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 § 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matera et al (US Publication No.: US 2010/0283957 A1, “Matera”) in view of Sasaki et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0411079 A1, “Sasaki”).
Regarding Claim 1, Matera discloses an optical element (Figures 3-5) comprising:
A substrate having a curved surface (Figure 5C, substrate 34 has a curved surface);
A plurality of convex portions arranged on the curved surface in a first direction (Figure 5C, convex portions 36 are arranged in a first horizontal direction)l and
A metal layer provided on each surface of the plurality of convex portions (Figure 5C, metal layer 38a; Paragraph 0066), wherein
Each of the plurality of convex portions extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figure 5C, each of the plurality of convex portions 46 extend in a second vertical direction), and wherein
The following inequality is satisfied: 0≤|Δθs|≤15, where |Δθs|(°) is an absolute value of a maximum angle difference between central axes of the plurality of convex portions when viewed from the second direction (Paragraph 0063 discloses that the plurality of convex portions 36 extend parallel to one another, so the difference in angle would be 0).
Matera fails to explicitly disclose that the metal layer is provided on each side surface of the plurality of convex portions.
However, Sasaki discloses a similar element where the metal layer is provided on each side surface of the plurality of convex portions (Sasaki, Figure 1, metal layer 30 is disposed at least partially on each side surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metal layer as disclosed by Matera to be disposed on each side surface as disclosed by Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reflecting incident light on the optical element (Sasaki, Paragraph 0113).
Regarding Claim 2, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0<P≤300 where P (nm) is a pitch of the plurality of convex portions (Matera, Paragraph 0059 discloses a pitch of 140 to 180nm which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 3, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.3≤(W+Wm)/P≤0.6 where P (nm) is a pitch of the plurality of convex portions, W is a maximum width of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction, and Wm is a maximum width of the metal layer of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction (Matera, Figure 5C discloses that the metal layer 38a and the plurality of convex portions 36 have the same width, where Paragraph 0062 discloses that this width is 50nm, and the pitch is 180nm, which results in W+Wm/P=.55, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 4, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 2, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.3≤(W+Wm)/P≤0.6 where P (nm) is a pitch of the plurality of convex portions, W is a maximum width of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction, and Wm is a maximum width of the metal layer of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction (Matera, Figure 5C discloses that the metal layer 38a and the plurality of convex portions 36 have the same width, where Paragraph 0062 discloses that this width is 50nm, and the pitch is 180nm, which results in W+Wm/P=.55, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 5, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Matera fails to explicitly disclose that 0<|θ1|<40 where |θ1|(°) is an absolute value of a maximum half-open angle of the curved surface. However, Matera discloses a general environment of optimizing the curve amount of the substrate (Matera, Paragraph 0072; Paragraph 0088). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the maximum half-open angle is the result-effective variable, and when this angle is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given optical element, the recognized results of creating an optimizing viewing lens for a head mounted display are realized. While Matera does not directly disclose that 0<|θ1|<40, Matera does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Matera, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that 0<|θ1|<40 for the purpose of creating a curved surface for a lens for a head mounted display.
Regarding Claim 6, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Matera fails to disclose that the substrate and the plurality of convex portions are made of the same material.
However, Sasaki discloses a similar element where the substrate and the plurality of convex portions are made of the same material (Sasaki, Figure 1, substrate 21, convex portions 22; Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate and convex portions as disclosed by Matera to be made of the same material as disclosed by Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process (Sasaki, Paragraph 0109).
Regarding Claim 7, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Matera fails to disclose that the substrate and the plurality of convex portions are made of a resin material.
However, Sasaki discloses a similar element where the substrate and the plurality of convex portions are made of a resin material (Sasaki, Figure 1, substrate 21, convex portions 22; Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate and convex portions as disclosed by Matera to be made of the same material as disclosed by Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process (Sasaki, Paragraph 0109).
Regarding Claim 8, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Matera fails to disclose that the substrate and the plurality of convex portions are integrated.
However, Sasaki discloses a similar element where the substrate and the plurality of convex portions are integrated (Sasaki, Figure 1, substrate 21, convex portions 22; Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate and convex portions as disclosed by Matera to be integrated as disclosed by Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process (Sasaki, Paragraph 0109).
Regarding Claim 9, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1, wherein a main component of the metal layer is at least one of aluminum, silver, copper, chromium, and gold (Matera, Paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 10, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of convex portions are arranged only in the first direction (Matera, Figure 5C, the convex portions 36 are only arranged in the first horizontal direction).
Regarding Claim 11, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of convex portions are provided on tops of the plurality of convex portions (Matera, Figure 5C discloses convex portions on top of the convex portions 36).
Regarding Claim 12, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses an optical system (Figures 1-5) comprising:
A plurality of optical elements, wherein at least one of the plurality of optical elements is the optical element according to claim 1 (Matera, Figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 13, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses a display apparatus (Figures 1-5) comprising: the optical element according to claim 1; and a display element configured to emit light toward the optical element (Matera, Paragraph 0120).
Regarding Claim 14, Matera discloses an optical element manufacturing method comprising steps of:
Molding a substrate including a curved surface and a plurality of convex portions arranged on the curved surface in a first direction by injection molding (Figure 5C, substrate 34, plurality of convex portions 36; Paragraph 0076);
Forming a metal layer on each surface of the plurality of convex portions by performing vacuum deposition from an oblique direction relative to a direction of each central axis of the plurality of convex portions (Figure 5C, metal portions 38a; Paragraph 0076), wherein
Each of the plurality of convex portions extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figure 5C discloses a second vertical extension direction), and wherein
The following inequality is satisfied: 0≤|Δθs|≤15, where |Δθs|(°) is an absolute value of a maximum angle difference between central axes of the plurality of convex portions when viewed from the second direction (Paragraph 0063 discloses that the plurality of convex portions 36 extend parallel to one another, so the difference in angle would be 0).
Matera fails to explicitly disclose that the metal layer is provided on each side surface of the plurality of convex portions and that the substrate and convex portions are integrally formed.
However, Sasaki discloses a similar element where the metal layer is provided on each side surface of the plurality of convex portions (Sasaki, Figure 1, metal layer 30 is disposed at least partially on each side surface) and that the substrate and convex portions are integrally formed (Sasaki, Figure 1, substrate 21, convex portions 22; Paragraph 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metal layer as disclosed by Matera to be disposed on each side surface as disclosed by Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reflecting incident light on the optical element (Sasaki, Paragraph 0113).
Regarding Claim 15, Matera discloses an optical element (Figures 3-5) comprising:
A substrate having a curved surface (Figure 5C, substrate 34 has a curved surface);
A plurality of convex portions arranged on the curved surface in a first direction (Figure 5C, convex portions 36 are arranged in a first horizontal direction)l and
A metal layer provided on each surface of the plurality of convex portions (Figure 5C, metal layer 38a; Paragraph 0066), wherein
Each of the plurality of convex portions extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figure 5C, each of the plurality of convex portions 46 extend in a second vertical direction).
Matera fails to explicitly disclose that the metal layer is provided on each side surface of the plurality of convex portions.
However, Sasaki discloses a similar element where the metal layer is provided on each side surface of the plurality of convex portions (Sasaki, Figure 1, metal layer 30 is disposed at least partially on each side surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metal layer as disclosed by Matera to be disposed on each side surface as disclosed by Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reflecting incident light on the optical element (Sasaki, Paragraph 0113).
Regarding Claim 16, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 15, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0<P≤300 where P (nm) is a pitch of the plurality of convex portions (Matera, Paragraph 0059 discloses a pitch of 140 to 180nm which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 17, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 15, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.3≤(W+Wm)/P≤0.6 where P (nm) is a pitch of the plurality of convex portions, W is a maximum width of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction, and Wm is a maximum width of the metal layer of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction (Matera, Figure 5C discloses that the metal layer 38a and the plurality of convex portions 36 have the same width, where Paragraph 0062 discloses that this width is 50nm, and the pitch is 180nm, which results in W+Wm/P=.55, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 18, Matera in view of Sasaki discloses the optical element according to claim 16, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.3≤(W+Wm)/P≤0.6 where P (nm) is a pitch of the plurality of convex portions, W is a maximum width of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction, and Wm is a maximum width of the metal layer of the plurality of convex portions in the first direction (Matera, Figure 5C discloses that the metal layer 38a and the plurality of convex portions 36 have the same width, where Paragraph 0062 discloses that this width is 50nm, and the pitch is 180nm, which results in W+Wm/P=.55, which falls within the claimed range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 2012/0086887 A1) discloses a wire gride polarizer that is integrally formed with a metal layer on top.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights