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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/22/2024 and 9/9/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spacer extending from the boundary region in a direction away from the substrate (claim 9) combined with a supplemental optical structure in or on the boundary region (claim 10, which depends from claim 9) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. The examiner notes that Fig. 6 appears to illustrate the features of claim 9 and Fig. 8 appears to illustrate the features of claim 10, however, there does not appear to be a figure that incorporates the features of claims 9 and 10 together. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, in line 3, the limitation “an optical metastructure, including meta-atoms” is indefinite because it is not clear if “including meta-atoms” intends for meta-atoms to be required or is indicating that “meta-atoms” are a type of metastructure that can be used as an alternative to other metastructures. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as meta-atoms being just one type of metastructures that can be used in the apparatus.
Regarding claims 2-14, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependencies.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “parabolic nano-hemispheres” is indefinite because a shape cannot be both part of a parabola and part of a sphere as these are by definition different shapes. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “nano-hemispheres.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a lead frame” is indefinite because it is not clear from the disclosure if the word “lead” is intended to mean the specific type of metal (i.e. lead, Pb) or is intend to describe the function of the frame (i.e. a frame 44 that leads the light to an optical element such as 42 as shown in Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a supplemental optical structure in or on the boundary region” is indefinite because it is not clear how a supplemental optical structure can be located in the same boundary region as a spacer extending from the boarding region, as recited in claim 9, from which claim 10 depends.
Regarding claim 11, the claim inherits the deficiencies of claim 10 through its dependency.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the supplemental optical structure” is indefinite because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted claim 12 to depend from claim 10, in which “a supplemental optical structure” is initially claimed.
Assuming claim 12 depends from claim 10, then it also inherits the deficiencies of claim 10 through its dependency.
Regarding claim 15, in line 2, the limitation “an optical metastructure, including meta-atoms” is indefinite because it is not clear if “including meta-atoms” intends for meta-atoms to be required or is indicating that “meta-atoms” are a type of metastructure that can be used as an alternative to other metastructures. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as meta-atoms being just one type of metastructures that can be used in the apparatus.
Regarding claims 16-21, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 15 through their dependencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 20-21 would be objected to, once the above stated 35 USC 112(b) rejections are corrected, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 would be objected to, once the above stated 35 USC 112(b) rejection is corrected, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that at least a portion of the boundary region is composed of a same material as the meta-atoms, and that the portion of the boundary region has a thickness greater than a height of the meta-atoms, as generally set forth in claim 13, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1, from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 20 would be objected to, once the above stated 35 USC 112(b) rejection is corrected, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the method includes imprinting a supplemental optical structure in or on a boundary region of the encapsulant, wherein the supplemental optical structure is composed of a same material as the optical moth-eye structure, as generally set forth in claim 20, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 15, from which claim 20 depends.
Claim 21 would be objected to, once the above stated 35 USC 112(b) rejection is corrected, for at least the reason that it depends from claim 20.
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.
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 1-3, 5, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley Jr. et al. (US 2019/0064532) (hereafter Riley), in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0369294) (hereafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Riley discloses an apparatus comprising: a substrate (see at least Fig. 2a and paragraph [0215], where 10 is a substrate); an optical metastructure, including meta-atoms, disposed on the substrate (see at least Fig. 2a and paragraph [0222], where 20 is a metastructure); an encapsulant encapsulating the metastructure (see at least Fig. 2a and paragraph [0222], where embedding medium 24 is an encapsulant); and an anti-reflection coating on a surface of the encapsulant (see at least Fig. 2a and paragraph [0222], where 26’ is an anti-reflection coating).
Riley does not specifically disclose an optical moth-eye structure in a surface of the encapsulant.
However, Chang teaches an anti-reflection layer comprising an optical moth-eye structure in a surface of a layer (see at least Fig. 1D, the abstract, and paragraph [0003]).
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 apparatus of Riley to include the teachings of Chang so that the apparatus comprises an optical moth-eye structure in a surface of the encapsulant for the purpose of substituting one known anti-reflection layer for another in order to obtain predictable results such as antireflection characteristics over broadband and wide-angle illumination (see at least paragraph [0003] of Chang).
Regarding claim 2, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Chang also teaches that the optical moth-eye structure can be formed by imprinting into a surface (see at least paragraph [0024]).
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 apparatus of Riley as modified by Chang to include the further teachings of Chang so that the optical moth-eye structure is imprinted into the surface of the encapsulant for the purpose of using a known method for forming a moth-eye structure.
Regarding claim 3, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Chang also teaches that the optical moth-eye structure includes an array of antireflective structures (see at least Figs. 6A-6D).
Regarding claim 5, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Riley also discloses that the encapsulant is composed of a polymer or a spin-on-glass (see at least paragraph [0222], where the embedding material can be a polymethylmethacrylate or spin-on-glass).
Regarding claim 14, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Chang also teaches a second encapsulant over the optical moth-eye structure (see at least Fig. 1b).
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 apparatus of Riley as modified by Chang to include the further teachings of Chang so that the apparatus includes a second encapsulant over the optical moth-eye structure for the purpose of protecting the moth-eye structure.
Regarding claim 15, Riley discloses a method comprising: providing an optical metastructure, including meta-atoms, disposed on a substrate (see at least Figs. 1A-1G and paragraphs [0214]-[0221]); providing an encapsulant on the metastructure (see at least Fig. 1G and paragraph [0222]); and forming an anti-reflection layer on a surface of the encapsulant (see at least Fig. 2A and paragraph [0222]).
Riley does not specifically disclose forming an optical moth-eye structure in a surface of the encapsulant.
However, Chang teaches forming an anti-reflection layer comprising an optical moth-eye structure in a surface of a layer (see at least Fig. 1D, the abstract, and paragraph [0003]).
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 method of Riley to include the teachings of Chang so that the method comprises forming an optical moth-eye structure in a surface of the encapsulant for the purpose of substituting one known anti-reflection layer for another in order to obtain predictable results such as antireflection characteristics over broadband and wide-angle illumination (see at least paragraph [0003] of Chang).
Regarding claim 16, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Chang also teaches that the optical moth-eye structure can be formed by imprinting into a surface (see at least paragraph [0024]).
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 method of Riley as modified by Chang to include the further teachings of Chang so that the method includes imprinting the optical moth-eye structure into the surface of the encapsulant for the purpose of using a known method for forming a moth-eye structure.
Regarding claim 17, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Riley also discloses spin coating the encapsulant on the metasurface (see at least paragraph [0222], where the embedding material can be spin-on-glass).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley Jr. et al. (US 2019/0064532) (hereafter Riley), in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0369294) (hereafter Chang) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Usenko (US 2019/0265391) (hereafter Usenko).
Regarding claim 4, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 3.
Riley as modified by Chang does not specifically disclose that the array of antireflective structures includes an array of nano-hemispheres.
However, Usenko teaches an anti-reflective surface comprising an array of antireflective structures that includes an array of nano-hemispheres (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0037] and [0040]).
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 apparatus of Riley as modified by Chang to include the teachings of Usenko so that the array of antireflective structures includes an array of nano-hemispheres for the purpose of minimizing reflection by being shaped in order to result in a linear change of reflective index from the bottom to the top of the structures (see at least paragraph [0037] of Usenko).
Claims 6-7, 9, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley Jr. et al. (US 2019/0064532) (hereafter Riley), in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0369294) (hereafter Chang) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0400941) (hereafter Li).
Regarding claims 6-7, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Riley as modified by Chang does not specifically disclose that the encapsulant includes a boundary region laterally surrounding the metastructure, the boundary region having a channel therein, further including a spacer that has a first end disposed in the channel and that has a second end for attachment to an optical component or a housing.
However, Li teaches an optical structure comprising a patterned surface, wherein the structure includes a boundary region laterally surround the patterned surface, the boundary region having a channel therein (see at least Figs. 10A and 10C and paragraph [0149], where indentations 1030 are the channels in the boundary region), further including a spacer that has a first end disposed in the channel and that has a second end for attachment to an optical component or a housing (see at least Figs. 10A and 10C and paragraph [0149], where spacers 1020 are the spacers disposed in the channel).
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 apparatus of Riley as modified by Chang to include the teachings of Li so that the encapsulant includes a boundary region laterally surrounding the metastructure, the boundary region having a channel therein, further including a spacer that has a first end disposed in the channel and that has a second end for attachment to an optical component or a housing for the purpose of accommodating the stacking and combining of multiple optical components (see at least Fig. 10C and paragraph [0149] of Li).
Regarding claim 9, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Riley as modified by Chang does not specifically disclose that the encapsulant includes a boundary region laterally surrounding the metastructure, and wherein a spacer extends from the boundary region in a direction away from the substrate, wherein the spacer is integrated with, and composed of a same material as, the encapsulant.
However, Li teaches an optical structure comprising a patterned surface, wherein the structure includes a boundary region laterally surround the patterned surface, wherein a spacer extends from the boundary region in a direction away from the substrate, wherein the spacer is integrated with, and composed of a same material, as the patterned surface (see at least Figs. 10A and 10C and paragraph [0149], where spacers 1020 are the spacers that extend in a direction away from the substrate).
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 apparatus of Riley as modified by Chang to include the teachings of Li so that the encapsulant includes a boundary region laterally surrounding the metastructure, and wherein a spacer extends from the boundary region in a direction away from the substrate, wherein the spacer is integrated with, and composed of a same material as, the encapsulant for the purpose of accommodating the stacking and combining of multiple optical components (see at least Fig. 10C and paragraph [0149] of Li).
Regarding claims 18-19, Riley as modified by Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Riley as modified by Chang does not specifically disclose imprinting a channel into a boundary region of the encapsulant, wherein the boundary region laterally surrounds the metastructure, imprinting the channel into the boundary region at the same time as imprinting the optical moth-eye structure into the surface of the encapsulant.
However, Li teaches an optical structure comprising a patterned surface, wherein the structure includes a boundary region laterally surround the patterned surface, the boundary region having a channel therein (see at least Figs. 10A and 10C and paragraph [0149], where indentations 1030 are the channels in the boundary region), imprinting the channel into the boundary region at the same time as imprinting the patterned surface (see at least Figs. 12A-12C).
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 method of Riley as modified by Chang to include the teachings of Li so that the method includes imprinting a channel into a boundary region of the encapsulant, wherein the boundary region laterally surrounds the metastructure, imprinting the channel into the boundary region at the same time as imprinting the optical moth-eye structure into the surface of the encapsulant for the purpose of accommodating the stacking and combining of multiple optical components (see at least Fig. 10C and paragraph [0149] of Li).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0178997 to Watanabe et al. discloses an optical apparatus comprising a supplemental structure in or on a boundary region, the supplemental optical structure including a diffractive optical element-type structure (see at least Fig. 2, where 11a is the boundary region and C is the supplemental optical structure).
US 2018/0292644 to Kamali et al. discloses an apparatus comprising an optical metastructure, specifically meta-atoms, and an encapsulant (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0015]-[0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights