Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/543,919

DIFFRACTIVE WAVEGUIDE HAVING NANOIMPRINT LITHOGRAPHY RESIN WITH NANOPARTICLES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
LEPISTO, RYAN A
Art Unit
2874
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1008 granted / 1146 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1194
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1146 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Calafiore et al (US 2022/0019015 A1). Calafiore teaches: 1/11. A method for forming a diffractive waveguide and the corresponding device (500, Figs. 4-5, 15), comprising: providing a transparent waveguide substrate (420, 510) having a first working surface (top/bottom at 430, 440); disposing a polymer resin layer (part of 430, 440; 520) having a plurality of nanoparticles at one or more portions of the first working surface of the waveguide substrate (420, 510) (P0025, 0030), and wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprises: a metal core composed of a first metal material (titanium or zirconium oxides P0354); and a plurality of ligands disposed on at least a portion of the metal core (Fig. 15, P0354); and implementing one or more optical features at the polymer resin layer (diffractive grating couplers, P0184-0185). 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more optical features are diffractive optical components (430, 440; diffractive grating couplers, P0184-0185). 5/12. The method of claim 4/11, wherein the diffractive optical components (430, 440) form an input coupler (430) and an output coupler (440). 6/16. The method of claim 1/11, further comprising: disposing the polymer resin layer (part of 430, 440; 520) having the plurality of nanoparticles at one or more portions of a second working surface of the waveguide substrate (first is at 430 and second is at 440), and wherein the second working surface (at 440) is located opposite the first working surface (430) (see Fig. 4). 7/13. The method of claim 1/11, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles each has a size of about 50 nm to about 100 nm (P0006). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP § 2131.02. 8/14. The method of claim 1/14, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles each has a size of about 2 nm to about 50 nm (P0006). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP § 2131.02. 9/17. The method of claim 1/16, wherein a surface of the metal core has a metal shell formed thereon (P0354). 10. A method for forming a diffractive waveguide (420, 500) comprising: providing a waveguide substrate (420, 510) having a first working surface (top/bottom, at 430, 440); implementing one or more optical features (gratings) at one or more portions of the first working surface of the waveguide substrate (at 430, 440); disposing a polymer resin layer (520) having a plurality of nanoparticles on the one or more optical features, and wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprise: a metal core composed of a first metal material (titanium or zirconium oxides P0354); and a plurality of ligands disposed on at least a portion of the metal core (Fig. 15, P0354). 15. The optical device of claim 11, wherein the plurality of nanoparticles each has a size of about 5 nm to about 20 nm (P0006). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP § 2131.02. 18. The optical device of claim 16, wherein the metal core is composed of a second material (Fig. 15, P0354). 19. The optical device of claim 11, wherein the polymer resin layer has an ultraviolet (UV) light absorbing material (P0006). 20. The optical device of claim 11, wherein the transparent substrate (420, 510) has the polymer resin layer with the plurality of nanoparticles adjacent to a second surface of the substrate (at 440). 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calafiore as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (US 2024/0160023 A1). Calafiore teaches the method of forming a diffractive waveguide as previously discussed. Calafiore does not teach expressly: 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: forming a lens by disposing the waveguide substrate between a first transparent body and a second transparent body. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first transparent body and the second transparent body are composed of an ultraviolet (UV) light absorbing material. Park teaches the same display device (see Fig. 3A of Park and Fig. 3 of Calafiore) wherein a lens is formed by disposing a waveguide substrate between a first transparent body (602)and a second transparent body (604) that are UV blocking (P0071-0073). Calafiore and Park are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical display devices (see Fig. 3A of Park and Fig. 3 of Calafiore). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for forming the diffractive waveguide as taught by Calafiore to place the waveguide between transparent UV blocking bodies (lenses). The motivation for doing so would have been to protect a user’s eye from UV rays. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach diffractive waveguides with nanoparticles having a metal core surrounded by ligands: US 2020/0247073, US 11262495, US 2022/0204790, US 2022/0334289, US 2022/0334302, US 11543584, US 2023/0041380, US 12085741, US 12392940. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F. 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 Hollweg can be reached on 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 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. /RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591090
HOLLOW-CORE PHOTONIC CRYSTAL FIBER BASED EDIBLE OIL SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585077
FIBER OPTIC HOUSING AND CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12554069
MULTI-DIRECTIONAL ADAPTIVE OPTICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12541063
FERRULE HOLDER FOR MINIATURE MT FERRULE AND ADAPTER INTERFACE FOR MATING WITH FIBER OPTIC CONNECTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12535641
OPTICAL CONNECTOR AND OPTICAL CONNECTOR MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+7.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1146 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month