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 .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurtz (US 2004/0070829).
Regarding claim 1, Kurtz teaches an optical structure (Fig. 1 and 5a-12c, [0033-0126]) comprising:
a first layer (the layer corresponding to the wires 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, Fig. 5e, [0060]) comprising a polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, [0060]) that defines an input surface (the top surface of the layer corresponding to the wires 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, which is corresponding to the top surface of 110 in Fig. 1) and an output surface (the bottom surface of the layer corresponding to the wires 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, which is corresponding to the bottom surface of 110 in Fig. 1), the polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, [0060]) comprising:
an array of metal nanowires (the array corresponding to 310/315 in Fig. 5f) that defines a polarization axis (Fig. 5f, [0045, 0057]); and
a dielectric filler (the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, [0059-0060]) having a first refractive index (ni in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd) and positioned between adjacent metal nanowires (the wires corresponding to 310/315 in Fig. 5f) of the array of metal nanowires (the array corresponding to 310/315 in Fig. 5f), the polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, [0060]) having an effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f) for a light polarization aligned with the polarization axis (Fig. 5f, [0045, 0057]);
a second layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 355 in Fig. 5f, [0060], the two dielectric substrates may or may not have identical optical properties) having a second refractive index (nd in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd) that matches (Fig. 5f, [0060], since ni=nd or ni<nd, the refractive index nd matches/corresponds to the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, and avoid internal reflection problems) the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f), the second layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 355 in Fig. 5f, [0060]) contacting (Fig. 5f) the input surface of the polarizer (the top surface of the layer corresponding to the wires 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, which is corresponding to the top surface of 110 in Fig. 1); and
a third layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 305 in Fig. 5f, which is corresponding to 120 in Fig. 1; [0060], the two dielectric substrates may or may not have identical optical properties) having a third refractive index (nd in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd) and contacting the output surface of the polarizer (the bottom surface of the layer corresponding to the wires 310/315 and the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, which is corresponding to the bottom surface of 110 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kurtz also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 7) a duty ratio of the metal nanowires in the polarizer is greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than 0.5 ([0057], the duty cycle is 0.4).
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meng (US 2026/0182103).
Regarding claim 8, Meng teaches an optical structure (Fig. 3-6, [0088-0188]) comprising:
a first layer (the layer corresponding to 20 and 80 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) including:
a polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) defining a polarization axis (Fig. 4 and 6, [0089, 0005]) and an effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6) for a polarization aligned with the polarization axis (Fig. 4 and 6, [0089, 0005]), the polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) comprising:
a plurality of wires (the wires corresponding to 21 in Fig. 4 and 6) formed from a metal material ([0099]) and defining a sub-wavelength pitch ([163]) between adjacent wires of the plurality of wires (Fig. 4 and 6); and
a dielectric material (the dielectric material of 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6) positioned between adjacent metal wires of the plurality of wires (Fig. 4 and 6) and having a first refractive index (the refractive index of 80, [0105]);
a second layer (the layer corresponding to 40 in Fig. 4 and 6) contacting (Fig. 4 and 6) an input surface of the polarizer (the bottom surface of the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6) and having a second refractive index (the refractive index of 40, [0105]) that matches (Fig. 4 and 6, [0105-0106], since a difference Δn2 between the refractive index of the low refraction layer 40 and a refractive index of the organic layer 80 is ≤0.4, the refractive index of 40 matches/corresponds to the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6, and it is helpful to increase an exit amount of light emitted from the light emitting layer and further improve a light utilization rate of the light emitting chip) the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6); and
a third layer (the layer corresponding to 90 in Fig. 4 and 6) contacting (Fig. 4 and 6) an output surface of the polarizer (the top surface of the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6) and having a third refractive index (the refractive index of 90, [0106]) that matches (Fig. 4 and 6, [0105-0106], since a difference Δn3 between the refractive index of the organic layer 80 and a refractive index of the protection layer 90 is ≤0.4, the refractive index of 90 matches/corresponds to the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6, and it is helpful that an exit amount of light emitted from the light emitting layer may be further increased, and a light utilization rate of the light emitting chip is further improved) the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Kurtz also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 9) the polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) defines a first portion of the first layer (the layer corresponding to 20 and 80 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]); and the first layer (the layer corresponding to 20 and 80 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) further defines a second portion (the edge portions of 80 surrounding the array of 21/20 in Fig. 4 and 6) formed from a material having a fourth refractive index (the refractive index of 80, [0105]) matched (Fig. 4 and 6) to the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6).
(Claim 13) the metal material is aluminum, copper, chromium, or tungsten ([0099, 0120], Aluminum).
Regarding claim 14, Meng teaches an optical structure (Fig. 3-6, [0088-0188]) comprising:
a first layer (the layer corresponding to 20 and 80 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) including:
a first portion (the portion corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) comprising a polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) defining a polarization axis (Fig. 4 and 6, [0089, 0005]) and an effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6) for a polarization aligned with the polarization axis (Fig. 4 and 6, [0089, 0005]), the polarizer (the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) comprising:
an array of metal nanowires (the array of wires corresponding to 21 in Fig. 4 and 6); and
a dielectric filler (the dielectric structure of 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6) positioned between adjacent metal nanowires of the array of metal nanowires (Fig. 4 and 6), the dielectric filler (the dielectric structure of 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6) having a first refractive index (the refractive index of 80, [0105]);
a second portion (the edge portions of 80 surrounding the array of 21/20 in Fig. 4 and 6) coplanar with (Fig. 4 and 6) the first portion (the portion corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6, [0104]) and having a refractive index (the refractive index of 80, [0105]) that is matched (Fig. 4 and 6) to the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6);
a second light transmissive layer (the layer corresponding to 40 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0105, 0107]) contacting (Fig. 4 and 6) an input surface of the polarizer (the bottom surface of the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6); and
a third light transmissive layer (the layer corresponding to 90 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0102]) contacting (Fig. 4 and 6) an output surface of the polarizer (the top surface of the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81, which are the portions of 80 between the adjacent 21, in Fig. 4 and 6).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Wang (JP2006517307A).
Regarding claim 2, Kurtz teaches that the second layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 355 in Fig. 5f, [0060], the two dielectric substrates may or may not have identical optical properties) is formed from a second dielectric material ([0060]); the second refractive index (nd in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd) is greater than ([0060]) the first refractive index (ni in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd); and the third refractive index (nd in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd) is the same (Fig. 5f, [0060]) as the second refractive index (nd in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd).
Kurtz teaches that the third layer has identical optical properties as the second layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 355 in Fig. 5f, [0060], the two dielectric substrates may or may not have identical optical properties) formed from the second dielectric material ([0060]). Kurtz does not teach that the second dielectric layer is a semiconductor material, the second layer is formed from a semiconductor material; and the third layer is formed from the semiconductor material.
Wang teaches that (Fig. 1, Pages 3 and 8 of English translation of JP2006517307A) a second dielectric layer (100 in Fig. 1) is a semiconductor material (Page 3, Paragraph 5, Page 8, Paragraph 4).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Wang for the system of Kurtz such that in the system of Kurtz, the second dielectric layer is a semiconductor material, therefore the second layer is formed from a semiconductor material; and the third layer is formed from the semiconductor material. The motivation is to provide suitable substrate materials commonly used in the field of grating or optical/semiconductor component manufacturing (Wang, Page 3, Paragraph 5, Page 8, Paragraph 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz (US 2004/0070829).
Regarding claim 5, Kurtz teaches that the dielectric filler (the dielectric fill 360 in Fig. 5f, [0059-0060]) is formed from a first dielectric material ([0060], epoxy or gel); the second layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 355 in Fig. 5f, [0060], the two dielectric substrates may or may not have identical optical properties) is formed from a second dielectric material ([0060]); the second refractive index (nd in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd) is greater than ([0060]) the first refractive index (ni in Fig. 5f, [0060], ni=nd, or ni<nd); and the third layer has identical optical properties as the second layer (the layer corresponding to the layer 355 in Fig. 5f, [0060], the two dielectric substrates may or may not have identical optical properties) formed from the second dielectric material ([0060]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to try and recognize that in the system of Kurtz, the third layer is formed from the second dielectric material to have identical optical properties as the second layer. The motivation is to provide form an integrated device containing an internal polarizing layer, and avoid internal reflection problems (Kurtz, [0060]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yamaguchi (JP2018146738A).
Regarding claim 20, Meng teaches that the second light transmissive layer (the layer corresponding to 40 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0105, 0107]) has a second refractive index (the refractive index of 40 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0105, 0107]) that matches (Fig. 4 and 6, [0105-0106], since a difference Δn2 between the refractive index of the low refraction layer 40 and a refractive index of the organic layer 80 is ≤0.4, the refractive index of 40 matches/corresponds to the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6, and it is helpful to increase an exit amount of light emitted from the light emitting layer and further improve a light utilization rate of the light emitting chip) the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6); the third light transmissive layer (the layer corresponding to 90 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0102]) has a third refractive index (the refractive index of 90 in Fig. 4 and 6, [0106]) that matches (Fig. 4 and 6, [0105-0106], since a difference Δn3 between the refractive index of the organic layer 80 and a refractive index of the protection layer 90 is ≤0.4, the refractive index of 90 matches/corresponds to the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6, and it is helpful that an exit amount of light emitted from the light emitting layer may be further increased, and a light utilization rate of the light emitting chip is further improved) the effective refractive index (the inherent effective refractive index for the polarizer corresponding to 21 and 81 in Fig. 4 and 6); and the refractive index of the second portion (the edge portions of 80 surrounding the array of 21/20 in Fig. 4 and 6) of the first layer is a fourth refractive index (the refractive index of 80, [0105]).
Meng does not teach the first refractive index that is less than the effective refractive index.
Yamaguchi teaches (Fig. 3, Pages 3-4, Page 7, Table 2 of English translation of JP2018146738A) a first refractive index (Fig. 3, Page 7, Paragraph 5, the interstitial space is filled with a medium having a refractive index of 1.15) that is less than the effective refractive index (Fig. 3, Page 7, Paragraph 5, n (TM) is 1.649, Table 2, Page 4, Paragraph 1).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Yamaguchi for the system of Meng such that in the system of Meng, the first refractive index that is less than the effective refractive index. The motivation is to provide a polarization separation element that suppresses light absorption can be obtained (Yamaguchi, Page 7, Paragraph 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 10-12 and 15-19 are 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:
None of the prior art of record discloses or suggests all the combination of an optical structure as set forth in claims 3-4, 6, 10-12 and 15-19.
Regarding claim 3, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an optical structure recited in claim 2, wherein “the second layer is formed from a semiconductor material; the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index; and the third layer is formed from the semiconductor material and the third refractive index is the same as the second refractive index, an additional portion of the first layer is formed from the semiconductor material; and the additional portion of the first layer is coplanar with the polarizer” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an optical structure recited in claim 2, wherein “the second layer is formed from a semiconductor material; the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index; and the third layer is formed from the semiconductor material and the third refractive index is the same as the second refractive index, each of the second layer and the third layer is formed from crystalline silicon; and an additional portion of the first layer is formed from amorphous silicon” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an optical structure recited in claim 5, wherein “the dielectric filler is formed from a first dielectric material; the second layer is formed from a second dielectric material; the second refractive index is greater than the first refractive index; the third layer is formed from the second dielectric material; an additional portion of the first layer is formed from the second dielectric material; and the additional portion of the first layer is coplanar with the polarizer” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Regarding claims 10-12, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an optical structure recited in claim 9, wherein “the polarizer defines a first portion of the first layer; and the first layer further defines a second portion formed from a material having a fourth refractive index matched to the effective refractive index, and the material having the fourth refractive index is different from each of the metal material and the dielectric material” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Regarding claims 15-19, none of the prior art discloses or suggests an optical structure recited in claim 14, wherein “the first refractive index is less than the effective refractive index; the second light transmissive layer has a second refractive index that is greater than the effective refractive index; the third light transmissive layer has a third refractive index that is less than the effective refractive index; and the refractive index of the second portion of the first layer is a fourth refractive index” in combination with the other required elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
