DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed January 14, 2026. Claims 6, 13, 14, 18, and 22 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23, and 24 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-9 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that the reference to Shvets et al. does relate to the claimed invention or provide a teaching of the newly added limitation “wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner region of a circumscribed polygon.”
However, it is noted that the contacts as taught be Shvets et al. may be considered to be in the corner regions of a circumscribed polygon, as set forth below and in annotated Figure 6, attached below.
In response to applicant's argument that Shvets et al. is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Shvets et al. reference is used to disclose a region and configuration for forming electrical contacts in a device. Further, it was noted previously that providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 12.
Therefore claims 1-5, 7-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23, and 24 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-3, 9-12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0223723 A1) in view of Cicchiello et al. (US 7,557,979 B2) and further in view of Shvets et al. (US 2021/0302312 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Han et al. discloses a tunable optical device comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
a ferroelectric layer 130 comprising a ferroelectric material (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0061] where LiNbO3 is disclosed);
a plurality of first electrodes 170 forming a metasurface on a first side of the ferroelectric layer 130 (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0054]);
one common second electrode 110 on a second side of the ferroelectric layer 130 opposite the first side (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0054]); and
a plurality of first contacts configured to receive applied voltages (see e.g. Figures 2-3 where electrical contact is shown), wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes 170 is coupled to at least one of the plurality of first contacts (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and note that the contact points where the voltage is applied is considered to be applicant’s “plurality of first contacts”),
wherein a refractive index of the ferroelectric material 130 is changeable in response to a potential difference applied between the plurality of first electrodes 170 and the one second electrode 130 (note that the material LiNbO3 will have a change in refractive index in response to an electric field).
Han et al. fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from the plurality of first electrodes,
wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon,
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode are configured to allow visible light or infrared light to pass through.
However, Cicchiello et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 5-9):
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode are configured to allow visible light or infrared light to pass through (see e.g. Figures 5-9 and Column 5, lines 49-67).
Given the teachings of Cicchiello et al., 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 device of Han et al. with wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode are configured to allow visible light or infrared light to pass through.
Doing so would allow the beam steering device to operate either in a transmissive operation or reflective operation with the addition of a reflective layer.
Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from the plurality of first electrodes,
wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon.
However, Shvets et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 6):
wherein the plurality of first contacts 110 (denoted “contact pads”) are separate from the plurality of first electrodes 106 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] where it is noted that element 110 connects 106),
wherein the plurality of first contacts 110 are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon (see e.g. annotated Figure 6 below and note that at least two of the corners of a circumscribed polygon, i.e. square or rectangle, contain a contact).
Given the teachings of Shvets et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello, with wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from the plurality of first electrodes, wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon.
Providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the ferroelectric material is barium strontium titanate (BST), barium titanate (BTO), lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT), lithium niobate (LiNbO3), or potassium tantalate niobate (KTN) (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0061] where LiNbO3 is disclosed).
In regard to claim 3, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode comprise a material selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), bariumtitanate (BTO), strontium vanadate (SrVO3), calcium vanadate (CaV206), carbon nanotubes, and graphene.
However, Cicchiello et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 5-9):
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode comprise a material selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), bariumtitanate (BTO), strontium vanadate (SrVO3), calcium vanadate (CaV206), carbon nanotubes, and graphene (see e.g. Figures 5-9 and Column 5, lines 49-67).
Given the teachings of Cicchiello, 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 device of Han et al. with wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode comprise a material selected from a group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), bariumtitanate (BTO), strontium vanadate (SrVO3), calcium vanadate (CaV206), carbon nanotubes, and graphene.
Doing so would allow the beam steering device to operate either in a transmissive operation or reflective operation with the addition of a reflective layer.
In regard to claim 9, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the plurality of first electrodes 170 comprise a plurality of sub-wavelength structures forming the metasurface (see e.g. paragraph [0057]).
Han et al., in view of Cicchiello, fails to disclose
wherein at least two electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first contacts or wherein at least two of the plurality of first contacts are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first electrodes.
However, Shvets et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 8 for configuration of wires/electrodes of Figure 6, paragraph [0051])
wherein at least two electrodes 106 of the plurality of first electrodes 106 are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first contacts 110 or wherein at least two of the plurality of first contacts 110 are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first electrodes 106 (see e.g. Figures 6 and 8 and note that both situations are satisfied).
Given the teachings of Shvets et al., 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 device of Han et al. with wherein at least two electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first contacts or wherein at least two of the plurality of first contacts are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first electrodes.
Providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 10, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon; and/or wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from each other.
However, Shvets et al. discloses
wherein the plurality of first contacts 110 are separate from each other (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 6).
Given the teachings of Shvets et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from each other.
Providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art and distancing the contacts from each other would prevent unwanted crosstalk.
In regard to claim 11, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the tunable optical device is any one selected from a group consisting of a modulator, a tunable filter, a beam sweeper, a beam steering device, a tunable lens and a light router (see e.g. abstract, paragraph [0057]).
In regard to claim 12, Han et al. discloses a method of forming a tunable optical device, the method comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
forming a ferroelectric layer 130 comprising a ferroelectric material (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0061] where LiNbO3 is disclosed);
forming a plurality of first electrodes 170 on a first side of the ferroelectric layer 130 (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0054]);
forming one common second electrode 110 on a second side of the ferroelectric layer opposite the first side (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0054]); and
forming a plurality of first contacts (see e.g. Figures 2-3 where electrical contact is shown), wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes 170 is coupled to at least one of the plurality of first contacts (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and note that the contact points where the voltage is applied is considered to be applicant’s “plurality of first contacts”);
wherein a refractive index of the ferroelectric material 130 is changeable in response to a potential difference applied between the plurality of first electrodes 170 and the one or more common second electrode 110 (note that the material LiNbO3 will have a change in refractive index in response to an electric field).
Han et al. fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from the plurality of first electrodes,
wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon,
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode are configured to allow visible light or infrared light to pass through.
However, Cicchiello et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 5-9):
wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode are configured to allow visible light or infrared light to pass through (see e.g. Figures 5-9 and Column 5, lines 49-67).
Given the teachings of Cicchiello et al., 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 device of Han et al. with wherein the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode are configured to allow visible light or infrared light to pass through.
Doing so would allow the beam steering device to operate either in a transmissive operation or reflective operation with the addition of a reflective layer.
Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from the plurality of first electrodes,
wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon.
However, Shvets et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 6):
wherein the plurality of first contacts 110 (denoted “contact pads”) are separate from the plurality of first electrodes 106 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] where it is noted that element 110 connects 106),
wherein the plurality of first contacts 110 are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon (see e.g. annotated Figure 6 and note that at least two of the corners of a circumscribed polygon, i.e. square or rectangle, contain a contact).
Given the teachings of Shvets et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello, with wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from the plurality of first electrodes, wherein the plurality of first contacts are located at corner regions of a circumscribed polygon.
Providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 20, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
the plurality of first electrodes 170 comprise a plurality of sub-wavelength structures forming the metasurface (see e.g. paragraph [0057]).
Han et al., in view of Cicchiello, fails to disclose
wherein at least two electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first contacts or wherein at least two of the plurality of first contacts are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first electrodes.
However, Shvets et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 8 for configuration of wires/electrodes of Figure 6, paragraph [0051])
wherein at least two electrodes 106 of the plurality of first electrodes 106 are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first contacts 110 or wherein at least two of the plurality of first contacts 110 are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first electrodes 106 (see e.g. Figures 6 and 8 and note that both situations are satisfied).
Given the teachings of Shvets et al., 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 device of Han et al. with wherein at least two electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first contacts or wherein at least two of the plurality of first contacts are coupled to a respective one of the plurality of first electrodes.
Providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 21, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from each other.
However, Shvets et al. discloses
wherein the plurality of first contacts 110 are separate from each other (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 6).
Given the teachings of Shvets et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., with wherein the plurality of first contacts are separate from each other.
Providing separate contacts allows for a specific contact region separate from the operation region of the device as is known in the art and distancing the contacts from each other would prevent unwanted crosstalk.
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0223723 A1) in view of Cicchiello et al. (US 7,557,979 B2) in view of Shvets et al. (US 2021/0302312 A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0196138 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as cited above, but fails to disclose
a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR);wherein the one common second electrode is over the distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),wherein the tunable optical device is configured to operate in a reflection mode.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0047]);
wherein the one common second electrode 30 is over the distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0046]),
wherein the tunable optical device is configured to operate in a reflection mode (see e.g. paragraph [0043]).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, with a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR);wherein the one common second electrode is over the distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),wherein the tunable optical device is configured to operate in a reflection mode.
Doing so would allow the structure to be used in reflective device applications such as LIDARs, scanners, SLMs, and holography.
In regard to claim 5, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
a further top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),
wherein the top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) is over the ferroelectric layer, the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a further top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 70,
wherein the top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 70 is over the tunable layer 50, the plurality of first electrodes 35 and the one common second electrode 30.
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, with a further top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),
wherein the top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) is over the ferroelectric layer, the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode.
Doing so would allow the structure to be used in reflective device applications such as LIDARs, scanners, SLMs, and holography.
In regard to claim 15, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 as cited above, but fails to disclose
a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR);wherein the one common second electrode is over the distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),wherein the tunable optical device is configured to operate in a reflection mode.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0047]);
wherein the one common second electrode 30 is over the distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0046]),
wherein the tunable optical device is configured to operate in a reflection mode (see e.g. paragraph [0043]).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, with a bottom distributed Bragg reflector (DBR);wherein the one common second electrode is over the distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),wherein the tunable optical device is configured to operate in a reflection mode.
Doing so would allow the structure to be used in reflective device applications such as LIDARs, scanners, SLMs, and holography.
In regard to claim 16, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
a further top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),
wherein the top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) is over the ferroelectric layer, the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a further top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 70,
wherein the top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 70 is over the tunable layer 50, the plurality of first electrodes 35 and the one common second electrode 30.
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets, with a further top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR),
wherein the top distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) is over the ferroelectric layer, the plurality of first electrodes and the one common second electrode.
Doing so would allow the structure to be used in reflective device applications such as LIDARs, scanners, SLMs, and holography.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0223723 A1) in view of Cicchiello et al. (US 7,557,979 B2) in view of Shvets et al. (US 2021/0302312 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0196138 A1) and further in view of Zhou (US 2008/0049328 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a substrate;
wherein the one common second electrode is over the substrate,
wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a substrate 20;
wherein the one common second electrode 30 is over the substrate 20.
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., with a substrate; wherein the one common second electrode is over the substrate.
Doing so would provide a support structure to the optical device.
Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., Shvets et al., and Lee et al., fails to disclose
wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
However, Zhou discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0027]):
wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
Given the teachings of Zhou, 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., Shvets et al., and Lee et al., with wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent substrate material.
In regard to claim 17, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
a substrate;
wherein the one common second electrode is over the substrate,
wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a substrate 20;
wherein the one common second electrode 30 is over the substrate 20.
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., with a substrate; wherein the one common second electrode is over the substrate.
Doing so would provide a support structure to the optical device.
Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., Shvets et al., and Lee et al., fails to disclose
wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
However, Zhou discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0027]):
wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
Given the teachings of Zhou, 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al., Shvets et al., and Lee et al., with wherein the substrate comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), sapphire (A1203), lanthanum aluminate - strontium aluminum tantalate (LSAT), strontium titanate (STO), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), silicon, or quartz (SiO2).
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent substrate material.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0223723 A1) in view of Cicchiello et al. (US 7,557,979 B2) in view of Shvets et al. (US 2021/0302312 A1) and further in view of Kafaie et al. (US 2019/0033682 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a broadband metallic mirror;
wherein the one second electrode is over the broadband metallic mirror.
However, Kafaie et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a broadband metallic mirror 125 (see e.g. paragraph [0083]);
wherein the one second electrode 110 is over the broadband metallic mirror 125.
Given the teachings of Kafaie et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., with a broadband metallic mirror; wherein the one second electrode is over the broadband metallic mirror.
Doing so would provide a surface that reflects a broad band of wavelengths.
In regard to claim 19, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the one second electrode is formed over a broadband metallic mirror.
However, Kafaie et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the one second electrode 110 is formed over a broadband metallic mirror 125.
Given the teachings of Kafaie et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., with wherein the one second electrode is formed over a broadband metallic mirror.
Doing so would provide a surface that reflects a broad band of wavelengths.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0223723 A1) in view of Cicchiello et al. (US 7,557,979 B2) in view of Shvets et al. (US 2021/0302312 A1) and further in view of Olk et al. (US 2020/0412005 A1).
In regard to claim 23, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
an array of ring resonators on top of the plurality of first electrodes, wherein a diameter of the ring resonators tunes an operational wavelength of the tunable optical device.
However, Olk et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 9a-c):
an array of ring resonators 246 on top of the plurality of first electrodes 250, wherein a diameter of the ring resonators 246 tunes an operational wavelength of the tunable optical device (the diameter inherently affects the operational wavelength, see paragraph [0016] where it is noted that the response depends on the geometry).
Given the teachings of Olk et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., an array of ring resonators on top of the plurality of first electrodes, wherein a diameter of the ring resonators tunes an operational wavelength of the tunable optical device.
Doing so allows application of electric fields of various strengths to different resonators to allow for variable tuning of the resonators (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Olk et al.).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0223723 A1) in view of Cicchiello et al. (US 7,557,979 B2) in view of Shvets et al. (US 2021/0302312 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US. 10,670,941 B2).
In regard to claim 24, Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
a silicon oxide layer, disposed between the plurality of first electrodes and the ferroelectric layer.
However, Park et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a silicon oxide layer D20, disposed between the plurality of first electrodes N10 and the active layer A10 (see e.g. Column 6, line 47-Column 7 line 4).
Given the teachings of Park et al., 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 device of Han et al., in view of Cicchiello et al. and Shvets et al., with a silicon oxide layer, disposed between the plurality of first electrodes and the ferroelectric layer.
Doing so would provide a means for electrically insulating the conductive layers in the device (see e.g. Column 6, line 47-Column 7 line 4 of Park et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871