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, 5-6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruckner et al., “Ecapsulated subwavelength grating as a quasi-monolithic resonant reflector” OPTICS EXPRESS, 2009, vol.17, no. 26, pp 24334-24341.
Re claim 1, Bruckner et al. discloses a device comprising a layers structure of a grating layer (g) and waveguide layer (s); and a substrate (substrate), the grating layer, and the waveguide layer in this order (Fig. 1(d)), wherein a refractive index different between the grating layer and the waveguide layer is 0.1 or less (since they layer are made of the same material), and light is made incident from a side of the waveguide layer, and a constituent material for the substrate, a constituent material for the grating layer, and a constituent material for the waveguide layer are the same (since the layers are made of the same material) (Fig. 1(d)).
Re claim 5, Bruckner et al. discloses the device wherein the grating layer has a grating period of from 0.26 to 0.60 µm (see “section 4. Encapsulation grating design considerations”).
Re claim 6, Bruckner et al. discloses the device wherein the grating layer has a thickness of 0.20 µm or more (see section 4. “Encapsulation grating design considerations”).
Re claim 8, Bruckner et al. discloses the device wherein the waveguide layer has a thickness of from 0.05 to 1.00 µm (see section “4. Encapsulation grating design considerations”).
Re claim 9, Bruckner et al. discloses the device wherein a grating shape of the grating layer is a two dimensional periodic structure (Fig. 1(d)).
Re claim 10, Bruckner et al. discloses an optical member comprising the guided-mode resonant grating (see section “2. Guided-mode resonant waveguide gratings”).
Re claim 11, Bruckner et al. discloses the device wherein the optical member is a structural color development member or a wavelength selection filter (see section “2. Guided-mode resonant waveguide gratings”)
Re claim 12, Bruckner et al. discloses an optical product comprising the optical member (see section “7. Conclusion”).
Re claim 13-16, As to the product-by-process claim limitations of claims 13-16, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (MPEP 2113).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruckner et al.
Bruckner et al. does not disclose device wherein the grating layer has a volume occupancy of 0.15 to 0.65
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the grating layer has a volume occupancy of 0.15 to 0.65. It is well known in the art for the volume occupancy of a grating layer to determine the reflection characteristics of the grating layer. Therefore, obtaining the device wherein the grating layer has a volume occupancy of 0.15 to 0.65 to obtain a particular reflection characteristic of the grating is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights