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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed August 21, 2026. Claims 2, 11, and 14 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, and 15-23 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-10 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 amendment to claim 1 clarifies that applicant’s invention uses a dual cooperative control mechanism of deforming an electrode layer and changing a refractive index of the light guiding layer simultaneously. Applicant further asserts that Sakurai fails to disclose any similar dual mechanism of operation. However, it is noted that the newly amended limitations, “wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are configured such that, in response to the first voltage and the second voltage, both (i) a physical deformation of the first electrode layer and (ii) a change in a refractive index of the light-guiding layer occur simultaneously, and wherein the physical deformation of the first electrode layer and the change in the refractive index of the light-guiding layer cooperatively control a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer” are function in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the liquid crystal molecules rotate in response to an applied voltage about a threshold voltage causing a refractive index change and the electrode may be applied with a voltage that causes deformation, and an appropriate voltage to achieve may be applied, thus satisfying the functional limitation.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 10.
In regard to independent claim 9, applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose the limitations of claim 9, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. As set forth below, Sakurai discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, except “the light guiding layer comprising a solid-state electro-optic material.” However, newly cited reference to Kim ‘101 discloses the light guiding layer comprising a solid-state electro-optic material (see e.g. paragraph [0036] where lithium niobate is used for the phase changing layer). It is noted that selection of such a solid state electro-optic material may result in a device with improved response characteristics.
Regarding independent claim 10, applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the Sakurai et al. and Kim ‘539 references because they are drawn to different applications. 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,
The operation of the electrode and electro optic layer of Sakurai may be integrated into the device of Kim ‘539 in order to achieve a beam steering device operating in a reflective mode.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, and 15-23 are rejected as set forth below.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Sakurai discloses a light-guiding device 17 (denoted “space phase modulator”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4a,b) comprising:
a first electrode layer 37 (denoted “back face reflective electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 6a,b) configured to receive a first voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0044] for applied voltage and note that electrodes are inherently configured to receive voltages);
a second electrode layer 33 (denoted “transparent common electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figures 6a,b) configured to receive a second voltage and transmit laser light (see e.g. paragraph [0044] for applied voltage and note that electrodes are inherently configured to receive voltages and that the electrode may transmit laser light because it is transparent); and
a light-guiding layer 35 (denoted “liquid crystal”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figures 6a,b) between the first electrode layer 37 and the second electrode layer 33 (see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 6a,b);
wherein the first electrode layer 37 is further configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode layer 33 and reflect the laser light to the second electrode 33 (see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044] and Figures 6a,b),
wherein the first electrode layer 37 and the second electrode layer 33 are configured such that, in response to the first voltage and the second voltage, both (i) a physical deformation of the first electrode layer and (ii) a change in a refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 occur simultaneously (see e.g. Figure 6a,b and note that this limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the liquid crystal molecules rotate in response to an applied voltage about a threshold voltage causing a refractive index change and the electrode may be applied with a voltage that causes deformation, thus satisfying the functional limitation), and
wherein the physical deformation of the first electrode layer 37 and the change in the refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 cooperatively control a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer 33 (see e.g. Figure 6a,b and note that this limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the liquid crystal and first electrode may be applied simultaneously with a voltage that results in the claimed limitation, thus satisfying the functional limitation).
In regard to claim 3, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the light-guiding layer 35 comprises electro-optic material (see e.g. paragraph [0043] and note that liquid crystal is an electro-optic material), and the refractive index changes continuously as the difference between the first and the second voltages changes (see e.g. paragraph [0043] and note that the liquid crystal may be rotated continuously by applying voltage and that the refractive index is dependent on the alignment of the liquid crystal).
In regard to claim 4, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein the light-guiding layer 35 comprises at least one of a nonlinear electro-optic material and a linear electro-optic material (see e.g. paragraph [0043] for liquid crystal which is electro-optic).
In regard to claim 5, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first electrode layer 37 is made of metal (see e.g. Figures 4-6 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044] where it is noted that 37 is a metal electrode).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0197043 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second electrode layer is made of transparent conductive oxide.
However, Jang et al. discloses
wherein the second electrode layer is made of transparent conductive oxide (see e.g. paragraph [0123] where ITO is noted to be used as a conductive electrode).
Given the teachings of Jang 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 Sakurai with wherein the second electrode layer is made of transparent conductive oxide.
Selecting ITO or another conductive oxide is known in the art for use in applying electric fields to electro optic devices when transparency to light is required, due to its high conductivity and transparency.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0136539 A1), hereinafter Kim ‘539.
In regard to claim 7, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the light-guiding layer comprises a heat dissipation substrate at a side of the first electrode layer away from the second electrode layer, and the heat dissipation substrate is configured to dissipate heat generated by the first electrode layer.
However, Kim ‘539 discloses
wherein the light-guiding layer 30 comprises a heat dissipation substrate 10 at a side of the first electrode layer 20 away from the second electrode layer 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0044] where it is noted that the substrate may be made of silicon, which would dissipate heat), and the heat dissipation substrate 10 is configured to dissipate heat generated by the first electrode layer 20 (see e.g. paragraph [0044] where it is noted that the substrate may be made of silicon, which would dissipate heat).
Given the teachings of Kim ‘539, 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 Sakurai with wherein the light-guiding layer comprises a heat dissipation substrate at a side of the first electrode layer away from the second electrode layer, and the heat dissipation substrate is configured to dissipate heat generated by the first electrode layer.
Providing a heat dissipation structure allows any heat generated by the device to be efficiently dissipated from the device, thus improving performance.
In regard to claim 22, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the laser light is an infrared light.
However, Kim ‘539 discloses
wherein the laser light is an infrared light (see e.g. paragraph [0056] for a wavelength of 1100nm).
Given the teachings of Kim ‘539, 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 Sakurai with wherein the laser light is an infrared light.
Providing a device that works in the infrared would allow it to be used in application such as LIDAR, as is known in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) in view of in view of Hikmet (US 2008/0089073 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first electrode layer is an anode electrode, and the second electrode layer is a cathode electrode.
However, Hikmet discloses
wherein the first electrode layer is an anode electrode, and the second electrode layer is a cathode electrode (see e.g. paragraph [0068] where a cathode and anode electrode are used to apply an electric field to an electrooptic layer).
Given the teachings of Sakurai, 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 Kim et al. with wherein the first electrode layer is an anode electrode, and the second electrode layer is a cathode electrode.
Using a cathode and anode electrode to apply an electric field to electrooptic layer is known to change the optical characteristics such as the refractive index of the material, which may be used in various deflection applications.
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0002101 A1), hereinafter Kim ‘101.
In regard to claim 9, Sakurai discloses a light-guiding device 17 (denoted “space phase modulator”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 4a,b) comprising:
a first electrode layer 37 (denoted “back face reflective electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 6a,b) configured to receive a first voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0044] for applied voltage and note that electrodes are inherently configured to receive voltages);
a second electrode layer 33 (denoted “transparent common electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figures 6a,b) configured to receive a second voltage and transmit laser light (see e.g. paragraph [0044] for applied voltage and note that electrodes are inherently configured to receive voltages and that the electrode may transmit laser light because it is transparent); and
a light-guiding layer 35 (denoted “liquid crystal”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figures 6a,b) between the first electrode layer 37 and the second electrode layer 33 (see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 6a,b);
wherein the first electrode layer 37 is configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode 33 and reflect the laser light to the second electrode layer 33 (see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044] and Figures 6a,b),
the first electrode layer 37 and the light-guiding layer 35 are configured to control an exit angle of the laser light from the light-guiding device according to a refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 (see e.g. paragraph [0044]), and the refractive index changes with a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0044]).
Sakurai fails to disclose
the light guiding layer comprising a solid-state electro-optic material.
However, Kim ‘101 discloses
the light guiding layer comprising a solid-state electro-optic material (see e.g. paragraph [0036] where lithium niobate is used for the phase changing layer).
Given the teachings of Kim ‘101, 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 Sakurai with the light guiding layer comprising a solid-state electro-optic material.
Lithium niobate would be considered an art recognized equivalent material for achieving a change in refractive index that has excellent response characteristics (see e.g. paragraph [0036] of Kim ‘101).
In regard to claim 23, Sakurai discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the solid-state electro-optic material is selected from the group consisting of gallium arsenide (GaAs), cadmium telluride (CdTe), potassium tantalum niobate (KTN), lithium niobate (LiNbO3), and lead zirconate titanate (PZT).
However, Kim ‘101 discloses
wherein the solid-state electro-optic material is selected from the group consisting of gallium arsenide (GaAs), cadmium telluride (CdTe), potassium tantalum niobate (KTN), lithium niobate (LiNbO3), and lead zirconate titanate (PZT) (see e.g. paragraph [0036] where lithium niobate is used for the phase changing layer).
Given the teachings of Kim ‘101, 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 Sakurai with wherein the solid-state electro-optic material is selected from the group consisting of gallium arsenide (GaAs), cadmium telluride (CdTe), potassium tantalum niobate (KTN), lithium niobate (LiNbO3), and lead zirconate titanate (PZT).
Lithium niobate would be considered an art recognized equivalent material for achieving a change in refractive index that has excellent response characteristics (see e.g. paragraph [0036] of Kim ‘101).
Claims 10, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘539 (US 2018/0136539 A1), in view of Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Kim et al. ‘539 discloses an optical radar comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 11):
a laser source 410 configured to emit a laser light (see e.g. paragraph [0085] where a laser diode may be used as a light source);
a light-guiding device comprising:
a first electrode layer 20 (denoted “waveguide”) configured to receive a first voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0048] where it is noted that element 20 may operate as a common electrode, thus receiving a common voltage);
a second electrode layer 40 (denoted “electrode layer”) configured to receive a second voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0048] where it is noted element 40 serves as an electrode for applying a voltage); and
and
a light-guiding layer 30 (denoted “cladding layer”) between the first electrode layer 20 and the second electrode layer 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0046]);
a light detector 440 configured to receive a reflected light and generate a sensing signal according to the reflected light (see e.g. paragraphs [0084]-[0085]), the reflected light being reflected by the external object O according to the laser light (see e.g. paragraph [0085]); and
a controller 430 electrically connected to the first electrode layer 20, the second electrode layer 40, and the light detector 440 (see e.g. paragraph [0084]), the controller 430 configured to control the first voltage and the second voltage to control the propagation angle (see e.g. paragraph [0084] where it is noted that it includes a circuit for driving a beam steering device), and generate a direction and distance of the external object according to the sensing signal (see e.g. paragraph [0085]).
Kim ‘539 fails to disclose
the second electrode layer configured to transmit light;
wherein the first electrode layer is further configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode layer and reflect the laser light to the second electrode,
wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are configured such that, in response to the first voltage and the second voltage, both (i) a physical deformation of the first electrode layer and (ii) a change in a refractive index of the light-guiding layer occur simultaneously, and
wherein the physical deformation of the first electrode layer and the change in the refractive index of the light-guiding layer cooperatively control a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer.
the second electrode layer 33 (denoted “transparent common electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figures 6a,b) configured to transmit light (see e.g. Figure [0043]);
wherein the first electrode layer 37 (denoted “back face reflective electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0043] and Figure 6a,b) is further configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode layer 33 and reflect the laser light to the second electrode 33 (see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044] and Figures 6a,b),
wherein the first electrode layer 37 and the second electrode layer 33 are configured such that, in response to the first voltage and the second voltage, both (i) a physical deformation of the first electrode layer and (ii) a change in a refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 occur simultaneously (see e.g. Figure 6a,b and note that this limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the liquid crystal molecules rotate in response to an applied voltage about a threshold voltage causing a refractive index change and the electrode may be applied with a voltage that causes deformation, thus satisfying the functional limitation), and
wherein the physical deformation of the first electrode layer 37 and the change in the refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 cooperatively control a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer 33 (see e.g. Figure 6a,b and note that this limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the liquid crystal and first electrode may be applied simultaneously with a voltage that results in the claimed limitation, thus satisfying the functional limitation).
Given the teachings of Sakurai, 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 Kim ‘539 with the second electrode layer configured to transmit light; wherein the first electrode layer is further configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode layer and reflect the laser light to the second electrode, wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are configured such that, in response to the first voltage and the second voltage, both (i) a physical deformation of the first electrode layer and (ii) a change in a refractive index of the light-guiding layer occur simultaneously, and wherein the physical deformation of the first electrode layer and the change in the refractive index of the light-guiding layer cooperatively control a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer.
