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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10/16/2024 and 5/19/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drazic et al (US 2022/0357579 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Drazic et al discloses a projection substrate (page 5, sections [0074] & [0080], page 8, sections [0115]-[0116] & page 9, sections [0125]-[0135], Figures 5, 8A-C, & 10) for projecting an image onto a second surface that is opposite to a first surface (page 8, section [0120], Figure 8A, re: incident electromagnetic wave “802”),
PNG
media_image1.png
322
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising: a transparent glass plate that is provided on the first surface (page 8, sections [0113], [0115]-[0116], Figure 5, “504,” re: nH material may be deposited and e-beamed on a glass substrate); and a diffraction grating (page 8, section [0113], Figure 5, “502,” re: nH is the same for all diffraction gratings) that i) is provided between the first surface and the second surface, positioned closer to the second surface than the glass plate (Figure 5, “502”)
PNG
media_image1.png
322
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and ii) has a plurality of grooves so that the light corresponding to the image propagates while being diffracted, wherein a thickness of a resist film between a bottom surface of the grooves and the glass plate is determined on the basis of a wavelength of the light diffracted in the grooves (page 9, sections [0125]-[0135], Figures 5, 8A-C, & 10, re: H1=20 nm (blue), H1=30 nm (green), H1=50 nm (red)), but does not specifically disclose wherein at least a portion of light in a specific wavelength range incident from the first surface to the second surface is transmitted through the projection substrate.
However, Drazic et al discloses wherein said device can be used in AR glasses, wherein the waveguides can be configured for in-coupling light or extracting light depending on where the diffraction grating is formed on the waveguides, which means that light can pass through both sides of said waveguide and diffraction grating (page 10, section [0140]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of Drazic et al for at least a portion of light in a specific wavelength range incident from the first surface to the second surface to be transmitted through the projection substrate since Drazic et al discloses wherein said device can be used in AR glasses, which means that light can pass through both sides of said waveguide and diffraction grating.
The limitation wherein said plurality of grooves is formed by a resist is merely a product-by-process limitation and it has been held that “[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Drazic et al discloses wherein the thickness of the resist film between the bottom surface of the grooves and the glass plate is determined on the basis of a depth of the grooves and a pitch of the grooves (page 9, sections [0125]-[0135], Figures 5, 8A-C, & 10).
Regarding claim 3, Drazic et al discloses wherein the thickness of the resist film is 10 nanometers or more and less than 500 nanometers (page 9, sections [0125]-[0135], Figures 5, 8A-C, & 10, re: H2=180 nm).
Regarding claim 4, Drazic et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein a difference between a refractive index of the resist and a refractive index of the glass plate is 0.4 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for a difference between a refractive index of the resist and a refractive index of the glass plate to be 0.4 or less, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Drazic et al discloses wherein a fill factor of the diffraction grating is 0.05 or more and 0.95 or less (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
322
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Drazic et al discloses said projection substrate comprising: a first diffraction grating that reflects the light incident from the first surface in a predetermined direction; a second diffraction grating that diffracts a portion of the light incident from the first diffraction grating; and a third diffraction grating that reflects at least a portion of the light incident from the second diffraction grating and projects the reflected light as image light; wherein a thickness of the resist film between a bottom surface of the grooves of the second diffraction grating and the glass plate is determined on the basis of the wavelength of light diffracted in the grooves (page 2, section [0020] & page 9, section [0125]-[0135], Figure 10, “WG1”-“WG3”).
Regarding claim 7, Drazic et al discloses said projection substrate comprising: a plurality of glass plates (page 5, section [0080], Figures 1B,C, “152a,b,” re: left and right waveguides); wherein the plurality of glass plates are each formed with the diffraction grating for diffracting the light in a different wavelength range, and a thickness of each of the resist films corresponding to the plurality of glass plates is determined on the basis of the wavelength of the light diffracted by the diffraction grating formed on each of the glass plates (page 2, section [0020] & page 9, section [0125]-[0135], Figures 5, 8A-C, 10).
Regarding claim 8, Drazic et al discloses wherein the diffraction grating corresponding to the first wavelength range has a greater thickness of the resist film compared to the diffraction grating corresponding to a second wavelength range, which is shorter than the first wavelength range (page 9, sections [0125]-[0135], Figures 5, 8A-C, & 10, re: H1=20 nm (blue), H1=30 nm (green), H1=50 nm (red)).
Regarding claim 9, Drazic et al discloses wherein the thickness of the resist film is 30 nanometers or more and less than 200 nanometers (page 9, section [0131], H2=160 nm), but does not specifically disclose it when a pitch of the grooves is 260 nanometers. However, Drazic et al teaches said thickness when the pitch is at 267 nm and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for said thickness of the resist film to be within the claimed range when the pitch is 260 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calafiore et al (US 2022/0019015 A1) in view of Yoshioka et al (WO 2019/004406 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Calafiore et al discloses a method for manufacturing a projection substrate for projecting an image (page 4, section [0022], Figures 11A,B & page 27, sections [0204]-[0208], Figures 8A-D), comprising the steps of: applying a resist on a transparent glass plate (page 4, section [0022], Figures 11A,B, re: waveguide glass substrate & page 27, section [0204], Figure 8A, re: waveguide “810” coated with a NIL material layer “820”); pressing a mold formed with a plurality of grooves against the resist (page 27, section [0205], Figure 8B, “830, 832”); curing the resist by ultraviolet rays or heat while the mold is pressed against the resist (page 27, section [0205], re: NIL material layer “820” cured using heat and/or UV light); and removing the mold from the resist (page 27, sections [0206]-[0207], re: delamination process, Figures 8C,D, “820, 822”), but does not specifically disclose wherein the pressing of said mold is to a position determined on the basis of a wavelength of light diffracted in the plurality of grooves.
Within the same field of endeavor, Yoshioka et al teaches that in general, the shape of a diffraction grating is determined by the wavelength of light (i.e. the groove depth becomes deeper as the wavelength of light becomes longer) (page 19, paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pressing of said mold of Calafiore to be to a position determined on the basis of a wavelength of light diffracted in the plurality of grooves since Yoshioka et al teaches that in general, the shape of a diffraction grating is determined by the wavelength of light (i.e. the groove depth becomes deeper as the wavelength of light becomes longer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 is objected to 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 10: a projection substrate as claimed, specifically wherein the grooves include: a plurality of first grooves that are arranged to guide, to a predetermined branching region, the light from an incident region that guides the light into the projection substrate; and a second groove that is formed to be inclined, relative to a first direction, in a second direction at an angle that is half of a first angle that is formed by the first direction and the second direction, the first direction is being a direction from the incident region to the branching region and the second direction is being a direction from the branching region to a predetermined emission region; wherein the emission region is configured to emit the light to a user’s eye, the branching region guides a portion of the light to the emission region, and the thickness of the resist film is 20 times or less a depth of the second groove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights