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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the Noda and Ogawa references are functionally and chemically incompatible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ogawa’s teaching that the siloxane bond has improved resistance to peeling is sufficient motivation for a worker skilled in the art to improve an existing device with a siloxane bond.
Regarding applicant’s statements in Sections 2 and 3 of Page 6 of the remarks, the examiner notes that amended Claim 1 does not contain any limitations regarding the optical loss characteristics of the siloxane bond.
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 1-4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda (CN 110537142 A) in view of Ogawa (US 2002/0039628 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Noda discloses an optical device ([0003]: “The invention relates to an optical device and an optical detection system.”) comprising: a first substrate ([0642]: “Regarding the manufacture of the lower structure, first, the second mirror 40 having an inclination is formed on the first substrate 50”) including a first mirror ([0643]: “In the example of FIG. 75B , a structure including an upper electrode 62 b , a first mirror 30 , and a second substrate 50C(hereinafter referred to as an “upper structure”); The first mirror is adjacent to the second substrate), wherein the first mirror has a first surface spreading in a first direction and a second direction intersecting the first direction (Figure 75B shows the substrate to be in the XY plane); a second substrate including a second mirror ([0644]: “Regarding the manufacture of the lower structure, first, the second mirror 40 having an inclination is formed on the first substrate 50.”), wherein the second mirror has a second surface facing the first surface ([0643]: “and a second substrate 50C (hereinafter referred to as an “upper structure”)”); and at least one optical guide layer positioned between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figure 75B, element 1; [0644]: “the layer of the waveguide 1”), the optical guide layer including a dielectric member in contact with the film ([0632]: “FIG. 72B is a diagram showing a structural example in which a second dielectric layer 61 is further arranged on the first waveguide 1 .”) and guiding light in the first direction and/or the second direction (Figure 72B shows the waveguide 1 guiding light in the +X direction).
Noda does not teach and Ogawa does teach a film disposed on the first surface and/or the second surface, the film being a monomolecular alignment film ([0018]: “the obtained liquid crystal alignment film can be made a monomolecular film”) with a siloxane bond ([0007]: “a first liquid crystal alignment film of the present invention is a film comprising a group of molecules being chemically adsorbed at one end to a surface of a substrate, the group of molecules comprising molecules having a linear carbon chain, wherein at least a part of the linear carbon chains are selectively polymerized with each other.”; [0012]: “it is preferable in the above-mentioned liquid crystal alignment film that the molecules having linear carbon chains are fixed at one end to the surface of the substrate via siloxane bonds.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the waveguide and the substrate of the optical device of Noda with the teaching of Ogawa to use a monomolecular film of siloxane. Ogawa notes in [0018] that using a monomolecular film can further improve “the alignment regulation force, peeling resistance, or the like.” Ogawa notes in [0012] that the use of siloxane is advantageous “because peeling resistance of the liquid crystal alignment film or the like is further improved.” This can result in more durable and longer lasting devices.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Noda further teaches that the optical device comprises at least one optical waveguide connected to the optical guide layer (Figure 75B; [0630]: “By adjusting the thickness of the adjustment layer 51 in the Z direction, it is possible to improve the coupling efficiency of light from the first waveguide 1 to the optical waveguide layer 20 .”; The coupling of these elements in Noda implies that they are connected.).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Noda further teaches wherein a fore end portion of the optical waveguide is positioned between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figure 75B shows the optical waveguide 20 positioned between the top 50C and bottom 50 substrate layers), and the optical waveguide includes a first grating in the fore end portion ([0254]; e.g., Figure 10, element 15 shows a grating within an optical waveguide 20; A similar grating is visible in Figure 75B).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Noda further teaches wherein the optical waveguide includes a portion not overlapping one of the first substrate and the second substrate when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface (Figure 78 shows that the optical waveguide 1 has a portion which does not overlap with the top substrate), and the optical waveguide includes a second grating in the not-overlapping portion ([0256]: “The grating 15 is not limited to being disposed at the interface between the total reflection waveguide 1 and the slow light waveguide 10 , but may also be disposed at other locations.”; [0320] “a plurality of gratings having different periods may be provided in the region 101”; Figure 23A), as including a second grating in the not-overlapping portion would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the film of Noda in view of Ogawa with the further teaching of Ogawa to use a monomolecular film. Ogawa notes in [0018] that using a monomolecular film can further improve “the alignment regulation force, peeling resistance, or the like.”
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Noda further teaches that the optical device comprises: a structure enabling a refractive index of the dielectric member to be adjusted ([0306]: “At least a portion of the optical waveguide layer 20 may have a structure capable of adjusting the refractive index and/or thickness.”), wherein a direction in which light is emitted from the optical guide layer through the first substrate or the second substrate or an incident direction in which light is taken into the optical guide layer through the first substrate or the second substrate is changeable by changing the refractive index of the dielectric member ([0180]: “The direction (or emission angle) of the emitted light can be changed by adjusting the refractive index or thickness of the optical waveguide layer or the wavelength of the light input to the optical waveguide layer as described later.”; [0195]: “By controlling the phase of light input to each waveguide element 10 and thereby synchronously changing the refractive index or thickness of the optical waveguide layer 20 of these waveguide elements 10 or the wavelength of light input to the optical waveguide layer 20 , two-dimensional scanning of light can be achieved.”).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Noda further teaches that the optical device comprises: a pair of electrodes sandwiching the optical guide layer therebetween, wherein the dielectric member includes a liquid crystal material or an electro-optic material, and the refractive index of the dielectric member is changeable by applying a voltage between the pair of electrodes ([0307]: “In order to adjust the refractive index of at least a portion of the optical waveguide layer 20 , the optical waveguide layer 20 may include a liquid crystal material or an electro-optical material. The optical waveguide layer 20 may be sandwiched by a pair of electrodes. By applying a voltage to the pair of electrodes, the refractive index of the optical waveguide layer 20 can be changed.”).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Noda teaches wherein the dielectric member is made of the liquid crystal material as is noted in Claim 7.
Noda does not teach and Ogawa does teach wherein the film is a liquid crystal alignment film in which an alignment direction is defined with rubbing ([0053]: “The liquid crystal alignment film can be provided, where the orientation of liquid crystal can be controlled by rubbing and the pre-tilt angle of liquid crystal can be controlled by controlling the critical surface energy of the alignment film.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ogawa to align the liquid crystal with rubbing to the optical device of Noda in view of Ogawa. Ogawa notes that this feature can be used to achieve the second object of the disclosure, one element of which is defined in [0006] to be that the film thickness is remarkably thin. This feature can allow for more compact and robust devices.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Noda teaches wherein the dielectric member is made of liquid crystal material as is noted in Claim 7.
Noda does not teach and Ogawa does teach wherein the film is a liquid crystal alignment film in which an alignment direction is defined with polarized irradiation ([0063]: “Furthermore, it is preferable that the above-mentioned alignment film further comprises, after the step of aligning the molecules, the step of exposure through a polarizing film so as to realign the aligned molecules in a desired direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ogawa to align the film with polarized radiation into the optical device of Noda in view of Ogawa. Ogawa notes in [0063] that this step is “advantageous because the alignment property can further be improved.”
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Noda teaches that the optical device further comprises: phase shifters each connected to the optical guide layer directly or via another waveguide ([0415]: “of the present embodiment includes a plurality of phase shifters connected to the plurality of wave guide elements 10 , respectively, and a second adjustment element that adjusts the phase of light propagating through each phase shifter. Each phase shifter includes a waveguide connected to the optical waveguide layer 20 of a corresponding one of the plurality of wave guide elements 10 directly or via another waveguide.), wherein a direction in which light is emitted from the optical guide layer through the first substrate or the second substrate or an incident direction in which light is taken into the optical guide layer through the first substrate or the second substrate is changed by changing a phase difference between lights passing through the phase shifters ([0415]: “The second adjustment element changes the direction (that is, the third direction D3 ) of light emitted from the plurality of waveguide elements 10 by changing the phase differences of the light transmitted from the plurality of phase shifters to the plurality of waveguide elements 10 .”).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Noda further teaches an optical detector that detects light emitted from the optical device and reflected by an object; and a signal processing circuit that creates distance distribution data based on an output of the optical detector ([0561]: a light detector for detecting light emitted from the light device and reflected from an object, and a signal processing circuit for generating distance distribution data based on an output of the light detector.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heck (US 2015/0378187 A1) discloses a solid state photonics circuit having a liquid crystal layer for beam steering.
Anderson (US 8,463,080 B1) discloses a liquid crystal waveguide for controllably altering an optical phase delay of light traveling along a propagation direction through the waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645