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
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 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) 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamano et al. (US 2009/0097381).
Regarding claim 1, Hamano discloses a diffraction grating (see figure 3, for instance) comprising: an optically transparent substrate (501; [0103]; “PMMA is highly transparent”); and a diffraction grating structure (502), with a step-like cross-sectional shape (see fig. 3, for instance), on a surface of the optically transparent substrate (501), wherein the diffraction grating structure (502) is formed of a single member (see fig. 3), the diffraction grating structure includes a first diffraction grating portion (502a) and a second diffraction grating portion (502b) with different grating periods ([0104]-[0105]) and different numbers of steps (4 vs. 5, see fig. 12), a grating period of the second diffraction grating portion (see figure 4, 502b; 1.715 mm – 1.25 mm = 0.465 mm) is shorter than a grating period of the first diffraction grating portion (fig. 4, 502a; 1.25 mm / 2 = 0.625 mm), a number of steps of the second diffraction grating portion (502b, 5 steps, see figure 3) is more than a number of steps of the first diffraction grating portion (502a, 4 steps, see figure 3), and a difference between a grating height of the first diffraction grating portion and a grating height of the second diffraction grating portion is less than a minimum height of one step of the first diffraction grating portion(figure 3, groove depth as disclosed in [0132]; [0136], between respective four and five step structures).
Regarding claim 2, Hamano discloses the diffraction grating according to claim 1, wherein the difference between the grating height of the first diffraction grating portion and the grating height of the second diffraction grating portion is 15% or less with respect to 100% of the grating height of the first diffraction grating portion.
Regarding claim 4, Hamano discloses a mold for forming a diffraction grating (“easy to mold”; [0103]; “injection-molded”; [0164]) comprising a pattern structure configured to duplicate the diffraction grating according to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano in view of Arai et al. (US 2001/0008513).
Regarding claim 3, Hamano discloses the diffraction grating according to claim 1. However, Hamano does not expressly disclose wherein the number of steps of the first diffraction grating portion is 7 or more.
Arai discloses a mold for forming a diffraction grating, wherein the number of steps of the first pattern portion is 7 or more ([0898]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seven or more steps in the diffraction pattern as Arai in the mold of Hamano. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely correct spherical aberrations, as taught by Arai ([0899]).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2005/0162733) in view of Hamano.
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses a mold for forming a diffraction grating (see figure 3D, for instance) comprising an optically transparent substrate (33; [0030]), a pattern structure (35), with a step-like cross-sectional shape, on a surface of the optically transparent substrate (33), wherein the pattern structure (35) is formed of a single member ([0028]). However, Cho does not expressly disclose wherein the pattern structure includes a first pattern portion and a second pattern portion with different pattern periods and different numbers of steps, a pattern period of the second pattern portion is shorter than a pattern period of the first pattern portion, a number of steps of the second pattern portion is more than a number of steps of the first pattern portion, and a difference between a pattern height of the first pattern portion and a pattern height of the second pattern portion is less than a minimum height of one step of the first pattern portion.
Hamano discloses a mold (“easy to mold”; [0103]; “injection-molded”; [0164]) for forming a diffraction grating (see figures 3 and 12, for instance) comprising: a substrate ([0103]); and a pattern structure, with a step-like cross-sectional shape (see figure 3), on a surface of the substrate, the pattern structure includes a first pattern portion (fig. 3, 502a) and a second pattern portion (fig. 3, 502b) with different pattern periods and different numbers of steps ([0116], [0123]), a pattern period of the second pattern portion (502b) is shorter than a pattern period of the first pattern portion (502a, fig. 3, [0116]; [0123]), a number of steps of the second pattern portion (502b) is more than a number of steps of the first pattern portion (502a, see figure 3 for instance), and a difference between a pattern height of the first pattern portion (502a) and a pattern height of the second pattern portion (502b) is less than a minimum height of one step of the first pattern portion (figure 3, groove depth as disclosed in [0132]; [0136], between respective four and five step structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific step diffractive pattern structure as Hamano in the mold of Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce coma aberration on an HD-DVD caused by horizontal misalignment to loosen the assembly tolerance and the manufacturing tolerance, as taught by Hamano ([0233]).
Regarding claim 6, Cho in view of Hamano discloses the mold for forming a diffraction grating according to claim 5, wherein the difference between the pattern height of the first pattern portion and the pattern height of the second pattern portion is 15% or less with respect to 100% of the pattern height of the first pattern portion (Hamano Fig 3, and Fig. 12, the overall grating height H1 representing 100% of the grating height of the first pattern is 7.2 µm, and the overall grating height H2 of the second pattern/grating portion is 6.4 µm, so that the relative height difference (H1-H2)/H1 = 0.11, or 11%).
Regarding claim 8, Cho in view of Hamano discloses a diffraction grating (see figure 3 of Hamano) comprising a diffraction grating structure duplicated by the mold for forming a diffraction grating according to claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Hamano, and in further view of Arai.
Regarding claim 7, Cho in view of Hamano discloses the mold for forming a diffraction grating according to claim 5. However, Cho in view of Hamano does not expressly disclose wherein the number of steps of the first pattern portion is 7 or more.
Arai discloses a mold for forming a diffraction grating, wherein the number of steps of the first pattern portion is 7 or more ([0898]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seven or more steps in the diffraction pattern as Arai in the mold of Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to more precisely correct spherical aberrations, as taught by Arai ([0899]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights