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
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) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being by Kaida et al. (US 2011/0080640 A1).
Re claims 1 and 12, Kaida et al. discloses a device comprising a plurality of optical element (paragraphs 0002); wherein at least one of the plurality of optical elements includes: a base material (14) having a plurality of convex portions (12) arranged along the first direction; and a conductor (22) provided to each of the plurality of convex portions (14), wherein each of the plurality of convex portions extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1), wherein in a section including the first direction and a third direction perpendicular to each of the first direction and the second direction, each of the plurality of convex portions (12) has a rectangular shape, and wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
125≤P≤160 (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Pp, (150 nm)
0.45≤Dx/Dz≤1.20 (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Hm, Dm2; (Dm2/Hm) = (24/50)
where P(mm) is an arrangement pitch of the plurality of convex portions, Dz (nm) is a distance in the third direction from a top surface of each of the convex portion in the section to a top surface of the conductor provided to each convex portion, and Dx(nm) is a thickness of the conductor in the first direction at half a height in the third direction of each convex portion.
Re claim 2, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the conductor (22) covers at least a part of one side (20) and the top surface (16) of each of the plurality of convex portions in the section (Fig. 1).
Re claim 3, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
20.00≤Dx (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Dm2 (24 nm)).
Re claim 4, Kaida et al. does not disclose the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 4.0 ≤h/w≤9.0, wherein h (nm) is a height in the third direction of the convex portion, and w (nm) is a width of the convex portion at half a height of the convex portion (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Hm1, Dp; (Hm1/Dp)=(200/50).
Re claim 5, Kaida et al. does not disclose the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.15≤Dz/h≤0.60 (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Hm, Hm1; Hm/Hm1=50/200), where h (nm) is a height in the third direction of the convex portion.
Re claim 6, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.5≤S/A where A is an entire sectional area of the conductor in the section, and S is a sectional area of a portion of the conductor deposited on a side surface of the convex portion in the section (Fig. 1, ref. 22).
Re claim 8, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the conductor (22) covers 60% or more of the top surface (16) of the convex portion (12) in the section (Fig. 1).
Re claim 9, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the base material is a flat plate or a lens having a curved surface with a thickness on an optical axis of 100 µm or more (Hs-Hp) (paragraphs 0041-0042).
Re claim 10, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the plurality of convex portions is made of a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0043).
Re claim 11, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 100≤h, where h (nm) is a height in the third direction of the convex portion (Table 2, Example 13, ref. Hm1).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaida et al.
Re claim 7, Kaida et al. does not disclose device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.25≤Ax/P≤0.60 where Ax (nm) is a maximum thickness of the conductor in the first direction above the convex portion in the section.
Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein Ax/P equals (Dm/Pp)=(98/150)=0.65 (Table 2, Example 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.25≤Ax/P≤0.60 where Ax (nm) is a maximum thickness of the conductor in the first direction above the convex portion in the section since “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it is well known in the art for the pitch to determine the operating wavelength range. Obtaining the device with a higher pitch, satisfying the claimed inequality to operate in a different wavelength range is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Moreover, as disclosed in Table 2, a pitch of 200 nm is known. Therefore, it would have been be “obvious to try a pitch” of 200 nm with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR).
Re claim 14, Kaida et al. does not disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.49≤Dx/Dz≤1.20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.45≤Dx/Dz≤1.20. Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein Dx/Dz=0.48 (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Hm, Dm2; (Dm2/Hm) = (24/50). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaida et al. in view of Kawazu et al. (US 2014/0293142).
Re claim 13, Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein each of the plurality of convex portions (12) has, in the section, the top surface (16), a first side surface (18), and a second side surface (20) opposite to the first side surface, and wherein the conductor covers at least a part of the top surface and at least a part of the first side surface of each of the plurality of convex portions (Fig. 1). Kaida et al. does not disclose the device wherein the conductor is not formed on the second side surface of each of the plurality of convex portions.
Kawazu et al. discloses a device wherein the conductor (12) is not formed on a second side surface of each of the plurality of convex portions (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the conductor is not formed on the second side surface of each of the plurality of convex portions since doing so would be motivated to improve parallel transmittance (paragraph 0029).
Re claim 15, Kaida et al. does not disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.49≤Dx/Dz≤1.20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.45≤Dx/Dz≤1.20. Kaida et al. discloses the device wherein Dx/Dz=0.48 (see Table 2, Example 13, ref. Hm, Dm2; (Dm2/Hm) = (24/50). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “in stark contrast, Kaida defines Dm1 and Dm2 as thickness of fine metallic wires covering the sides faces of a ridge at the height of the top face of the ridge”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in Fig. 1, Dm2 is the length of not only at the height of the top face of the ridge, but at the bottom of the ridge as well. As such, since the side face does not have any variations in thickness, Dm2 would also be a thickness of the conductor in the first direction at half a height. Applicant cites paragraph 0051 as support that Dm2 is a thickness of the second side face of the ridge at a height of the top face. This does not exclude that Dm2 is not also a thickness of the conductor in the first direction at half the height. Furthermore, Kaida describes the thickness Dm2 as “covering the second side face of the ridge” and is of a single thickness (paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would follow that the thickness Dm2 would be substantially the same along the second side face of the ridge. Moreover, Kaida et al. discloses that the fine metallic wires are formed by a single vapor deposition (paragraph 0099) which would form a layer of substantially uniform thickness.
Applicant’s arguments related to new claims 13-15 has been response to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights