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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 13-16 in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/1/23 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 7, 8, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tervo (US 2017/0315346 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Tervo discloses an apparatus 10 (Fig. 1; [0017]) comprising:
a waveguide 36 having an in-coupler 32 and an out-coupler 34 (Figs. 1-2; [0021], [0023]), the waveguide 36 having a first surface and an opposite second surface, the waveguide 36 providing at least one optical path from the in-coupler 32 to the out-coupler 34 (Fig. 2; [0028]);
wherein the in-coupler 32 comprises a first diffraction grating 42 with a first grating vector on the first surface and a second diffraction grating 44 with a second grating vector on the second surface (Figs. 1-2; [0023]), and wherein at least one of the first and second grating vectors is not oriented along any of the optical paths from the in-coupler 32 to the out-coupler 34 (Fig. 3; [0032]-[0033]).
Re. Claim 4, Tervo discloses the in-coupler 32 is configured to couple incident light along at least one of the optical paths using a non-zero diffractive order of the first diffraction grating 42 and a non-zero diffractive order of the second diffraction grating 44 ([0025]).
Re. Claim 7, Tervo discloses the in-coupler 32 is configured to couple incident light along at least one of the optical paths using a non-zero diffractive order of the first diffraction grating 42 and the zeroth diffractive order of the second diffraction grating 44 ([0025]).
Re. Claim 8, Tervo discloses the second diffraction grating 44 has a grating period shorter than a wavelength of incident light (e.g., visible light) in the waveguide 36 ([0017], [0033]).
Re. Claim 13, Tervo discloses a method comprising:
directing incident light B0 on an in-coupler 32 of a waveguide 36 (Figs. 1-2; [0017]-[0019]), the in-coupler 32 comprising a first diffraction grating 42 with a first grating vector on the first surface and a second diffraction grating 44 with a second grating vector on the second surface (Figs. 1-2; [0023]), and wherein at least one of the first and second grating vectors is not oriented along any of the optical paths from the in-coupler 32 to the out-coupler 34 (Fig. 3; [0032]); and
diffracting the incident light to a non-zero diffractive order with the first diffraction grating 42 ([0025]); and
reflecting the diffracted light with the second diffraction grating 44 (Fig. 2; [0025]).
Re. Claim 14, Tervo discloses the in-coupler 32 is configured to couple incident light along at least one of the optical paths using a non-zero diffractive order of the first diffraction grating 42 and a non-zero diffractive order of the second diffraction grating 44 ([0025]).
Re. Claim 15, Tervo discloses the in-coupler 32 is configured to couple incident light along at least one of the optical paths using a non-zero diffractive order of the first diffraction grating 42 and the zeroth diffractive order of the second diffraction grating 44 ([0025]).
Re. Claim 16, Tervo discloses the second diffraction grating 44 has a grating period shorter than a wavelength of the incident light (e.g., visible light) in the waveguide 36 ([0017], [0033]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tervo (US 2017/0315346 A1).
Re. Claim 2, Tervo discloses the apparatus as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the first grating vector has an angle of between 80° and 100° from at least one of the optical paths.
The claimed arrangement would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the current invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 3, Tervo discloses the apparatus as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the second grating vector has an angle of between 35° and 55° with respect to the first grating vector.
The claimed arrangement would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the current invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 5, Tervo discloses the apparatus as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the first grating vector has an angle within 10° of at least one of the optical paths.
The claimed arrangement would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the current invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 6, Tervo discloses the apparatus as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the second grating vector has an angle between 45° and 90° with respect to the first grating vector.
The claimed arrangement would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the current invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 9, Tervo discloses the apparatus as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the second diffraction grating has a grating period less than 300nm.
The claimed arrangement would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the current invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. Claim 10, Tervo discloses the apparatus as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein at least one of the gratings comprises silicon grating elements.
The claimed arrangement would have found the claimed arrangement obvious before the effective filing date of the current invention, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 2/4/26