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.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) 17-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al 2018/0264601 (see 114a, 114b and 108 in Fig. 1; paragraphs 0007-0008, 0072 and 0080) in view of Ohtsu et al 2005/0158003 (see Figs. 1A-1F, in particular 20 and 26 in Fig. 1D; see the last line of paragraph 0115).
Chang et (see Fig. 1) al discloses the basic claimed system for forming a waveguide part (ie, see “eyepieces in an optical imaging system” in paragraph 0007, the eyepieces being waveguides) comprising a first (114a) and second (114b) mold portion and a radiation source (108), the primary reference essentially lacking a teaching of the system being configured to singulate a waveguide part from a cured film as set forth in instant claims 17 and 23 and the employment of a frame with an aperture to form the waveguide part and cutting a path encircling the aperture to form the waveguide part as recited in instant claim 28. Ohtsu et al teaches these aspects in forming a waveguide part—see the dicing taught in paragraph 0115 to form a waveguide part and the use of a frame (20) followed by cutting a path at least partially encircling the aperture (26, 28) as shown in Figs. 1D-1F. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system of the primary reference as taught by Ohtsu et al to form the waveguide part with the desired dimensions. It is submitted that the system of Chang et al is capable of being configured to irradiate the photocurable material as set forth in instant claim 17 so that different portions of the film would have a different rigidity if such is desired. Further, the system of Chang et al is capable of being configured so that the singulated portion –ie, the waveguide part—is annealed as set forth in instant claims 23 and 24 so that the part has a higher rigidity than the film from which it was cut from if desired. Instant claim 18 is submitted to be an obvious configuration in order to form the waveguide part as desired. Masks with apertures as set forth in instant claims 19 and 20 are conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious expedient in Chang et al to form the waveguide part as desired. The dicer of Ohtsu et al is submitted to include the die cutter of instant claims 22, 27 and 34. The use of heating elements to perform annealing as recited in instant claim 25 is conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious expedient over annealing by irradiation. Note that Ohtsu et al shows two apertures (26 and 28) for frame mold 20, although the photocurable material is introduced only into one of the apertures. However, Ohtsu et al also shows multiple cores 32 being formed in Figs. 2A and 2B, and these cores would have required mold frames with multiple apertures as generally recited in instant claims 29-32. The exact rigidity of the frame and the photocurable material as set forth in instant claim 33 would have been obvious dependent on the exact material property desired for the waveguide part. Configuring the system as recited in instant claims 21 and 26 would have been obvious to form the desired number of waveguide parts.
2.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
Prosecution Insights