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, 5–9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0168065 to Kaida et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaida discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 16–21 and their corresponding descriptions) a structure (e.g., Fig. 19), comprising: a polarizer (e.g., laminate 19, described as wire-grid polarizer) comprising a plurality of non-conducting areas (space between metal layer 18 formed atop ridges of concavo-convex layer 13, e.g., Figs. 19–21) between a grid of conducting elements 18 (Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 5, Kaida discloses wherein the grid is operably coupled to a substrate 16 (e.g., Fig. 19, where “operably” is interpreted broadly to include functional coupling, such as through adhesive 17).
Regarding Claim 6, Kaida discloses wherein the substrate comprises a silica compound (e.g., paragraph [0166]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kaida discloses wherein the substrate is transparent at wavelengths of interest (where substrate 16 is described as “transparent substrate”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kaida discloses wherein the wavelengths of interest are greater than 400 nm and less than 2 μm (paragraph [0165]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kaida discloses wherein the grid comprises aluminum (paragraph [0258]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kaida discloses wherein the grid is operably coupled to a metal layer (e.g., where grid is formed of metal, can be considered operably couple to a metal layer).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 2–4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaida.
Regarding Claim 2, Kaida would have rendered obvious wherein the conducting elements comprise nanowires (e.g., paragraph [0225], teaching using nanoimprinting to form the concavo-convex structure, reasonably suggesting nanowires or nanopillars).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaida would have rendered obvious wherein the conducting elements comprise nanopillars (e.g., paragraph [0225], teaching using nanoimprinting to form the concavo-convex structure, suggesting nanowires or nanopillars; also paragraph [0139], teaching various pole shapes, or pillars).
Regarding Claim 4, Kaida would have rendered obvious wherein the grid is a hexagonal grid (e.g., paragraph [0139], suggesting hexagonal shapes).
Regarding Claim 20, Kaida would have rendered obvious wherein: the grid comprises a plurality of pillars (e.g., paragraph [0225], teaching using nanoimprinting to form the concavo-convex structure, suggesting nanowires or nanopillars; also paragraph [0139], teaching various pole shapes, or pillars), and a distance between each pillar is determined according to a wavelength of interest (e.g., paragraph [0143], where the distance is not explicitly taught as related to the wavelength of interest, but one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have known that the spacing between wires of the wire grid polarizer are related to the polarizing efficiency of light of specific wavelengths, and it would have been obvious to design the distance to be such that wavelengths of interest are effectively polarized).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaida in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0225832 to Kumai.
Regarding Claim 14, Kaida does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-conducting areas comprise aluminum nitride.
Kumai discloses a wire grid, and teaches a silicon nitride protective film 16 formed between conducting areas (e.g., paragraph [0150] and Figs. 15–17, also suggesting that other insulative materials may be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Kaida such that the non-conducting areas comprise aluminum nitride, as suggested by Kumai, to provide protection to the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10–13 and 15–18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 10, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0033767 to Nielson, at least paragraph [0054], teaches that aluminum forming the reflective ribs in a wire grid polarizer may change into transparent aluminum oxide through oxidation; however, Nielson does not appear to teach or suggest that the non-conducting areas comprise the transparent aluminum.
Regarding Claims 11–13 and 15–18, the prior art of record does not appear to disclose or render obvious the combination of all features recited in these claims, respectively, taken together and as a whole, including ion implantation as the means of achieving the non-conducting areas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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 CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871