50-56, “The dielectric stack will normally consist of alternating layers of high and low index dielectric materials”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Perry to have the multilayer waveguide consistent of alternating low and high index layers. This may be accomplished using materials and methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which achieves a higher index of refraction contrast, result in stronger diffraction with improved confinement and mode control and greater design flexibility.
Regarding claim 8:
Bruck discloses the surface relief grating of claim 1.
Bruck does not explicitly teach a tertiary layer in the stack.
Perry teaches a multilayer stack that may be over two layers (Figure 7, Figure 8 show more than two layers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Perry and a simple duplication of parts, to dispose a tertiary grating layer including an array of tertiary grating elements overlying the secondary grating layer, wherein the tertiary grating elements are at least partially laterally offset from the secondary grating elements.
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. A skilled artisan would merely have had to repeat the process for the first two layers to create a third that is also laterally offset, to reap the same benefits of high refractive index contrast and diffraction shaping.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20230266545 A1) in view of Perry (US 5907436 A), and further in view of Rahomaki (US 20200110205 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Bruck discloses the surface relief grating of claim 1.
Bruck does not disclose that the primary grating layer comprises a primary low refractive index matrix surrounding the primary grating elements and the secondary grating layer comprises a secondary low refractive index matrix surrounding the secondary grating elements.
Perry teaches a low index and high index material in the grating stack (see rejection of claim 6 above).
Perry does not explicitly teach a ‘matrix’ surrounding the secondary grating elements, but the benefits of fill factor surrounding media are known in the art (predictably diffraction, low loss).
Rahomaki teaches a method of manufacturing a diffractive grating (Title), wherein “fill factor” is used to describe a layer of media disposed around grating elements (Figure 1A-1F shows this explicitly), and the benefits of doing so are well described (Paragraph 3, “In addition to having distinct and consistent grating lines, in advanced applications it is desirable to be able to control the diffraction efficiency of the grating locally. This can be achieved by varying grating line height or fill factor within the grating, i.e. using height or fill factor modulation.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Perry and Rahomaki to include an alternating low and high index material stack that fills around the diffraction elements in a ‘matrix’. This may be accomplished using methods and materials known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which allows the manufacturer to impart a great deal of control over the diffractive properties of the invention and to reduce crosstalk and minimize loss.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20230266545 A1) in view of Rahomaki (US 20200110205 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Bruck discloses a method comprising:
forming a low refractive index layer over a substrate, the low refractive index layer comprising a primary sub-layer having an array of primary openings and a secondary sub-layer overlying the primary sub-layer and having an array of secondary openings, wherein the secondary openings are at least partially laterally offset from the primary openings;
Figures 3-6 depict overlying surface gratings 202, 204, which are a first and second layer formed on a substrate (substrate 102, Figure 1), and which are at least partially laterally offset (Figure 5, Figure 6).
Bruck does not teach a high index of refraction layer within the openings.
Rahomaki teaches a method of manufacturing a diffractive grating (Title), wherein “fill factor” is used to describe a layer of media disposed around grating elements (Figure 1A-1F shows this explicitly), and the benefits of doing so are well described (Paragraph 3, “In addition to having distinct and consistent grating lines, in advanced applications it is desirable to be able to control the diffraction efficiency of the grating locally. This can be achieved by varying grating line height or fill factor within the grating, i.e. using height or fill factor modulation.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Bruck under the teachings of Rahomaki to form a high refractive index layer within the primary and secondary openings. This may be accomplished using deposition techniques known in the art and would predictably result in a device which benefits from the index contrast to maximize diffraction efficiency and simultaneously lower loss by reducing crosstalk and enabling additional diffraction control.
Regarding claim 15:
Bruck in view of Rahomaki teaches the method of claim 14, wherein
Bruck does not teach that forming the low refractive index layer comprises nanoimprint lithography.
Rahomaki teaches a multilayer grating, wherein nanoimprint lithography is using for forming nanoscale structures like the lines and gratings (paragraph 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 14 above under the teachings of Rahomaki to utilize nanoimprint lithography to form the low refractive index layer. This may be accomplished using the nanoimprinting techniques known in the art (as shown by Rahomaki) and would predictably result in a device which contains a low refractive index layer that is uniform, efficient, and precise geometrically which enables a maximal diffraction and low loss.
Regarding claim 18:
Bruck in view of Rahomaki teaches the method of claim 14, wherein
the primary openings and the secondary openings each comprise substantially vertical sidewalls (Figure 9F-9G shows this explicitly – see grating elements of grating layers 202 and 204 depicted with vertical sidewalls).
Regarding claim 20:
Bruck in view of Rahomaki teaches the method of claim 14, wherein:
Bruck does not teach that the high refractive index layer backfills the primary and secondary openings.
Rahomaki teaches conformal deposition techniques (paragraph 21) which fill patterned gaps and openings.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method described in the rejection of claim 14 under the teachings of Rahomaki to utilize conformal deposition techniques taught therein to backfill the primary and secondary openings. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a method which produces a device that has additional backfilling that increases diffraction control and reduces optical crosstalk between diffractive elements for low loss.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20230266545 A1) in view of Rahomaki (US 20200110205 A1), and further in view of Perry (US 5907436 A).
Regarding claim 16:
Bruck in view of Rahomaki teaches the method of claim 14, wherein
Bruck does not teach that forming the low refractive index layer comprises nano-replication.
Rahomaki teaches imprint-based replication processes (paragraph 38), which is part of a known class of processes including nano-replication, but is not an explicit disclosure thereof.
Perry also teaches the use of replication/transfer for grating patterns, making it clear that nano-replication (replication on the scale of nanostructures) would both be an obvious method choice and a known design objective in the art (column 1, ln. 27-40).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 14 above under the teachings of Rahomaki and Perry to utilize nano-replication techniques in the creation of grating patterns. This may be accomplished using efficient and precise methods known in the art (wet chemical, plasma, ion bombardment techniques), and would predictably result in a highly reproducible and standardized within high precision construct that may be used for the grating structures to diffract light with low loss.
Regarding claim 17:
Bruck in view of Rahomaki teaches the method of claim 14, wherein:
the substrate may be made using silicon (paragraph 21), and Silicon Carbide alongside other high-index glasses are known in the art and routine design choices.
Bruck does not explicitly disclose lithium niobate despite its prevalence in the art.
Perry generally discloses high and low index materials, some of which are silicon based, others glass, and which may be used in the multilayer but would be an obvious and routine design choice for a substrate as well for a skilled artisan.
“multilayer consisting of 8 pairs of near quarter-wave layers of alternating high index (n.about.2.0, HfO.sub.2) and low index (n.about.1.5, SiO.sub.2) material deposited on borosilicate glass”
Additionally, claim 7 discloses a reflective substrate, which is ordinarily high index.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 14 above under the teachings of Bruck and Perry to include a substrate made from silicon, lithium niobate, or some high-index glass using methods and materials known to a skilled artisan. These materials are commonly used for their properties, whether it be photoresistivity, ease of use and manufacturing, and reflectivity. Utilizing these materials would predictably result in a device which relies on substrates that are produced from commonly used and commercially available materials which are understood by a skilled artisan for precise and efficient manufacturing with the desires electrical and thermal properties.
Regarding claim 19:
Bruck in view of Rahomaki teaches the method of claim 14, wherein:
Bruck does not explicitly disclose electron-beam deposition, chemical vapor deposition, or conformal deposition (atomic layer deposition).
Perry teaches electron-beam deposition
“Once the appropriately shaped lift-off structure is formed (e.g., photoresist grating with near vertical sidewalls as shown in FIG. 8D, the dielectric grating material 84 is deposited on the substrate by unidirectional electron-beam evaporation (or other suitably unidirectional deposition technique)
Rahomaki teaches atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition (paragraph 21).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 14 above under the teachings of Perry and Rahomaki to utilize the techniques of electron beam deposition, chemical vapor deposition, or atomical layer deposition. These techniques are known to the skilled artisan and would predictably result in a method that and precisely form the device as claimed with minimal deficiencies and errors such that it may operate efficiently and be produced at scale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874