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 .
1.Claims 84 and 99 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 84 and 99 include a recitation to a tradename—Teflon—and the generic name—ie, polytetrafluoroethylene-- should be substituted therefor.
2.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)(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.
Claim(s) 103 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Chang et al 2018/0264691 (see paragraphs 0003-0007).
Chang et al (see paragraph 0007) discloses the formation of an eyepiece in an optical imaging system and a reference back to paragraphs 0003-0006 teach that such an eyepiece is a waveguide part and that the optical imaging system is a wearable imaging headset—ie, a head mounted display. The eyepiece/waveguide of Chang et al is submitted to meet the structural limitations of the instant waveguide formed using the method of instant claim 79.
3.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) 79-102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al 2018/0264691 (see paragraphs 0007-0011, 0071-0072, 0080; see 114a, 114b, 130 in Fig. 1) in view of either of PCT Publication WO 2017/034402 (see page 6, line 33 through page 7, line 19; page 11, line 28 through page 12, line 17; see 42 in Figs. 7A-7F) or Rudmann et al 2007/0216046 (see 11 in Fig. 3 and paragraph 0055).
Chang et al discloses the basic claimed mold system and method for forming a waveguide part—ie, the eyepiece film being a waveguide—comprising first and second molds (114a, 114b) having shaping surfaces to shape the desired film, the molds having spacers (130a) outside the shaping surfaces with the photocurable material that forms the film being dispensed onto the first mold portion and the material being irradiated to form the waveguide film. Essentially, the primary reference lacks a teaching of the shaping surfaces being bounded by an edge region that has a different surface chemistry than the shaping area so that the photocurable material is repelled from the edge area. PCT -402 (see 42 in Figs. 7A-7F) teaches employing an edge region on a substrate or mold that acts as a flow stop for liquid resin that is being shaped, the flow stop being repellant to the resin due to a different surface chemistry. Rudmann et al shows a similar flow stop (see 11 in Fig. 3) on a substrate to limit the spread of a liquid resin as it is being shaped on the substrate by a replicating mold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system and method of the primary reference with an edge region on the mold of different surface chemistry than the mold itself to limit the spread of the resin as it is being compressed by the molds as generally taught in either of PCT -402 or Rudmann et al, such being obviously conventional in the art. PCT -402 (see page 12, line 2) discloses patterns on molds and so does Rudmann et al—see paragraph 0055—teaching ridges and troughs for the flow stopping section. It is submitted that these patterns would have the ability to pin or roll the droplets of photocurable material as recited in instant claims 80 and 81. The exact dimensions of these structures as set forth in instant claims 82 and 83 would have been well within the skill level of the art dependent on the viscosity of the photocurable material. The secondary references also teach using thin films of material (see PCT -402, page 12, line 4) or different materials (see Rudmann et al, paragraph 0055) for the flow stopping means. It is submitted that the materials recited in instant claim 84 are well known for their non-wetting characteristics and that such would have been obvious materials to use in either secondary reference to facilitate the flow stopping. Instant claim 85 is taught at paragraph 0080 of the primary reference. Instant claim 86 is shown as dispensing station 520a in Fig. 5A of the primary reference; instant claim 87 is shown as curing module 520b in Fig. 5A therein. The exact thickness and area of the waveguide as set forth in instant claim 88 would have been an obvious aspect in the system of the primary reference dependent on the exact duty for the waveguide. It is submitted that the exact manner of deposition of the photocurable material as recited in instant claims 90-92 would have been obvious in the dispensing of Chang et al to facilitate the wetting of the molds with the material. Clearly, the molds in Chang et al are arranged opposite to each other during the molding and curing of the material. It would have been obvious to have arranged the molds thus either prior to or after dispensing dependent on the exact equipment used for the dispensing. Chang et al employs a sensor assembly (106 in Fig. 1) to ensure that the molds are registered and positioned as required. The instant fiducial markings as set forth in instant claims 95 and 96 are conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been obvious aspects in lieu of—or in addition to—the sensor assembly of Chang et al to facilitate proper mold orientation. The spacers of instant claims 97 and 98 are taught as mechanical spacer 130a in Fig. 1 of Chang et al. Instant claims 99-102 are rejected for reasons of record as set forth with respect to claims 84, 80, 81 and 88, respectively, supra.
4.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742