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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 13 and 15-20 in the reply filed on July 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-30 canceled whereby claims 23-25 and 28 were previously canceled and claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 29 and 30 are now canceled.
New claims 31-36 added where these depend from claim 1 and are drawn to Group I – a method performed by a system for manufacturing optical devices.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: the phrase “wherein the drop pattern selected based on” is grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 20 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 2020/0278606 A1) IDS 01/08/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Singh anticipates a method performed by a system for manufacturing optical devices (abs, paragraph [0005] including forming micro- and nano-patterns that have a residual layer varying in thickness and more efficient diffraction patterns for optical waveguides) the method comprising:
measuring variation in a thickness of at least a portion of a substrate that is provided as input to the system, wherein the variation in the thickness is measured as a difference between the maximum and minimum values of the thickness of the substrate in a series of point measurements across at least the portion of the substrate (See Fig. 3 below paragraphs [0043] – [0045] ; substrate – 102 having a patterned layer – 180 with a varying residual layer thickness (RLT) with different thicknesses – T1 and T2 in different regions where profiles are fabricated under controlled conditions have gradual changes in RLT or uniform RLT with varying shapes, duty cycles or pitches which vary from one set protrusions and recessions to another while maintaining a uniform RLT):
PNG
media_image1.png
691
966
media_image1.png
Greyscale
based on the measured variation in the thickness of the substrate, determining a drop pattern for applying a fluid to at least the portion of the substrate (Fig. 3 paragraphs [0005] [0036] a method for fabricating imprint layers that have a varying thinness residual layer by selectively applying imprint fluid across the surface of a substrate in accordance with a predefined pattern), wherein the drop pattern reduces the variation in the thickness in at least the portion of the substrate (paragraphs [0005] [0036] the volume per unit area of the imprint fluid applied to a substrate surface can be varied in accordance with a pattern of desired variations in residual layer thickness); and
applying the drop pattern to at least the portion of the substrate, including dispensing the fluid onto the substrate according to the drop pattern (paragraphs [0005] [0036] where there is selectively applying imprint fluid across the surface of a substrate in accordance with a predefined pattern to fabricate imprint layers that have a residual layer that varies in thickness across the substrate) and curing the fluid (paragraph [0079] imprint fluid is solidified into a patterned layer using a curing agent).
Regarding Claim 7, Singh anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that curing the fluid includes one or more of applying ultraviolet radiation to the dispensed fluid, or applying heat to the dispensed fluid (Fig. 4A paragraph [0051] the imprint fluid – 420, 422 can be solidified by exposing the imprint fluid – 420, 422 to a curing agent, for example, an ultraviolet (UV) energy source)
Regarding Claim 20, Singh anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the substrate is input to the system in a form comprising one or more of a roll, a sheet, a web, a web roll, or a wafer (paragraph [0022] different regions of a substrate (e.g., an Si wafer)).
Regarding Claim 36, Singh anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the fluid is a polymer resist (paragraph [0019] polymer imprint resist on a surface of the substrate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 2020/0278606 A1) IDS 01/08/2025 in view of Schowengerdt (US 2020/0265650 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Singh discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the substrate is composed of a polymer.
Schowengerdt discloses virtual and augmented reality systems and methods which display virtual content to a user using optical systems (abs, paragraph [0018]) which uses angled reflectors which may comprise liquid crystal (paragraphs [0056] [0057]) and has in at least one embodiment, a substrate composed of a polymer (Fig. 5C-D paragraph [0057] These electro-active reflectors – 110 can be embedded in a substrate – 108 host medium such as glass or plastic).
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the disclosure of Singh with the teaching of Schowengerdt such that the substrate is made of a polymer or plastic because polymers can be melted and can have an optical transparent or transmissive effect especially for use in optical lenses (paragraph [0135])
Regarding Claim 6, Singh discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the fluid and the substrate have substantially a same refractive index.
Schowengerdt discloses that the fluid (microdroplets) and the substrate (host medium) have a substantially same refractive index (paragraph [0082] the refractive index of the microdroplets can be switched to substantially match the refractive index of the host material. It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill to modify Singh with the limitation of Schowengerdt because the skilled artisan would be motivated to utilize this feature in order to maintain transparency when the liquid is place on the substrate (paragraph [0082]).
Regarding Claim 11, Singh discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and also discloses creating one or more diffraction gratings on the portion of the substrate (paragraph [0019] the polymer imprint resist includes a plurality of structures forming a diffraction pattern) but Singh does not disclose singulating the substrate to separate the portion as an optical device.
Schowengerdt discloses singulating the substrate in order to separate the portion as an optical device (paragraph [0082] switchable DOE (diffractive optical element may comprise a layer of polymer dispersed liquid crystal or substrate (host medium)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Singh with the teaching of Schowengerdt whereby one or more diffraction gratings on a portion of a substrate would have the substrate singulated to separate the portion as an optical device. One with ordinary skill would be motivated in order to use this device or component to direct light of desired wavelengths to desired locations or directions (paragraph [0082] facilitates distribution of light and is desirably transmitted in an augmented reality configuration with a better view of the real world through such a configuration is achieved).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Singh further discloses that the one or more diffraction gratings is performed by the system prior to measuring the variation in the thickness and applying the drop pattern (paragraph [0019] where the preexisting optical device includes a substrate and a polymer imprint resist with a plurality of structures forming a diffraction pattern and a residual layer having a residual layer thickness varying according to a predefined pattern).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Singh further discloses measuring the variation in the thickness, applying the drop pattern, creating the one or more diffraction gratings (paragraphs [0018] [0019] dispensing the imprint fluid in a predefined pattern that corresponds to a volume needed to fill the features in the imprint lithography template based on variation measurements (determinations)), and
Schowengerdt further discloses singulating the substrate which is performed by the system as inline operations on the substrate input to the system (paragraph [0082] switchable DOE (diffractive optical element) may comprise a layer of polymer dispersed liquid crystal or substrate (host medium)).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Singh further discloses creating the one or more diffraction gratings and applying the drop pattern are performed by the system in a same operation of dispensing the fluid, and curing the dispensed fluid (Fig. 7 paragraph [0076] flowchart of process – 700 is illustrated as a collection of reference acts arranged in a logical flow graph but the order in which the acts are described is not intended to be construed as a limitation – can be combined in other orders and/or in parallel to implement the process).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Schowengerdt further discloses that the drop pattern is applied to a first side of the portion of the substrate, and the one or more diffraction gratings are created on a second side of the portion of the substrate that is opposite the first side (Figs 20A , 8H paragraphs [0055] [0225] substrate – 108 may act as a planar waveguide propagating the light carrying image information – 106 by total internal reflection the diffractive optical element may reside on the front or back face of the depicted waveguide which may act as a substrate).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Schowengerdt further discloses that the drop pattern is applied to a same side of the portion of the substrate as the one or more diffraction gratings (paragraph [0082] switchable DOE may comprise a layer of polymer dispersed liquid crystal in which microdroplets comprise a diffraction pattern in a host medium (substrate).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Singh further discloses wherein creating the one or more diffraction gratings includes: dispensing the fluid onto the portion of the substrate (Fig. 7 paragraphs [0076] [0077] imprint fluid is dispensed on a substrate according to a predetermined pattern – 702);
applying at least one template to the dispensed fluid to pattern the dispensed fluid according to the one or more diffraction gratings (Fig. 7 paragraph [0078] surface of an imprint lithography template is brought into contact with the imprint fluid – 704); and
curing the dispensed fluid to create the one or more diffraction gratings (Fig. 7 paragraph [0079] imprint fluid is solidified into a patterned layer – 706 by a curing agent).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 31 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 2020/0278606 A1) IDS 01/08/2025 in view of Vronsky (US 2021/0343602 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Singh does not disclose determining the drop pattern includes selecting the drop pattern from a plurality of different drop patterns stored in a drop pattern library,
Vronsky teaches an ink jet process used to deposit a material layer to a desired thickness include an encapsulation layer for a flat panel device with is cured to complete the process (abs). Vronsky further discloses regarding the deposition of a drop pattern, that determining the drop pattern includes selecting the drop pattern from a plurality of different drop patterns stored in a drop pattern library (Fig. 1A paragraphs [0044] [0046] where “grayscale value” refer to a value that represent a variable layer thickness measure for a unit area of substrate that is to receive printing; patterns can be optionally determined in advance with one to many patterns that could be used per grayscale value or average of grayscale values,
wherein each of the plurality of different drop patterns corresponds to a respective variation profile, and wherein the drop pattern selected based on its correspondence to the variation profile corresponding to the measured variation (Fig. 5C paragraph [0050] layer thickness data being identified for each print cell being converted to a grayscale value representing the particular print cell. If layer thickness were to range between one micron and eleven microns, then a thickness measure representing six micron might be converted to the grayscale value”128.”).
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Singh with Vronsky whereby a library of drop patterns are selected based on variation measurements such as thickness related to a specific drop pattern with a grayscale conversion in order to provide complete coverage(that is to deposit a layer of sufficient density to avoid defects or holes) which can be inexpensively and efficiently applied with localized control over thickness and uniformity (paragraph [0115]).
Regarding Claim 9, Singh discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that its process comprises measuring the variation in the thickness of at least the portion of the substrate.
Vronsky discloses that its process comprises measuring the variation in the thickness of at least the portion of the substrate includes performing at least one of interferometry or reflectometry to measure the variation (Fig. 3B paragraph [0067] measurement data is calculated using non-imaging (e.g. interferometric technique can optionally be used for measurement covering dozens of droplet measurements per nozzle). This would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art because this technique generates data which can be stored in memory for use in processing a layout or bitmap data when it is received (Fig. 3B paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 31, Singh discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that applying the drop pattern is performed by the system during a phase of processing the substrate that is subsequent to an earlier phase of measurement.
Vronsky discloses that its process comprises applying the drop pattern is performed by the system during a phase of processing the substrate that is subsequent to an earlier phase during which the system measures the variation in the thickness of at least the portion of the substrate (Figs.1A, 1B paragraphs [0044] [0046]. grayscale patterns generated from thickness values – receive layer data – 103). One with ordinary skill would be motivated to modify Singh with this feature because this provides for the drop pattern to compensate form the measured values to achieve a desired thickness in the resulting layer (Fig. 4B paragraph [0077] it is desired to compensate for varying heights of microstructures that will set underneath the desired layer)
Regarding Claim 34, Singh discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the substrate is composed of a glass.
Vronsky disclose that in its method the substrate is composed of glass (paragraph [0046] the substrate can be any underlying material or support surface for example glass). One with ordinary skill would choose glass because it is transparent and rigid (provides support) – (paragraph [0046])
Claim(s) 17 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Singh (US 2020/0278606 A1) IDS 01/08/2025 in and Schowengerdt (US 2020/0265650 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bhargava (US 2021/0041704 A1) IDS 01/08/2025. Evidence provided by Jang (KR 10-2017-0135058 A) with machine translation for claim 17.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 but neither Singh or Schowengerdt disclose shaping at least one surface of the portion of the substrate into a curved shape by applying pressure, heat or a mold to the portion of the substrate.
Bhargava discloses an eyepiece waveguide for an augmented reality display system comprising an optically transmissive substrate (paragraph [0007] which is formed by shaping at least one surface of the portion of the substrate into a curved shape (Figs. 4, 11, paragraph [0106] an accommodated state may be said to be associated with a particular one of the illustrated depth planes – 240; depth planes are shown as being flat but it will be appreciated that the contours of a depth plane may be curved in physical space).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have shaped at least one surface of the portion of the substrate into a curved shape because when the contours of a depth plane in an optical device is curved in physical space, all features in the depth plane are in focus with the eye in a particular accommodated state (Fig. 4 paragraph [0106]).
However, Bhargava is silent as to the application of pressure, heat or surface contact mold to form the curvature.
But it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used to application of one more of pressure, heat, or a surface contact mold to the portion of the substrate to shape at least one surface of the portion of the substrate into a curved shape because this would be applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143 I D.). In this case, it would have been obvious to the one with ordinary skill in the art to have used the application of pressure, heat or surface contact mold to form a curvature because these techniques are well known to one with ordinary skill in the art. As evidence, see Jang (citation above) where a method of forming an optical device (abs, paragraph [0010] lens forming system) comprises a surface contact mold to form the curvature (paragraph [0156] a rotationally asymmetric lens can be formed as a result, as shown in the shape measurement of the mold.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 11 but neither Singh or Schowengerdt disclose one or more diffraction gratings including one or more of an in-coupling grating (ICG), an orthogonal pupil expander (OPE), an exit pupil expander (EPE), or a combined pupil expander (CPE).
Bhargava discloses an eyepiece waveguide for an augmented reality display system which may include an optically transmissive substrate with an in-coupling grating (ICG) region, an orthogonal pupil expander (OPE) and an exit pupil expander (EPE) (abs, paragraph [0141]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill int the art to have modified the disclosure of Singh with Bhargava in order to use one of these pupil expanders because these can all enhance or project images to a user’s eye (Fig. 2 paragraph [0101]).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Singh (US 2020/0278606 A1) IDS 01/08/2025 in and Schowengerdt (US 2020/0265650 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bhargava (US 2021/0041704 A1) IDS 01/08/2025.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Singh and Schowengerdt disclose all the limitations of claim 2 but fail to disclose that the substrate is composed of one or more of polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyethylene napthalate.
Bhargava in its disclosure of a variety of eyepiece waveguides discloses that an optically transmissive substrate (abs) can be formed of polycarbonate (Fig. 10, paragraph [0145] each of the eyepiece waveguides – 1004 can be made of a substrate material including polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used polycarbonate as a material for this method because the selection of a known material based on it suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
One with ordinary skill would be motivated because polycarbonate is transparent that has an appropriate index of refraction and thickness (paragraph [0145]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights