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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Sato et al. does not disclose the limitations as presented in claim 15. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sato et al. teaches a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1 (see at least paragraphs 0253-0256); and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less (see at least paragraph 0366), and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values (different values of the F numbers, see at least paragraph 0255). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio and the intensity as taught by Sato et al. in order to continuously rotate the length Λ of the single period in the liquid crystal alignment pattern in the in-plane direction in which the optical axis and reduce the unevenness in a plane of the liquid crystal layer. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1; and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding “a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1; and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values”, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, the claim limitations “a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1; and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sato et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sato et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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, 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.
Claims 15-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (WO 2020/022504: US 2021/0149256 is used as a tentative translation).
Regarding claim 15, Sato et al. (figures 1-8) discloses an optical element that diffracts incidence light and emits the diffracted light, the optical element comprising:
a liquid crystal layer (30) that concentrically has a liquid crystal alignment pattern where an orientation of an optical axis derived from a liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction (see at least paragraph 0129),
wherein in the liquid crystal alignment pattern of the liquid crystal layer, a length of a single period, which is a length over which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal layer rotates by 180° in a plane, gradually changes along in the one in-plane direction (the length (single period Λ) of the single period over which the optical axis 30A rotates by 180° in the in-plane direction; see at least paragraph 0146),
in the optical element, a focal length fG continuously changes in a direction from a center toward an outer side of the concentric circle (figure 2),
Sato et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 15 above. However, Sato et al. is silent regarding a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1. Sato et al. teaches a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1 (see at least paragraphs 0253-0256); and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less (see at least paragraph 0366), and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values (different values of the F numbers, see at least paragraph 0255). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio and the intensity as taught by Sato et al. in order to continuously rotate the length Λ of the single period in the liquid crystal alignment pattern in the in-plane direction in which the optical axis and reduce the unevenness in a plane of the liquid crystal layer. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1; and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding “a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1; and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values”, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, the claim limitations “a ratio “fGmax/fGmin” of a maximum value fGmax to a minimum value fGmin of the focal length fG is more than 1.1; and a maximum ration Rmax among ratios of an intensity of zero- order light to an intensity of first-order light at each position in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a ratio Xmax at a position of a maximum ratio among ratios of an intensity of diffracted light component having a maximum intensity among diffracted light components at diffraction angles less than a diffraction angle of first-order light to an intensity of first-order light at respective in a plane of the optical element is 3% or less, and a focal length profile of the optical element in a direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has one or more extreme values” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sato et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sato et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 16, Sato et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 15 above. However, Sato et al. is silent regarding wherein Δn of the liquid crystal layer is 0.2 to 0.5. Sato et al. teaches wherein Δn of the liquid crystal layer is 0.2 to 0.5 (see at least paragraph 0210). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Δn as taught by Sato et al. in order to continuously rotate the length Λ of the single period in the liquid crystal alignment pattern in the in-plane direction in which the optical axis and reduce the unevenness in a plane of the liquid crystal layer. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have Δn of the liquid crystal layer being 0.2 to 0.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claims 21-24, Sato et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 15 above. However, Sato et al. is silent regarding the ratios. Sato et al. teaches wherein the focal length profile of the optical element in the direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has two or more extreme values; wherein the ratio "fGmax/fGmin" is 1.3 or more; wherein the ratio Rmax is 1% or less; and wherein the ratio Xmax is 1% or less (different values of the F numbers; see at least paragraphs 0253-0256). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio and the intensity as taught by Sato et al. in order to continuously rotate the length Λ of the single period in the liquid crystal alignment pattern in the in-plane direction in which the optical axis and reduce the unevenness in a plane of the liquid crystal layer. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have wherein the focal length profile of the optical element in the direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has two or more extreme values; wherein the ratio "fGmax/fGmin" is 1.3 or more; wherein the ratio Rmax is 1% or less; and wherein the ratio Xmax is 1% or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding the claim limitations “wherein the focal length profile of the optical element in the direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has two or more extreme values; wherein the ratio "fGmax/fGmin" is 1.3 or more; wherein the ratio Rmax is 1% or less; and wherein the ratio Xmax is 1% or less”, it has been held that although features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and thus apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art on the basis of structure. MPEP § 2114, Sections I and II, citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469; 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478; 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, the claim limitations “wherein the focal length profile of the optical element in the direction from the center toward the outer side of the concentric circles has two or more extreme values; wherein the ratio "fGmax/fGmin" is 1.3 or more; wherein the ratio Rmax is 1% or less; and wherein the ratio Xmax is 1% or less” above, directed to transmissivity at particular wavelengths, recite a function of the device, but do not specify the structure which achieves this function. Therefore, it is presumed that the device of Sato et al. discloses the claimed transmissivity, because Sato et al. discloses all of the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871