DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slanted etching" (emphasis added) in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the phrase “the slanted etching” is referred to “a slanted etch” or “etching trenches” or both. The examiner suggests replacing “the slanted etching” to --the slanted etch-- in order to provide proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the slanted etching" (emphasis added) in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the phrase “the slanted etching” is referred to “a first slanted etch”, “a second slanted etch” or both.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they depend on indefinite claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US 2021/0351069 A1) in view of Rivera (US 2022/0397708 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Evans discloses a method, comprising:
etching trenches in an optical substrate (Fig 5D, Fig 6; paragraph 0039-0043; Fig 10 step 1020)
applying a mask (412 and/or 413) to the substrate that deposits mask material in the trenches (Fig 7, paragraph 0044-0045; Fig 10 step 1030; paragraph 0051
removing the mask material in locations between the trenches (Fig 9-10, paragraph 0046-; and
applying a slanted etch to the substrate to produce a blazed grating in the substrate, wherein the slanted etching uses
As to claim 1, Evans fails to disclose the slanted etch uses neutralized ion beam etching. However, Evans clearly discloses the slanted etch use ion beam etching (paragraph 0027-0032, 0046-0047). Rivera discloses the slanted etch uses neutralized ion beam etching in order to prevent the buildup of positive charged on the structure to be etched (paragraph 0101-0102, 0105, 0108, 0117). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Evans in view of Rivera by using neutralized ion beam etching for the slanted etch because it prevents the buildup of positive charged on the structure to be etched (paragraph 0096, 0099, 0105, 0132).
As to claim 2, Evans fails to disclose or suggest removing remaining mask material from the substrate; and removing material from the substrate to flatten upper edges of the blazed grating. Rivera teaches removing the mask layer using an etching process (See paragraph 0154, Fig 22 block 2250). It is noted that the substrate is exposed during the etching process to remove the mask layer(1820 or 1382 or 1482) and the upper edge of the blazed grating is flat (See Fig 13-14, Fig 18A-18C). Therefore, a portion of the material from the substrate is removed during the mask removal process since the substrate is exposed during the etching process. Therefore, Rivera teaches removing material from the substrate to flatten upper edges of the blazed grating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Evans in view of Rivera by removing remaining mask material from the substrate; and removing material from the substrate to flatten upper edges of the blazed grating because it helps to remove undesired mask material.
As to claim 3, Evans fails to disclose applying a coating to the substrate after applying the slanted etch; and removing remaining mask material from the substrate. Rivera discloses applying a coating to the substrate after applying the slanted etch (paragraph 0155, Fig 22 block 2260); and removing remaining mask material from the substrate (paragraph 0154, Fig 22 block 2250). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Evans in view of Rivera by applying a coating to the substrate after applying the slanted etch; and removing remaining mask material from the substrate because it helps to form a surface-relief grating with different subwavelength grating period or different refractive index (paragraph 0155).
As to claim 4, Evans discloses applying a first coating (412) to the substrate after etching the trenches and prior to applying the mask (413) (Fig 7, paragraph 0044).
As to claim 5, Evans fails to disclose or suggest applying a second coating to the substrate after applying the slanted etch; and removing remaining mask material from the substrate to produce a blazed grating in the substrate with different coatings on different surfaces, the different coatings respectively comprising one of the first coating and the second coating. Rivera discloses applying a second coating to the substrate after applying the slanted etch (Fig 22 block 2260, paragraph 0155-0156; and removing remaining mask material from the substrate to produce a blazed grating in the substrate with different coatings on different surfaces, the different coatings respectively comprising one of the first coating and the second coating (Fig 22 block 2250, paragraph 0154-0156). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Evans in view of Rivera by applying a second coating to the substrate after applying the slanted etch; and removing remaining mask material from the substrate to produce a blazed grating in the substrate with different coatings on different surfaces, the different coatings respectively comprising one of the first coating and the second coating because it helps to create surface-relief structure has subwavelength grating periods for visible light, smaller duty cycle and high refractive index contrast (paragraph 0155).
As to claim 6, Evans discloses applying the slanted etch to the substrate comprises varying a tilt of the substrate or a direction of etching during the etching to produce a curved surface on the blazed grating (paragraph 0026-0030, 0042-0043, 0046, Fig 9).
As to claim 7, Evans discloses etching the trenches comprise slanted etching (paragraph 0026-0030, 0042-0043; Fig 5D-Fig 6).
8. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soldi et al. (US 2023/0375774 A1) in view of Rivera (US 2022/0397708 A1).
As to claim 8, Soldi discloses a method, comprising:
etching a trench in an optical substrate (Fig 1B, Fig 3, paragraph 0021
applying a first slanted etch to the substrate to produce a slanted grating in the substrate (Fig 3 step 302, paragraph 0037);
modifying a tilt of the substrate or a direction of etching (Fog 3 step 303; paragraph 0039) and
applying a second slanted etch to the substrate to produce reentrant profiles in the substrate (Fig 3 step 304, paragraph 0040; wherein the slanted etching uses
As to claim 8, Soldi fails to disclose the slanted etching uses neutralized ion beam etching. However, Soldi clearly discloses the slanted etching use ion beam etching (abstract, paragraph 0007-0009, 0028, 0031). Rivera discloses the slanted etching uses neutralized ion beam etching in order to prevent the buildup of positive charged on the structure to be etched (paragraph 0101-0102, 0105, 0108, 0117). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Soldi in view of Rivera by using neutralized ion beam etching for the slanted etching because it prevents the buildup of positive charged on the structure to be etched (paragraph 0096, 0099, 0105, 0132).
As to claim 9, Soldi discloses the first slanted etch produces a first reentrant angle and the second slanted etch produces a second reentrant angle different from the first reentrant angle (Fig 4B-4C, abstract, paragraph 0007-0009, 0024-0025, 0039-0045).
As to claim 10, Soldi discloses etching the trench comprises slanted etching (See Fig 1B-1C, Fig 4B-4C, Fig 3).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights