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 of Invention I, claims 1-16 and 20, without traverse, in the reply of May 14, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-16 and 20 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.
Claims 1-16 and 20 recites “An electronic device”, however none of the claims recite any electronic elements, or elements related to electricity. This creates confusion regarding the scope of the claimed subject matter. Are there essential elements omitted from the claim, or are the recited substrate, waveguide and other elements intended to be electrified in operation? If the scope of the claimed invention is strictly optical, as it would seem to one skilled in the art, it is recommended that the preamble is changed to reflect this scope. Alternatively, if the scope of the claimed invention is intended to include both optical and electronic components, then the claims should be amended to reflect this scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhargava et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0059304 A1.
With regard to claim 1, in figs 14, 31B, 33D, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that an electronic device comprising: a waveguide; a substrate on the waveguide (substrate/waveguide/coupler shown in figs. 14 and 33D, for example); a first optical coupler having a first surface relief grating (SRG) in the substrate that is configured to couple light into the waveguide, the first SRG having first ridges with a first step extending to a first height from the waveguide and with a second step extending from the first step to a second height from the waveguide that is greater than the first height (stepped gratings shown in figs. 115 and 122-124); and a second optical coupler having a second SRG in the substrate that is configured to couple the light out of the waveguide, the second SRG being a binary SRG having second ridges extending to the second height from the waveguide [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
With regard to claim 2, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the substrate has a first lateral surface facing the waveguide and a second lateral surface opposite the first lateral surface, the first SRG has first troughs extending from the second lateral surface towards the waveguide between the first ridges, and the second SRG has second troughs that extend from the second lateral surface towards the waveguide between the second ridges [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
With regard to claim 4, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses a reflective layer disposed over the first SRG and filling the first troughs ([0330] describing grating substrate covered with metal or reflective material).
With regard to claim 6, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the reflective layer comprises a dielectric material having a different refractive index than the substrate ([0662] teaches dielectric reflective layers).
With regard to claim 7, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses an encapsulation layer that covers the substrate and the reflective layer and that fills the second troughs (see fig. 77D showing encapsulation over the rating and reflective layers).
With regard to claim 8, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the light comprises red, green, and blue wavelengths, the first SRG and the second SRG being configured to diffract the red, green, and blue wavelengths of the light (fig. 37 and [0365] show a device operating on the fully spectrum of visible light).
With regard to claim 9, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses a reflective coating ([0330] describing grating substrate covered with metal or reflective material) overlapping the first SRG, wherein the reflective coating has a first portion overlapping the waveguide, a second portion overlapping the first step of the first ridges, and a third portion overlapping the second step of the first ridges (where reflective coating is applied to stepped SRG of figs. 115 and 122-124).
With regard to claim 10, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the first portion of the reflective coating has a first thickness equal to the first height and the second portion of the reflective coating has a second thickness equal to the second height (where reflective coating is applied to stepped SRG of figs. 115 and 122-124).
With regard to claim 11, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the first portion of the reflective coating has a first thickness less than the first height and the second portion of the reflective coating has a second thickness less than the second height (where reflective coating is applied to stepped SRG of figs. 115 and 122-124).
With regard to claim 12, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses a dielectric layer interposed between the waveguide and the substrate [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
With regard to claim 13, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the first step of the first ridges is located at a first side of the second step of the first ridges and wherein the first ridges have a third step at a second side of the second step, the third ridges extending to a third height from the waveguide that is equal to the first height (fig. 124 12403) [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
With regard to claim 14, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that a sidewall of the first step or the second step is tilted at a non-orthogonal angle with respect to a lateral surface of the waveguide (figs. 117A-117D).
With regard to claim 15, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses a third optical coupler having a third SRG in the substrate, the third optical coupler being configured to redirect the light from the first optical coupler towards the second optical coupler [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
With regard to claim 16, in figs 14, 31B, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that the second optical coupler is configured to expand a pupil of the light upon diffracting the light [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava.
With regard to claim 3, Bhargava discloses all of the limitations of the claimed substrate/waveguide/grating, but does not expressly disclose the relative depths of the troughs in the first and second gratings. One skilled in the art would realize that the relative ridge heights and trough depths of surface relief gratings would impact both the quantity and direction of the input and output light, and these dimensions can be determined through routine experimentation to determine their optimal dimensions to achieve the desired optical effects in the context of the overall optical device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ridge heights and trough depths of the Bhargava device such that the second troughs extend to a distance from the waveguide equal to the first height, to optimize dimensions to achieve the desired optical effects in the context of the overall optical device.
With regard to claim 5, Bhargava discloses all of the limitations of the claimed substrate/waveguide/grating, including a reflective layer, but does not expressly disclose the material of the reflective layer. Official notice is taken that both aluminum and silver are well known by those skilled in the art for their reflective properties and workability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either aluminum or silver for the reflective layer in the Bhargava device, as these are well known highly reflective materials.
With regard to claim 20, in figs 14, 31B, 33D, 42B, 115 and 122-124, Bhargava discloses that an electronic device comprising: a waveguide; a substrate on the waveguide; the substrate having a first lateral surface facing the waveguide and a second lateral surface opposite the first lateral surface; (substrate/waveguide/coupler shown in figs. 14 and 33D, for example); an input coupler having a first surface relief grating (SRG) in a medium and configured to couple light into the waveguide, the first SRG having a set of ridges extending from the first lateral surface towards the second lateral surface of the medium, and each ridge in the set of ridges comprising a first step that extends from the first lateral surface to the second lateral surface, a second step that extends from the first lateral surface to a height from the first lateral surface, the second step being shorter than the first step, and a third step that extends from the first lateral surface to the height from the first lateral surface, wherein the third step is shorter than the first step and the second step is interposed between the first step and the third step (stepped gratings shown in figs. 115 and 122-124); and an optical coupler having a binary SRG configured to couple the light out of the waveguide, the binary SRG having troughs that extend from the second lateral surface [0271, 0355, 0836-0845].
Bhargava does not expressly disclose the relative depths of the troughs in the first and second gratings. One skilled in the art would realize that the relative ridge heights and trough depths of surface relief gratings would impact both the quantity and direction of the input and output light, and these dimensions can be determined through routine experimentation to determine their optimal dimensions to achieve the desired optical effects in the context of the overall optical device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ridge heights and trough depths of the Bhargava device such that the second troughs extend to a distance from the waveguide equal to the first height, to optimize dimensions to achieve the desired optical effects in the context of the overall optical device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Kiesha R Bryant can be reached at (571)272-3606. 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.
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights