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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 20-24, and 32-37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 20-24, and 32-37 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.
The specific limitations “a driver circuit connected to said at least one electrical contact to power said first electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement, said driver circuit configured to supply at least one driver signal for causing an electric field between said strip electrode portions and over said central region of said aperture resulting a electric potential profile in a direction perpendicular to said direction of said length that causes said the liquid crystal to have a spatial orientation modulation providing an optical power without requiring any HDCL and creating light scattering between the strip electrode portions” as presented in claims 1, 20 appear to be unclear. Is the HDCL part of the a liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) optical device? Or the stepped electrode arrangement only happens when voltage is applied to some electrodes?
In addition, the specific limitations “when said strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit, said electric field interacts with said HDCL to smoothen said electric potential profile, thereby reduce said light scattering and artifacts in said central region of said aperture” as presented in claims 1, 20 appear to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what happens if said strip electrode portions are not powered by said driver circuit. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first and last parts of the limitation is no longer valid if said strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit are not powered by said driver circuit.
The specific limitations “wherein said strip electrode portions, when powered by said driver circuit, have a local voltage value that is between a voltage value of the adjacent strip electrode portions resulting in the stepped electric potential profile in a direction perpendicular to said direction of said length to be gradually increasing or gradually decreasing” as presented in claim 35 appear to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what happens if said strip electrode portions are not powered by said driver circuit. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first and last parts of the limitation is no longer valid if said strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit are not powered by said driver circuit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Being dependent on claims 1, 20, claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 20-24, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2017/0160600).
Regarding claim 1, Galstian et al. (figures 2-5) discloses a liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) optical device comprising:
two opposed substrates containing liquid crystal with a first electrode arrangement on a first one of the two substrates and a second electrode arrangement on the other second one of the two substrates (substrate; figure 1), said first electrode arrangement comprising:
spaced apart strip electrode portions having a width and a length exceeding said width, wherein said strip electrodes portions are arranged side-by-side to one another so that a direction of said length is about parallel to adjacent said strip electrode portions, wherein each one of said strip electrode portions are spaced from said adjacent strip electrode portions by a gap, and wherein said strip electrode portions extend over a central region of an aperture of the LC-GRIN optical device (The term HPE is intended to include electrodes with gaps, such as strip electrodes having a gap therebetween as may be used for a beam steering device; see at least paragraph 0018),
at least one electrical contact (22; see at least paragraph 0056), and
a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL placed near at least said strip electrode portions (The HRL, for example using antimony tin oxide films (Sb—Sn—O) as the core layer, can also be prepared using a pyrolysis (sol gel) process. For example, Sb doped tin oxide (SbSnO.sub.x) is synthesized by pyrolysis process to form a High Dielectric Constant Layer (HDLC) performing the same functions as “weakly conductive” or “high sheet resistance” layer in the All Flat Tunable Liquid Crystal Lens (ALF-TLCL) geometry; see at least paragraph 0044); and
a driver circuit connected to said at least one electrical contact to power said first electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement, said driver circuit configured to supply at least one driver signal for causing an electric field between said strip electrode portions and over said central region of said aperture resulting a electric potential profile in a direction perpendicular to said direction of said length that causes said the liquid crystal to have a spatial orientation modulation providing an optical power without requiring any HDCL and creating light scattering between the strip electrode portions (The electric field controller 20 is tasked with determining how to change the electrical signal or signals delivered to the electrodes of lens 10 using drive signal source 22. A temperature sensor 12 is provided that measures the temperature of the liquid crystal lens 10 in operation. The HRL and other elements of the lens 10 vary with temperature, and the drive signal is adjusted according to temperature; see at least paragraph 0056);
wherein said gap, said width and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates are such that, when said strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit, said electric field interacts with said HDCL to smoothen said electric potential profile, thereby reduce said light scattering and artifacts in said central region of said aperture (The calibration circuit 30 controls the optical power setting of an electric field controller to determine the relationship between the control signal and optical power and/or optical axis position of the lens (or other device, such as a beam steering device) as a function of temperature or at the stable operating temperature; see at least paragraph 0058).
The limitations “said electric field interacts with said HDCL to smoothen said electric potential profile, thereby reduce said light scattering and artifacts in said central region of said aperture” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Galstian et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Galstian et al. is silent regarding a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL) having a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater, Galstian et al. teaches a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL placed near at least said strip electrode portions (The HRL, for example using antimony tin oxide films (Sb—Sn—O) as the core layer, can also be prepared using a pyrolysis (sol gel) process. For example, Sb doped tin oxide (SbSnO.sub.x) is synthesized by pyrolysis process to form a High Dielectric Constant Layer (HDLC) performing the same functions as “weakly conductive” or “high sheet resistance” layer in the All Flat Tunable Liquid Crystal Lens (ALF-TLCL) geometry; see at least paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater in order to lower the required driving voltage and enhance refractive or focusing performance.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Galstian et al. (figures 2-5) discloses wherein said device is used to build a prism, cylindrical or circular lens.
Regarding claim 35, Galstian et al. (figures 2-5) discloses wherein said strip electrode portions, when powered by said driver circuit, have a local voltage value that is between a voltage value of the adjacent strip electrode portions resulting in the stepped electric potential profile in a direction perpendicular to said direction of said length to be gradually increasing or gradually decreasing.
The limitation, “wherein said strip electrode portions, when powered by said driver circuit, have a local voltage value that is between a voltage value of the adjacent strip electrode portions resulting in the stepped electric potential profile in a direction perpendicular to said direction of said length to be gradually increasing or gradually decreasing” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Galstian et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 36, Galstian et al. (figures 2-5) discloses wherein at least one of the strip electrode portions is connected to at least one of its and has a sheet resistance and width to provide over its length a reduction in voltage to provide said stepped electric potential profile (An electrical signal (difference of potentials) applied to the HPE and the UTE will create an electric field that spreads over the entire aperture, and with a spatial distribution that can be controlled by frequency (and also voltage)).
The limitation, “wherein at least one of the strip electrode portions is connected to at least one of its and has a sheet resistance and width to provide over its length a reduction in voltage to provide said stepped electric potential profile” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Galstian et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 37, Galstian et al. (figures 2-5) discloses a liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) lens comprising:
two opposed substrates containing liquid crystal with a first electrode arrangement on a first one of the two substrates extending over all of an aperture of the lens and a second electrode arrangement on the other second one of the two substrates (The term HPE is intended to include electrodes with gaps, such as strip electrodes having a gap therebetween as may be used for a beam steering device; see at least paragraph 0018);
a driver circuit connected to said first electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement for delivering a drive signal to form a spatial modulation of an electric field over an aperture of the lens to provide a desired optical power of the lens (The electric field controller 20 is tasked with determining how to change the electrical signal or signals delivered to the electrodes of lens 10 using drive signal source 22. A temperature sensor 12 is provided that measures the temperature of the liquid crystal lens 10 in operation. The HRL and other elements of the lens 10 vary with temperature, and the drive signal is adjusted according to temperature; see at least paragraph 0056); and
transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL) placed near said first electrode arrangement (The HRL, for example using antimony tin oxide films (Sb—Sn—O) as the core layer, can also be prepared using a pyrolysis (sol gel) process. For example, Sb doped tin oxide (SbSnO.sub.x) is synthesized by pyrolysis process to form a High Dielectric Constant Layer (HDLC) performing the same functions as “weakly conductive” or “high sheet resistance” layer in the All Flat Tunable Liquid Crystal Lens (ALF-TLCL) geometry; see at least paragraph 0044); and
wherein said first electrode arrangement comprises parallel strip electrodes arranged over an aperture of the lens with a gap between each of said parallel strip electrodes or pitch resulting in discrete electric field transitions, light scattering and degradation in the quality of the lens over all of said aperture in an absence of the HDCL layer, and the HDCL layer causing a reduction in the discrete electric field transitions, light scattering and degradation in the quality of the lens (The calibration circuit 30 controls the optical power setting of an electric field controller to determine the relationship between the control signal and optical power and/or optical axis position of the lens (or other device, such as a beam steering device) as a function of temperature or at the stable operating temperature; see at least paragraph 0058).
The limitation, “wherein said first electrode arrangement comprises parallel strip electrodes arranged over an aperture of the lens with a gap between each of said parallel strip electrodes or pitch resulting in discrete electric field transitions, light scattering and degradation in the quality of the lens over all of said aperture in an absence of the HDCL layer, and the HDCL layer causing a reduction in the discrete electric field transitions, light scattering and degradation in the quality of the lens” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Galstian et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
The limitations “wherein said first electrode arrangement comprises parallel strip electrodes arranged over an aperture of the lens with a gap between each of said parallel strip electrodes or pitch resulting in discrete electric field transitions, light scattering and degradation in the quality of the lens over all of said aperture in an absence of the HDCL layer, and the HDCL layer causing a reduction in the discrete electric field transitions, light scattering and degradation in the quality of the lens” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Galstian et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Galstian et al. is silent regarding a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL) having a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater, Galstian et al. teaches a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL placed near at least said strip electrode portions (The HRL, for example using antimony tin oxide films (Sb—Sn—O) as the core layer, can also be prepared using a pyrolysis (sol gel) process. For example, Sb doped tin oxide (SbSnO.sub.x) is synthesized by pyrolysis process to form a High Dielectric Constant Layer (HDLC) performing the same functions as “weakly conductive” or “high sheet resistance” layer in the All Flat Tunable Liquid Crystal Lens (ALF-TLCL) geometry; see at least paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater in order to lower the required driving voltage and enhance refractive or focusing performance.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 2-3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2017/0160600) in view of Bos et al. (US 2011/0025955).
Regarding claim 2, Galstian et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Galstian et al. is silent regarding wherein said first electrode arrangements comprise spiral electrodes, wherein said at least one electrical contact is one or multiple external control contacts positioned on the same substrate surface or on various surfaces of the same first one of the two substrates. Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said first electrode arrangements comprise spiral electrodes, wherein said at least one electrical contact is one or multiple external control contacts positioned on the same substrate surface or on various surfaces of the same first one of the two substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid crystal lens as taught by Bos et al. in order to increase optical power through the use of phase resets and allow for phase change across each group of electrodes to be the same and also be matched with respect to a previous group.
Regarding claim 3, Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said electrode arrangements comprise one of the groups consisting of: continuous serpentine electrodes, capacitively-coupled linear electrode segments, capacitively- coupled linear circular electrode segments, and individually driven electrode rings or electrode segments.
Regarding claim 11, Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said continuous serpentine electrodes comprise multiple external contacts, wherein each of said external contacts are powered with different voltages and phases.
“[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). See MPEP §2113.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2017/0160600) in view of Galstian et al. (US 2012/0257131; hereinafter Galstian’131).
Regarding claim 8, Galstian et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Galstian et al. is silent regarding wherein said transparent HDCL placed near the first electrode arrangement comprises a layer of one of: Ti305; Ta205; ZrO2, and HfO2 that can also play the role of the index matching layer. Galstian’131 (figures 29A) teaches wherein said transparent HDCL placed near the first electrode arrangement comprises a layer of one of: Ti305; Ta205; ZrO2, and HfO2 that can also play the role of the index matching layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid crystal lens as taught by Galstian’131 in order to lower the required driving voltage and enhance refractive or focusing performance.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2017/0160600) in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0059490).
Regarding claim 10, Galstian et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Galstian et al. is silent regarding wherein said first electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement comprise said strip electrode portions, wherein said strip electrode portions are linear stepped electrode portions, and wherein said first and second electrode arrangement are orthogonal to each other and in use can be powered to form a prism or a cylindrical lens or a circular lens. Chen et al. (figures 1A-3) teaches wherein said first electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement comprise said strip electrode portions, wherein said strip electrode portions are linear stepped electrode portions, and wherein said first and second electrode arrangement are orthogonal to each other and in use can be powered to form a prism or a cylindrical lens or a circular lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid crystal lens as taught by Chen et al. in order to provide smoother electrical field distribution and better lens image quality.
“[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). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. (figures 1A-3) teaches wherein said electrode arrangements comprise one of: continuous serpentine electrodes; capacitively- coupled electrode segments; and individually driven electrode segments.
“[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). See MPEP §2113.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanaban et al. (Autofocals: Evaluating gaze-contingent eyeglasses for presbyopes; Science Advances June 2019) in view of Galstian et al. (US 2014/0139768; hereinafter Galstian); further in view of Galstian et al. (US 2017/0160600).
Regarding claim 20, Padmanaban et al. discloses a vision-improvement apparatus (figure 1; focus tunable eye glasses; pages 1-2) comprising:
an eye-tracking device (binocular eye tracking; page 2);
a rechargeable power source (batteries; page 5);
a lens device;
a driver receiving an eye-position signal from the eye-tracking device and providing a drive signal to said addressable linear electrode arrangements to cause a lens of a suitable optical power to appear on the desired position of said lens device for focusing an image onto a foveal region of the eye (page 5).
Padmanaban et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 20 above. However, Padmanaban et al. is silent regarding a polarization insensitive lens device.
Galstian (figures 7-8) teaches a polarization insensitive lens device composed of liquid crystal gradient index lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid crystal lens as taught by Galstian in order to achieve way of generating of a non-uniform electric field that would be easier to manufacture and to control and will also provide low voltages and good optical quality.
a liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) optical device comprising:
two opposed substrates containing liquid crystal with a first electrode arrangement on a first one of the two substrates and a second electrode arrangement on the other second one of the two substrates (substrate; figure 1), said first electrode arrangement comprising:
spaced apart strip electrode portions having a width and a length exceeding said width, wherein said strip electrodes portions are arranged side-by-side to one another so that a direction of said length is about parallel to adjacent said strip electrode portions, wherein each one of said strip electrode portions are spaced from said adjacent strip electrode portions by a gap, and wherein said strip electrode portions extend over a central region of an aperture of the LC-GRIN optical device (The term HPE is intended to include electrodes with gaps, such as strip electrodes having a gap therebetween as may be used for a beam steering device; see at least paragraph 0018),
at least one electrical contact (22; see at least paragraph 0056), and
a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL placed near at least said strip electrode portions (The HRL, for example using antimony tin oxide films (Sb—Sn—O) as the core layer, can also be prepared using a pyrolysis (sol gel) process. For example, Sb doped tin oxide (SbSnO.sub.x) is synthesized by pyrolysis process to form a High Dielectric Constant Layer (HDLC) performing the same functions as “weakly conductive” or “high sheet resistance” layer in the All Flat Tunable Liquid Crystal Lens (ALF-TLCL) geometry; see at least paragraph 0044); and
a driver circuit connected to said at least one electrical contact to power said first electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement, said driver circuit configured to supply at least one driver signal for causing an electric field between said strip electrode portions and over said central region of said aperture resulting a electric potential profile in a direction perpendicular to said direction of said length that causes said the liquid crystal to have a spatial orientation modulation providing an optical power without requiring any HDCL and creating light scattering between the strip electrode portions (The electric field controller 20 is tasked with determining how to change the electrical signal or signals delivered to the electrodes of lens 10 using drive signal source 22. A temperature sensor 12 is provided that measures the temperature of the liquid crystal lens 10 in operation. The HRL and other elements of the lens 10 vary with temperature, and the drive signal is adjusted according to temperature; see at least paragraph 0056);
wherein said gap, said width and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates are such that, when said strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit, said electric field interacts with said HDCL to smoothen said electric potential profile, thereby reduce said light scattering and artifacts in said central region of said aperture (The calibration circuit 30 controls the optical power setting of an electric field controller to determine the relationship between the control signal and optical power and/or optical axis position of the lens (or other device, such as a beam steering device) as a function of temperature or at the stable operating temperature; see at least paragraph 0058).
The limitations “said electric field interacts with said HDCL to smoothen said electric potential profile, thereby reduce said light scattering and artifacts in said central region of said aperture” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In addition, Galstian et al. teaches a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL placed near at least said strip electrode portions (The HRL, for example using antimony tin oxide films (Sb—Sn—O) as the core layer, can also be prepared using a pyrolysis (sol gel) process. For example, Sb doped tin oxide (SbSnO.sub.x) is synthesized by pyrolysis process to form a High Dielectric Constant Layer (HDLC) performing the same functions as “weakly conductive” or “high sheet resistance” layer in the All Flat Tunable Liquid Crystal Lens (ALF-TLCL) geometry; see at least paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the lens and a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater in order to provide improved control over the movement of the focus of a tunable liquid crystal lens and allow the optical device to be frequency controllable, lower the required driving voltage and enhance refractive or focusing performance.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Padmanaban et al. as modified by Galstian and Galstian et al. teaches wherein said polarization insensitive lens device is integrated into an "ophthalmic" glass system from one side of glasses to provide accommodative vision and aberration correction by using eye tracking system and powering and driving electronics (see at least paragraph 0088).
The limitations "wherein said polarization insensitive lens device is integrated into an "ophthalmic" glass system from one side of glasses to provide accommodative vision and aberration correction by using eye tracking system and powering and driving electronics" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Padmanaban et al. as modified by Galstian and Galstian et al. teaches wherein said polarisation insensitive lens device is integrated from both sides of glasses to provide accommodative vision, aberration correction, magnification and enhanced vision (see at least paragraph 0088).
The limitations "wherein said polarisation insensitive lens device is integrated from both sides of glasses to provide accommodative vision, aberration correction, magnification and enhanced vision " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 23, Padmanaban et al. as modified by Galstian and Galstian et al. teaches wherein said polarisation insensitive lens device is driven with time sequential addressing phase shifted electrical signals to create the local lens effect mainly in the desired region of the device (see at least paragraph 0088).
“[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). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 24, Padmanaban et al. as modified by Galstian and Galstian et al. teaches a large angle recording or surveillance improvement apparatus comprising: a motion detection capability to identify a region of interest on the scene (binocular eye tracking; page 2); wherein said liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) lenses is used to provides a polarization insensitive lens device.
The limitations “wherein said liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) lenses is used to provides a polarization insensitive lens device” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanaban et al. in view of Galstian and Galstian et al.; further in view of Bos et al. (US 2011/0025955).
Regarding claim 32, Padmanaban et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 20 above. However, Padmanaban et al. is silent regarding wherein at least one of said electrode arrangements comprises continuous serpentine electrodes. Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein at least one of said electrode arrangements comprises continuous serpentine electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid crystal lens as taught by Bos et al. in order to increase optical power through the use of phase resets and allow for phase change across each group of electrodes to be the same and also be matched with respect to a previous group.
Regarding claim 33, Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said continuous serpentine electrodes comprise multiple external contacts, wherein each of said external contacts are powered with different voltages and phases.
“[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). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 34, Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein at least one of said stepped electrode arrangements comprises continuous serpentine electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights