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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on February 14, 2205 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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 2, 5, 7-9 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.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “a circular direction” which is unclear what constitutes the direction (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Is this the radius of the circle? Is this the perimeter of the circle? Is this an axis perpendicular to the plane of the circle? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand such direction to be any direction consistent with circle/circular geometry.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “an edge of the incident surface and near the base…near the base” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes “near”. How close is “near”? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand so long as the reflection structures are serrated and include a base, such features are met.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “comprises a sharp point and perpendicular to the circular direction” however such language is not consistent with geometry. Specifically, it is unclear how a point is perpendicular to a direction since points do not have directionality/normal vectors (MPEP 2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution so long as the prior art teaches a point, the limitation will be considered met.
Claims 8-9 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “the other two of the four oblique surfaces parallel to” which lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, it has not been established the oblique surfaces are parallel to anything (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Additionally, it is unclear what is parallel. If the surfaces are oblique, what are they parallel to?
Claim 9 is rejected as dependent upon claim 8.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “an edge of the incident surface and near the base…near the base” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes “near”. How close is “near”? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand so long as the reflections structures are serrated and include a base, such features are met.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Falicoff et al. (US 2002/0149924 - Falicoff).
As to claim 1, Falicoff teaches an optical element (Falicoff Fig. 5; Figs. 50-54) comprising
a substrate layer (Falicoff Figs. 50, 51 - 501, 502; Fig. 53 - 530);
a reflection element (Falicoff Fig. 50- 503, 504; Fig. 51 - 512, 514; para. [0283]) being circular shaped on a surface of the substrate (Falicoff Fig. 53 - 530; para. [0285]; Fig. 54- 540; para. [0287]),
the reflection element comprising a base and a plurality of reflection structures protruding from the base to a direction away from the substrate layer (Falifcoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504), each of the plurality of reflection structures comprises an incident surface and an exit surface (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 512, 514),
the incident surface being configured to transmit a portion of a signal light and reflect another portion of the signal light (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d),
the exit surface being configured to transmit the portion of the signal light from the incident surface to a next incident surface (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d),
making the portion of the signal light transmit in the plurality of reflection structures successively (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516), and making the another portion of the signal light exit away from the substrate layer (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d).
As to claim 2, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Falicoff further teaches the plurality of reflectors are arranged in a circular direction of the base (Falicoff Figs. 53, 54; para. [0283], [0285]).
As to claim 3, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Falicoff further teaches the incident surface intersects with the exit surface (Falicoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504).
As to claim 4, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Falicoff further teaches each of the plurality of reflection structures further comprises two side surfaces parallel to each other (Falicoff Fig. 52 - unlabeled front and rear surfaces of 501, 502), the incident surface and the exit surface are between and intersect with the side surfaces (Falicoff Figs. 52, 53, 54).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Falicoff further teaches each of the plurality of reflection structures is serrated shaped (Falicoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504), an edge of the incident surface and near the base connects an edge of the exit surface of a next reflection structure an near a base (Falicoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504).
As to claim 6, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Falicoff further teaches each of the plurality of reflection surfaces is straight-bar shaped (Falicoff Fig. 50 - 504, 503; Fig. 53; Fig. 54) and each of the plurality of reflection structures further comprises a flat surface parallel to a plane where the substrate layer is (Falicoff Fig. 50 - vertical surface (flat surface) of the reflection structures being parallel to end faces of substrate(s) (501, 502)), the two side surfaces are between the flat surface and the base and intersect with the flat surface (Falicoff Figs. 52, 53, 54 - front and rear surfaces (side surfaces) of substrates (501, 502) are between the vertical surface (flat surface) and the base and intersect with the flat surface).
As to claim 7, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Falicoff further teaches each of the plurality of reflection structures comprises a sharp point and perpendicular to the circular direction (Falicoff Fig. 50 - sharp points of (503, 504); Figs. 53, 54).
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.
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falicoff (cited above).
As to claim 8, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Falicoff further teaches, in another embodiment, the plurality of reflection structures comprises four oblique surfaces that intersect on a point (Falicoff Figs. 16A-19 - 161, 171, 184), two of the four oblique surfaces intersect with the circular direction are defined as the incident surface and the exit surface (Falicoff Fig. 19 - 191, 192), the other two of the four oblique surfaces parallel to the circular direction are defined as the two side surfaces (Falicoff Figs. 18-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such pyramid structures since, as taught by Falicoff, such light reflectors are well known in the art to reflect in multiple directions (Falicoff para. [0178]).
As to claim 9, Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Falicoff further teaches an edge of the incident surface and near the base connects an edge of the exit surface of a next reflection structure and near the base (Falicoff Figs. 18, 19), and an edge of each of the two side surfaces near the base connects an edge of the two side surfaces of a next reflection structure and near the base (Falicoff Figs. 18, 19).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falicoff (cited above) in view of Deng (US 2024/0069256).
As to claim 10, Falicoff teaches a method for making an optical element comprising providing an imprinting material on a surface of a substrate layer for form in imprinted layer (Falicoff Figs. 50-54);
Imprinting a side of the imprinted layer away from the substrate layer to form a pattern of a reflection element (Falicoff Figs. 50-54);
wherein the reflection element (Falicoff Fig. 50- 503, 504; Fig. 51 - 512, 514; para. [0283]) is circular shaped (Falicoff Fig. 53 - 530; para. [0285]; Fig. 54- 540; para. [0287]), and comprises a base and a plurality of reflection structures protruding from the base to a direction away from the substrate layer (Falifcoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504), each of the plurality of reflection structures comprises an incident surface and an exit surface (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 512, 514),
the incident surface is configured to transmit a portion of a signal light and reflect another portion of the signal light (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d),
the exit surface being configured to transmit the portion of the signal light from the incident surface to a next incident surface (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d),
making the portion of the signal light transmit in the plurality of reflection structures successively (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516), and making the another portion of the signal light exit away from the substrate layer (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d).
Falicoff doesn’t specify nanoimprinting. In the same field of endeavor Deng teaches nanoimprinting optical elements (Deng Figs. 6-29; para. [0032], [0105]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use nanoimprinting since, as taught by Deng, such methods are well known in the art for imprinting optical structures (Deng Figs. 6-29; para. [0002], [0027]).
As to claim 11, Falicoff in view of Deng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Deng further teaches the providing the imprinting material comprises a semi-transparent and semi-reflective imprinting material (Deng para. [0032], [0105]).
As to claim 12, Falicoff in view of Deng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Deng further teaches the providing the semi-transparent and semi-reflective material comprises providing titanium dioxide or photosensitive epoxy resin as an imprinting material (Deng para. [0105]).
As to claim 13, Falicoff in view of Deng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Deng further teaches the imprinting a side of the imprinted layer away from the substrate layer to form a nanoimprint pattern of a reflection element comprises: imprinting the imprinted layer by a template (Deng Fig. 14 - 31’, 33, 31, 33; para. [0124]), making a surface of the template with the nanoimprinted pattern in close contact with the side of the imprinted layer away from the base layer (Deng Fig. 14 - 31’, 33, 31, 33; para. [0124]), and applying pressure to the template to transfer the nanoimprinted pattern on the template to the imprinted layer (Deng Fig. 14 - 31’, 33, 31, 33; para. [0124]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falicoff and Deng as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2020/0400951).
As to claim 14, Falicoff in view of Deng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, but doesn’t specify forming an anti-adhesion layer on the surface of the template is comprises before imprinting a side of the imprinted layer away from the substrate layer.
In the same field of endeavor Zhang teaches providing an anti-adhesion layer on the surface of the template is comprises before imprinting a side of the imprinted layer away from the substrate layer (Zhang Figs. 9A-D; para. [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the anti-adhesive layer since, as taught by Zhang, such layer allows for facilitating the separation of the template and formed device (Zhang para. [0109]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0085703 - Chen) in view of Falicoff (cited above).
As to claim 15, Chen teaches a head mounted device (Chen Fig. 1; para. [0014]) comprising
a frame (Chen Fig. 1 - 12, 12T);
a light source on the frame for emitting a signal light (Chen Fig. 3 - 44);
an optical element on the frame and on an optical path of the signal light (Chen Fig. 3 - 46, 16, 40) and a substrate layer (Chen Fig. 3 - 16) and
a reflection element (Chen Fig. 9 - 62; para. [0030])
Chen doesn’t specify the reflection element is circular shaped on a surface of the substrate layer, the reflection element comprising a base and a plurality of reflection structures protruding from the base to a direction away from the substrate layer, each of the plurality of reflection structures comprises an incident surface and an exit surface, the incident surface being configured to transmit a portion of the signal light and reflect another portion of the signal light, the exit surface being configured to transmit the portion of the signal light from the incident surface to a next incident surface, making the portion of the signal light transmit in the plurality of reflection structures successively, and making the another portion of the signal light exit away from the substrate layer.
In the same field of endeavor Falicoff teaches reflection elements being circular shaped on a surface of the substrate (Falicoff Fig. 53 - 530; para. [0285]; Fig. 54- 540; para. [0287]),
the reflection element comprising a base and a plurality of reflection structures protruding from the base to a direction away from the substrate layer (Falifcoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504),
each of the plurality of reflection structures comprises an incident surface and an exit surface (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 512, 514),
the incident surface being configured to transmit a portion of a signal light and reflect another portion of the signal light (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d),
the exit surface being configured to transmit the portion of the signal light from the incident surface to a next incident surface (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d),
making the portion of the signal light transmit in the plurality of reflection structures successively (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516), making the another portion of the signal light exit away from the substrate layer (Falicoff Fig. 51 - 516, 518; Fig. 53 - 531, 532a,b,c,d; Fig. 54 - 521, 542a,b,c,d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such reflection element since, as taught by Falicoff, such structures are easy to manufacture elements that eject light along the desired direction and axis and create an area emitter (Falicoff para. [0281], [0003]).
As to claim 16, Chen in view of Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Falicoff further teaches the plurality of reflection structures are arranged in a circular direction of the base (Falicoff Figs. 53, 54; para. [0283], [0285]), and the incident surface intersects with the exit surface (Falicoff Fig. 50 - 503, 504).
As to claim 17, Chen in view of Falicoff teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 16, and Falicoff further teaches each of the plurality of reflection structures is serrated shaped, straigh-bar shaped, or pyramid shaped (Falicoff Figs. 53-54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee (US 10,060,590; 2017/0097133); Ko (US 8,246,228); Yashiro (US 8,376,601; 2010/0246210); Zyka (US 7,712,907); Mezei et al. (US 6,910,783); Falicoff et al. (US 6,646,813); van Raalte (US 4,798,448); Oh et al. (US 2023/0296945); Huang (US 2008/0002400); Tenmyo (US 2006/0209561).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 6, 2026