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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 8 and 18 fail to include all of the limitations of the claims from which they depend. In particular, Claims 8 and 18 further limit the metal reflection layer of Claims 7 and 17, respectively. However, Claims 7 and 17 alternatively claim a metal reflection layer or a resin reflection layer. Claims 8 and 18 are directed only to the metal reflection and layer and therefore omits the resin reflection layer of Claims 7 and 17, respectively.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2023/0213765 to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao describes an optical waveguide device (200/300/400, see Figs 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 4) comprising:
a waveguide layer (210);
in-coupler gratings (235, see [0064]) and out-coupler gratings (245, see [0064]) arranged on a same side of the waveguide layer;
a reflection layer (277, see [0079]) formed on a side of the in-coupler gratings away from the waveguide layer; and
a transition layer (“thin layer of optically clear adhesive”, see [0068]) formed between the reflection layer and the in-coupler gratings.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhao describes a bonding force between the transition layer and the reflection layer is greater than a bonding force between the reflection layer and the in-coupler gratings, and a bonding force between the transition layer and the in-coupler gratings is greater than the bonding force between the reflection layer and the in-coupler gratings (as the reflection layer is not in contact with the in-coupler gratings as shown in Fig 2C), the bonding force is zero; therefore, both the bonding force between the transition layer and the reflection layer and the bonding force between transition layer and the reflection layer are greater than the zero bonding force between the reflection layer and the in-coupler gratings).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao describes the transition layer as a transparent layer (described as “optically clear” at [0068]).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Zhao describes an electronic equipment (500) comprising an optical waveguide device (200/300/400; see Figs 5A-5B and [0141]-[0142]). The further limitations of Claims 11-13 are identical to the limitations of Claims 1-3 and therefore rejected in view of Zhao for the same reasoning (see above).
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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhao describes an optical waveguide device, see above. Zhao describes that the in-coupler grating may be of several known designs (see [0064]), but is silent as to the material of the in-coupler gratings. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the in-coupler gratings of Zhao from the claimed material(s), 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claims 19, Zhao describes an electronic equipment (500) comprising an optical waveguide device (200/300/400; see Figs 5A-5B and [0141]-[0142]). The further limitations of Claim 19 are identical to the limitations of the Claim and therefore rejected in view of Zhao for the same reasoning (see above).
Claims 4-8, 10, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of “Optical Bonding Using Silica Nanoparticle Sol-Gel Chemistry” to Sivasankar et al. (“Sivasankar”).
Regarding Claims 4, 5, and 10, Zhao describes an optical waveguide device, see above. Zhao is silent as to the material and structure of the transition layer, only describing it as a “thin layer of optically clear adhesive” (see [0055], [0068]). Sivasankar describes an optically clear adhesive comprising a silicon oxide layer (see Abstract, pg. 3031 par. 2 and pg. 3033 par. 5-6). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the adhesive of Zhao from silica sol-gel of Sivasankar, 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 6, Sivasankar does not describe the thickness of the transition layer ranged from 10nm to 50nm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the adhesive of the obvious combination of Zhao and Sivasankar having a thickness of the transition layer ranged from 10nm to 50nm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Zhao is silent as to the material of the reflection layer. It is well-known in the art that reflective layers for optical devices may be made from resin or metal, including silver or aluminum. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the reflective layer of the obvious combination of Zhao and Sivasankar including resin, silver, or aluminum, 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claims 14-18 and 20, Zhao describes an electronic equipment (500) comprising an optical waveguide device (200/300/400; see Figs 5A-5B and [0141]-[0142]). The further limitations of Claims 14-18 and 20 are identical to the limitations of Claims 4-8 and 10 and therefore rejected in view of Zhao and Sivasankar for the same reasoning (see above).
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes optical waveguide devices including waveguides and coupling gratings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874