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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 and 4-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calafiore et al (US 2022/0019015 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US 2022/0334302 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.
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).
Calafiore does not teach expressly an inorganic metal shell formed on a surface of the metal core.
Zhang teaches a method for forming a diffractive waveguide and the corresponding device, comprising a polymer resin layer (1430, P0128) having a plurality of nanoparticles (1434), wherein the plurality of nanoparticles comprises:
a metal core composed of a first metal material (titanium or zirconium oxides P0139);
an inorganic metal shell formed on a surface of the metal core (P0138); and
a plurality of ligands disposed on at least a portion of the inorganic metal shell (P0138);
Calafiore and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, diffractive waveguides.
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 and device of Calafiore to use the nanoparticles taught by Zhang.
The motivation for doing so would have been so electrons and holes generated by the metal core upon exposure to UV light or heat may recombine before the electrons and holes could reach the organic ligands and/or resin to degrade the organic materials (Zhang, P0138).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calafiore and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 10,571,617 B2).
Calafiore and Zhang teach the method of forming a diffractive waveguide as previously discussed.
Calafiore and Zhang do 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.
Alexander teaches the same display device (400, Figs. 4-5) wherein
a lens (500) is formed by disposing a waveguide substrate (501) between a first transparent body (bottom portion of 550) and a second transparent body (top portion of 550) (C9 L7-58).
Alexander does not state the transparent bodies are UV absorbing, but Alexander does teach that the waveguide can be implemented in sunglasses (C1 L66 – C2 L15), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try UV absorbing materials for the lenses of sunglasses, since it has been held that “it is obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” is a rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness. In re KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. One of ordinary skill the art would identify UV absorbing properties would be beneficial for sunglasses and one would expect UV absorbing material to succeed in the transparent bodies of Alexander since Alexander teaches using the device in sunglasses.
Calafiore, Zhang and Alexander are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical display devices.
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 and Zhang to place the waveguide between transparent UV blocking bodies (lenses) as taught by Alexander.
The motivation for doing so would have been to protect a user’s eye from UV rays.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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 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.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights