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
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, and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Kleindienst et al (US 2022/0128778 A1) in view of the US patent application by Mukawa (US 2009/0141324 A1) and US patent application publication by Mohanty (US 2021/0349252 A1).
Kleindienst et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a functionalized waveguide serves as the optical sensing device that is comprised of a waveguide (1, Figure 1), an input coupling region comprises a first volume hologram (4) or first holographic diffraction grating attached to a first surface of the waveguide (please see Figure 1) and an output coupling region comprises a second volume hologram (5, please see paragraph [0160]), or a second holographic diffraction grating, attached to a second surface of the waveguide, (please see Figures 1 and 30), a lens element (10) and a detector (11) serves as the sensing element, wherein the lens element is disposed between the waveguide and the sensing element and corresponding to the second volume hologram (5, please see Figures 2 and 30).
This reference has met all the limitation. It teaches that the volume hologram or the holographic diffraction grating implicitly comprise refractive index modulation that can be used to control the intensity of angular selectivity of the hologram, (please see paragraph [0239]).
This reference however does not teach explicitly that the first and second holographic diffraction grating has a grating refractive index between 1.5 and 1.8. This reference also does not teach explicitly that the value of the refractive index modulation has a value between 0.03 and 0.045 and a thickness of 10 mm to 20 mm, a spatial period between 300 nm and 500 nm and a grating slant angle between 20 to 30 degrees.
Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a volume holographic diffraction grating wherein the diffraction efficiency of the diffraction grating depends on the refractive index modulation (Dn) and thickness of the diffraction grating, (please see Figures 12 and 13, paragraphs [0107] and [0108]). Specifically for the refractive index modulation to assume a value of 0.045, by increasing the thickness of the diffraction grating will increase the diffraction efficiency, (please see Figure 13). Mukawa teaches that the volume holographic diffraction grating with could have a refractive index modulation of 0.045 with a thickness of 15 mm, (please see paragraph [0012]) to achieve desired field of view.
Mukawa teaches that the volume holographic diffraction grating has slanted fringes but it does not teach explicitly that the holographic diffraction grating has the claimed refractive index.
Mohanty in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of a diffraction grating including slanted ridges (826, Figure 8) and slanted grooves (828), wherein the ridges may be made of materials including silicon dioxide (with refractive index about 1.5) and aluminum oxide (AlOx, with refractive index about 1.6 to 1.8, please see paragraph [0081]) and the slanted ridges have slanted angle about 30 degrees.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the volume holographic diffraction gratings of Kleindienst et al to have the claimed diffractive index modulation, such as between 0.03 and 0.045, and the thickness between 15 mm and to be made with material having a refractive index in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 with slanted angle of about 30 degrees for the benefit of making the diffraction gratings to have optimal diffraction efficiency.
Although these references do not teach explicitly that the diffraction grating has a spatial period of 300 nm and 500 nm, this modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Since it is known in the art that the spatial period of the diffraction grating is a design factor for designing the diffraction grating to have the desired diffraction properties, according to the art sell-known diffraction theory. One skilled in the art would therefore have been motivated at the time of invention to make the diffraction gratings have the spatial period of about 300 nm to 500 nm for the benefit of allowing the gratings to have the desired diffraction properties.
With regard to claim 4, Kleindienst et al teaches that the first surface and the second surface are located on a same side of the waveguide, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 5, Kleindienst et al teaches that the first surface and the second surface may alternatively located on different sides of the waveguide, (please see Figure 30).
With regard to claim 6, Kleindienst et al teaches that the waveguide (1) may have a refractive index of about 1.5, (please see paragraph [0180]). Kleindienst et al does not teach the refractive index is the same or not as the volume holographic diffraction grating. As taught by Mohanty, if the diffraction grating is made by silicon oxide material, then the refractive index of the grating and the waveguide may be the same, for the benefit of reducing the unwanted reflection at the interface of the diffraction grating and the waveguide.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Kleindienst et al does not teach the incident light has a wavelength of 940 nm and the diffraction grating has the claims diffraction angle and diffraction efficiency. However, the diffraction angle is determined by the art well-known diffraction equation, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Furthermore, since the diffraction efficiency is determined by the refractive index modulation and the grating thickness, Kleindienst et al in view of Mukawa therefore would either implies the diffraction grating has the same diffraction efficiency as claimed or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make it has the desired diffraction properties.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleindienst et al, Mukawa and Mohanty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Luetz et al (US 2024/0295702 A1).
The optical sensing device taught by Kleindienst et al in combination with the teachings of Mukawa and Mohanty as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 2 and 3, these references do not teach explicitly to include a shell having light incident portion corresponding to the first holographic diffraction grating. Kleindienst et al however teaches that the optical sensing device is a CCD sensor or camera, which a typical camera does include shell or housing with light incident portion. Luetz in the same field of endeavor teaches a camera (26, Figure 6) that is comprised of a housing (30) with light incident portion that corresponds to the input coupling hologram (2A). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a shell or housing for the camera for the benefit of protecting the sensing components from non-desired noise light.
It is either implicitly true or obvious modification to make the light incident portion have a transmittance of incident light to be between 50% and 80% or 50% to 70% for the benefit of allowing sufficient light to enter the device for providing good quality of sensing result.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Kleindienst et al (US 2022/0128778 A1) in view of the US patent application by Mukawa (US 2009/0141324 A1) and US patent application publication by Mohanty (US 2021/0349252 A1).
Kleindienst et al teaches, with regard to claim 9, a functionalized waveguide serves as the optical sensing device that is comprised of a waveguide (1, Figure 1), an input coupling region comprises a first volume hologram (4) or first holographic diffraction grating attached to a first surface of the waveguide (please see Figure 1) and an output coupling region comprises a second volume hologram (5, please see paragraph [0160]), or a second holographic diffraction grating, attached to a second surface of the waveguide, (please see Figures 1 and 30), a lens element (10) and a detector (11) serves as the sensing element, wherein the lens element is disposed between the waveguide and the sensing element and corresponding to the second volume hologram (5, please see Figures 2 and 30).
This reference has met all the limitation. It teaches that the volume hologram or the holographic diffraction grating implicitly comprise refractive index modulation that can be used to control the intensity of angular selectivity of the hologram, (please see paragraph [0239]).
This reference however does not teach explicitly that the first and second holographic diffraction grating has a grating refractive index between 1.5 and 1.8. This reference also does not teach explicitly that the value of the refractive index modulation has a value between 0.01 and 0.03 and a thickness of 1 mm to 5 mm, a spatial period between 300 nm and 500 nm and a grating slant angle between 20 to 30 degrees.
Mukawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a volume holographic diffraction grating wherein the diffraction efficiency of the diffraction grating depends on the refractive index modulation (Dn) and thickness of the diffraction grating, (please see Figures 12 and 13, paragraphs [0107] and [0108]). Specifically, Mukawa shows that when the refractive index modulation has a values between 0.01 and 0.03 and a thickness between 1 mm to 5 mm, the diffraction grating may have a diffraction efficiency as shown in Figure 12.
Mukawa teaches that the volume holographic diffraction grating has slanted fringes but it does not teach explicitly that the holographic diffraction grating has the claimed refractive index.
Mohanty in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveguide display that is comprised of a diffraction grating including slanted ridges (826, Figure 8) and slanted grooves (828), wherein the ridges may be made of materials including silicon dioxide (with refractive index about 1.5) and aluminum oxide (AlOx, with refractive index about 1.6 to 1.8, please see paragraph [0081]) and the slanted ridges have slanted angle about 30 degrees.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the volume holographic diffraction gratings of Kleindienst et al to have the claimed diffractive index modulation, such as between 0.01 and 0.03, and the thickness, between 1 mm to 5 mm, and to be made with material having a refractive index in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 with slanted angle of about 30 degrees for the benefit of making the diffraction gratings to have optimal diffraction efficiency.
Although these references do not teach explicitly that the diffraction grating has a spatial period of 300 nm and 500 nm, this modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Since it is known in the art that the spatial period of the diffraction grating is a design factor for designing the diffraction grating to have the desired diffraction properties, according to the art sell-known diffraction theory. One skilled in the art would therefore have been motivated at the time of invention to make the diffraction gratings have the spatial period of about 300 nm to 500 nm for the benefit of allowing the gratings to have the desired diffraction properties.
With regard to claim 10, Kleindienst et al teaches that the waveguide (1) may have a refractive index of about 1.5, (please see paragraph [0180]). Kleindienst et al does not teach the refractive index is the same or not as the volume holographic diffraction grating. As taught by Mohanty, if the diffraction grating is made by silicon oxide material, then the refractive index of the grating and the waveguide may be the same, for the benefit of reducing the unwanted reflection at the interface of the diffraction grating and the waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights