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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 43 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: none of the three inventive groups of record include a LIDAR environment as claimed by claim 43.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 43 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03, and claims 26, 27, and 30-35 remain withdrawn. Applicant is reminded that claims which depend upon an allowable claim may be rejoined.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 24-43 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1-23 have been canceled by the applicant; claims 24-35 and 43 are withdrawn; claim 36 is currently amended; claims 37-40 have been previously presented; and claims 41-42 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the objections of record to the drawings.
Regarding the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), applicant’s amendment of claim 36 to include the language “wherein the director field is made up of a plurality of director profiles including the first director profile and the second director profile” overcomes the rejection of record.
However, applicant is directed to the new rejections set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 22 February 2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 31 October 2024 have been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because the limitations “the first substrate” and “the second substrate” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 36-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re: independent claim 36, the limitation “wherein the director field maps local liquid crystal directors at coordinates throughout the liquid crystal layer” is new matter. There is no recitation in either the written or illustrated portions of the present specification of the director field having the capability to “map local liquid crystals” to specific “coordinates.” The terms “map” and “coordinate” appear nowhere in the specification.
Re: claims 37-42, because they depend upon claim 36, they are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re: claim 36, the meaning of the limitation “wherein the director field maps local liquid crystal directors at coordinates throughout the liquid crystal layer” is unclear. The meaning is unclear because the present specification is devoid of any description or illustrations that discuss, show, or demonstrate the step of a director field mapping LC directors to coordinates. Given that there is no description of what constitutes a mapping step of LC directors to coordinates, the meaning of the limitation cannot be construed. For the purpose of examining the present claims, the limitation has been interpreted as if it were deleted.
Re: claims 37-42, because they depend upon claim 36, it is likewise rejected.
Re: claim 41, the meaning of the limitation “disposed on approximately 4-micron centers” is unclear. It is not clear as to what component(s) comprise a “center.” For the purpose of examining the present application, the limitation has been construed as if it were deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 36-40 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata (US 20170269441), of record.
Re: claim 36, Murata discloses a process for controlling a director field of a liquid crystal layer 50 (Fig. 2) located between a first plurality of electrodes 37 and a second plurality of electrodes 17 (Fig. 2), each individual electrode 37 in the first plurality of electrodes being aligned and associated with an individual electrode 17 in the second plurality of electrodes (alignment & association disclosed in Fig. 2) to define a plurality of phase control elements (PCEs) (Fig. 2 discloses three 37-17 electrode pairs, each pair forming a PCE), wherein the process comprises: setting a direction of rotation, about an axis extending between and perpendicular to the first substrate 31 and the second substrate 11, of a director (Fig. 2, the direction of the axis of extension in the longitudinal direction of an individual liquid crystal molecule 51) associated with each PCE (setting a direction disclosed in at least para. 74); and setting a magnitude of the rotation (setting a magnitude disclosed in at least para. 75), about the axis extending between and perpendicular to the first substrate and the second substrate, of the director associated with liquid crystals in the liquid crystal layer between the individual electrodes of each PCE (Fig. 2 & para. 75); wherein the plurality of PCEs comprises a first set of PCEs in a first region (Fig. 2, the leftmost pair of electrodes 37 & 17) and a second set of PCEs in a second region (Fig. 2, the rightmost pairs of electrodes 37 & 17) separated from the first region (Fig. 2 discloses the regions being separate); wherein the director field comprises a first director profile in the first region (Fig. 2, where the director profile forms a convex lens in the lower portion of LC layer 50 and a concave lens in the upper portion of LC layer 50) and a second director profile in the second region (Fig. 2, where the director profile forms a convex lens in the lower portion of LC layer 50 and a concave lens in the upper portion of LC layer 50); and wherein the first director profile and the second director profile are the same (Fig. 2 discloses the profiles being the same); wherein the director field is made up of a plurality of director profiles including the first director profile and the second director profile (Fig. 2).
Re: claim 37, Murata discloses the limitations of claim 36, and Murata further discloses that the first director profile comprises a first director profile first end director in a first end PCE (Fig. 2, where the first end PCE is the leftmost 37 & 17 electrode pair) and a first director profile second end director in a second end PCE (Fig. 2, where the second end PCE is the rightmost 37 & 17 electrode pair); and wherein the first director profile first end director is rotated 180° relative to the first director profile second end director (180 degree rotation disclosed in Fig. 2).
Re: claim 38, Murata discloses the limitations of claim 36, and Murata further discloses that the phase control elements are arranged in a one-dimensional array or a two-dimensional array (array disclosed in Fig. 2).
Re: claim 39, Murata discloses the limitations of claim 36, and Murata further discloses that at least one of the first plurality of electrodes and the second plurality of electrodes comprises indium tin oxide (para. 96 discloses ITO).
Re: claim 40, Murata discloses the limitations of claim 36 and Murata further discloses that the director associated with each PCE exhibits a distinct magnitude of rotation relative to the other PCEs (distinct magnitudes of rotation disclosed in Fig. 2).
Re: claim 42, Murata discloses the limitations of claim 36, and Murata further discloses that the step of setting the direction of rotation and setting the magnitude of the rotation are performed in a sequence of about 10 steps which include: (1) obtaining first 31 and second 11 substrates (substrate pair 31 and 11 disclosed in Fig. 2), placing a first driving electrode 37 on the first substrate and a second driving electrode 17 on the second substrate (placement of electrodes 37 and 17 on the substrates disclosed in Fig. 2), assembling the first and second substrates together such that the first and second electrodes face one another and a substantially consistent gap is maintained between the substrates (assembly disclosed in Fig. 2), filling the space between the substrates with liquid crystal 50 (filling disclosed in Fig. 2), where each liquid crystal molecule has a longitudinally extending director (directors are inherently present along the longitudinal axis of a liquid crystal molecule), (2) connecting the first electrode to a variable power source (para. 74), (3) connecting the second electrode to a variable power source (para. 74), (4) determining the desired direction and magnitude of rotation of liquid crystal molecules (para. 75), (5) applying a voltage to the first electrode (para. 74 “in the state in which a voltage greater than the threshold is applied between the respective first pixel electrodes 17 and first opposite electrode 15 and a voltage greater than the threshold is applied between the respective second pixel electrodes 37 and second opposite electrode 35, a parabolic fringe electric field is generated between the respective first pixel electrodes 17 and first opposite electrode 15, as shown in FIG. 2, and a parabolic fringe electrode field is also generated between the respective second pixel electrodes 37 and second opposite electrode 35, and these fringe fields are applied to the liquid crystal layer 50.”), (6) applying a voltage to the second electrode (para. 74, see previous citation), and (7) selectively varying the magnitude of the voltage applied to the first and/or second electrode to vary the direction and/or magnitude of the tilt of the directors of the liquid crystal material (para. 75 “The intensity of each of the fringe fields is proportional to the voltage applied between the pixel electrode where the fringe field is generated and the opposite electrode opposing this pixel electrode, and the higher the intensity of the fringe field applied to the liquid crystal molecules 51, the greater the rotation of those crystal molecules 51. Thus, the amount of light passing through the liquid crystal panel 1 (the transmittance) can be controlled by appropriately modifying the magnitudes of the voltages applied between the respective first pixel electrodes 17 and first opposite electrode 15, and the magnitudes of the voltages applied between the respective second pixel electrodes 37 and the second opposite electrode 35.”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata.
Re: claim 41, Murata discloses the limitations of claim 36 and Murata further discloses that the first plurality of electrodes and the second plurality of electrodes are approximately 1.5 microns wide (para. 86 discloses a range of 2 µm – 5 µm, which is close to the claimed range, where a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP § 2144.05]). Murata does not explicitly disclose that the first substrate and the second substrate are spaced apart by approximately 3 microns to define the cell gap. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to minimize the size of the cell gap, a results-effective variable, with respect to electrode width and/or period for the purpose of increasing response time, reducing the power required to switch the LC molecules, and increase viewing angles while minimizing color shift and production cost (see MPEP § 2144.05, where the presence of a known results-effective variable would be one motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to achieve the optimum working range for the variable, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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 at 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 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights