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
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Galstian et al. does not disclose the limitation as amended in claims 1 20, and 24. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Galstian et al. (figure 29A) discloses a liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) optical device as claimed a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL; frequency dependent weakly conductive layer; 60 to 120; see at least paragraphs 0111 and 0143-0144) having a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater and placed near at least said first stepped electrode arrangement; and a driver circuit (figure 32) connected to said first stepped electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement that wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL.
Galstian et al. (figure 29A) also discloses a driver circuit (figure 32) connected to said first stepped electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement, said driver circuit configured to supply at least one driver signal for causing said the liquid crystal to have a spatial orientation modulation providing an optical power; (This relatively high frequency drive signal creates a moderate charge movement in the frequency dependent material that results in a spatially variable electric field profile having a smooth variation, as indicated in the figure. In contrast, a low frequency drive signal (e.g., 100 Hz at 25V) produces a (comparatively) relatively flat spatial distribution of the electric field, as shown in FIG. 9; see at least paragraph 0083);
The limitation, “wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL. ” 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 performed 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 “reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts” 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.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
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 1-6, 8-12, 20-24, and 32-34 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 “wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL” as presented in claims 1, 20 and 24 appear to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what happens if said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are not powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first and last parts of the limitation is no longer valid if said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are not powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement.
In addition, the examiner is not sure what is being claimed as “stepped electrode arrangement”. Are the side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are part of the stepped electrode arrangement? Or the stepped electrode arrangement only happens when voltage is applied to some electrodes? Appropriate correction is required.
Being dependent on claims 1, 20, and 24, claims 2-6, 8-12, 21-23, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galstian et al. (US 2012/0257131).
Regarding claim 1, Galstian et al. (figure 29A) discloses a liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN) optical device comprising:
two opposed substrates (cover substrate and bottom substrate) containing liquid crystal (LC) with a first stepped electrode arrangement on a first one of the two substrates and a second electrode arrangement on the other second one of the two substrates (523 and 504); said first stepped electrode arrangement comprising:
side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions extending over an aperture (segmented ring electrode as shown in figure 29A) of the first one of the two substrates and at least one electrical contact (see at least paragraph 0086 and figure 32) and
a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (HDCL; frequency dependent weakly conductive layer; 60 to 120; see at least paragraphs 0111 and 0143-0144) having a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater and placed near at least said first stepped electrode arrangement; and
a driver circuit (figure 32) connected to said first stepped electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement, said driver circuit configured to supply at least one driver signal for causing said the liquid crystal to have a spatial orientation modulation providing an optical power; (This relatively high frequency drive signal creates a moderate charge movement in the frequency dependent material that results in a spatially variable electric field profile having a smooth variation, as indicated in the figure. In contrast, a low frequency drive signal (e.g., 100 Hz at 25V) produces a (comparatively) relatively flat spatial distribution of the electric field, as shown in FIG. 9; see at least paragraph 0083);
wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL.
The limitation, “wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL” 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 performed 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 “reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts” 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 6, Galstian et al. (figure 29A) discloses wherein said device is used to build a prism, cylindrical or circular lens.
Regarding claim 8, Galstian et al. (figure 29A) discloses wherein said transparent HDCL placed near the stepped electrode arrangement comprises a layer of one of: Ti305.;Ta205; and ZrO2 (see at least paragraphs 0117-0118).
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 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 2012/0257131).
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;
two opposed substrates containing liquid crystal with a first stepped electrode arrangement on a first one of the two substrates and a second electrode arrangement on the other second one of the two substrates (504 and 523); said first electrode arrangement comprising side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions extending over an aperture of the first one of the two substrates and at least one electrical contact that when powered generates electrical potentials on said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions, wherein said generated electric potential of a first of said portions is different from said generated electric potential of a second of said portion neighboring said first of said portions to provide a spatially modulated stepped electrical potential profile over said aperture;
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.
Galstian et al. (figure 29A) teaches a polarization insensitive lens device composed of liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN; see at least paragraph 0002) lenses, and a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (frequency dependent weakly conductive layer; 60 to 120; see at least paragraphs 0111 and 0143-0144) having a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater and placed near at least said first stepped electrode arrangement; and a driver circuit (figure 32) connected to said first stepped electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement that wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL. 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 et al. 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.
The limitation, “wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL” 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 performed 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 “reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts” 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 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. discloses 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);
a rechargeable power source (batteries; page 5);
a driver receiving the motion detection signal 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, locally improving resolution or correcting aberrations and distortion (page 5).
“[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.
Padmanaban et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 24 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.
Galstian et al. (figure 29A) teaches a polarization insensitive lens device composed of liquid crystal gradient index (LC-GRIN; see at least paragraph 0002) lenses, and a transparent relatively high dielectric constant layer (frequency dependent weakly conductive layer; 60 to 120; see at least paragraphs 0111 and 0143-0144) having a dielectric constant of about e=20 or greater and placed near at least said first stepped electrode arrangement; and a driver circuit (figure 32) connected to said first stepped electrode arrangement and to said second electrode arrangement that wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL. . 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 et al. 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.
The limitation, “wherein a gap between said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions and a thickness of the liquid crystal between said two opposed substrates is such that, when said side-by-side and spaced apart strip electrode portions are powered by said driver circuit at different voltages with respect to the second electrode arrangement, an electric field caused by said different voltages interacts with said HDCL to reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts, and said optical power is defined by the at least one driver signal applied to said first stepped electrode arrangement and said second electrode arrangement without influence by said HDCL” 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 performed 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 “reduce light scattering by the liquid crystal, thereby smoothening a stepped electric potential profile to reduce artifacts” 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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2012/0257131) 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 stepped 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 stepped 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 stepped electrode arrangements comprise continuous serpentine electrodes.
Regarding claim 4, Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said stepped electrode arrangements comprise capacitively-coupled linear or circular electrode segments.
Regarding claim 5, Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said stepped electrode arrangements comprise individually driven electrode rings or electrode segments.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2012/0257131) in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0059490).
Regarding claim 11, 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 stepped electrode arrangement and said second stepped electrode are linear stepped electrode arrangements. 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 stepped electrode arrangement and said second stepped electrode are linear stepped electrode arrangements. 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 11, Chen et al. (figures 1A-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 12, Chen et al. (figures 1A-3) teaches wherein said stepped 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 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 stepped electrode arrangements comprises continuous serpentine electrodes. Bos et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein at least one of said stepped 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian et al. (US 2012/0257131) in view of Robertson (High Dielectric Constant Oxides, the European physical journal applied physics 28, 265-291 (2004)).
Regarding claim 9, Galstian et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above. However, Galstian et al. is silent regarding wherein said transparent HDCL placed near the stepped electrode arrangement comprises a layer of HfO2 that can also play the role of the index matching layer. Robertson (figures 1-3) teaches wherein said transparent HDCL placed near the stepped electrode arrangement comprises a layer of 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 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. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use HfO2 as the index matching layer since it was known in the art that HfO2 is a high dielectric constant layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871