Providing a reflective type beam steering device would allow the device to be adapted to be used in applications where reflection configurations are more easily implemented than transmission applications.
In regard to claim 15, Kim ‘539 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the light-guiding layer 30 comprises electro-optic material, and the refractive index changes continuously as the difference between the first and the second voltages changes (see e.g. paragraph [0046] where it is noted that element 30 may be an electro-optic material whose refractive index varies according to an electrical signal applied).
In regard to claim 16, Kim ‘539 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the light-guiding layer 30 comprises at least one of a nonlinear electro-optic material and a linear electro-optic material (see e.g. paragraph [0046] where it is noted that element 30 may be an electro-optic material whose refractive index varies according to an electrical signal applied).
In regard to claim 17, Kim ‘539 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first electrode layer is made of metal.
However, Sakurai discloses
wherein the first electrode layer 37 is made of metal (see e.g. Figures 4-6 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044] where it is noted that 37 is a metal electrode).
Given the teachings of Sakurai, 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 Kim ‘559 with wherein the first electrode layer is made of metal.
Using metal would allow the first electrode layer to be both conductive and reflective, allowing the device to operate in a reflective mode.
In regard to claim 19, Kim et al. ‘539 discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
wherein the light-guiding layer 30 comprises a heat dissipation substrate 10 at a side of the first electrode layer 20 away from the second electrode layer 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0044] where it is noted that the substrate may be made of silicon, which would dissipate heat), and the heat dissipation substrate 10 is configured to dissipate heat generated by the first electrode layer 20 (see e.g. paragraph [0044] where it is noted that the substrate may be made of silicon, which would dissipate heat).
In regard to claim 21, Kim et al. ‘539, in view of Sakurai, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflection angle of the laser light increases with the refractive index such that the laser light can be irradiated to different position within a scanning range of the optical radar.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the reflection angle of the laser light increases with the refractive index such that the laser light can be irradiated to different position within a scanning range of the optical radar, 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 (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 Kim et al. ‘539, in view of Sakurai, with wherein the reflection angle of the laser light increases with the refractive index such that the laser light can be irradiated to different position within a scanning range of the optical radar.
Selecting the electro-optical material to have a change in refractive index such that the direction of the laser light may be controlled in a particular direction is known in the art and would have predictable results. In the case of liquid crystal material, the type of liquid crystal (i.e. positive or negative) and the alignment of the liquid crystal may be set to achieve a specific angle.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘539 (US 2018/0136539 A1) Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) and further in view of Behroozpour et al. (US 2021/0003675 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
an emitting device configured to receive the laser light from the light-guiding device and emit the laser light out the optical radar; and
a receiving device configured to receive the reflected light and guide the reflected light to the light detector.
However, Behroozpour et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1a):
an emitting device TX optics configured to receive the laser light from the light-guiding device Light source and emit the laser light out the optical radar; and
a receiving device RX optics configured to receive the reflected light and guide the reflected light to the light detector Photodiode (array).
Given the teachings of Behroozpour 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 Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, with an emitting device configured to receive the laser light from the light-guiding device and emit the laser light out the optical radar; and a receiving device configured to receive the reflected light and guide the reflected light to the light detector.
Providing optics as emitting and receiving devices allows the light to be directed accordingly, i.e. toward the object or the detector, in a LIDAR application.
In regard to claim 13, Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the emitting device comprises at least one lens and the receiving device comprises at least one lens.
However, Behroozpour et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1a):
wherein the emitting device TX optics comprises at least one lens and the receiving device RX optics comprises at least one lens (see e.g. Figure 1a and note each have at least one lens).
Given the teachings of Behroozpour 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 Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, with wherein the emitting device comprises at least one lens and the receiving device comprises at least one lens.
Providing optics such as a lens as emitting and receiving devices allows the light to be directed accordingly, i.e. toward the object or the detector, in a LIDAR application.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘539 (US 2018/0136539 A1) in view of Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2022/0197043 A1).
In regard to claim 18, Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second electrode layer is made of transparent conductive oxide.
However, Jang et al. discloses
wherein the second electrode layer is made of transparent conductive oxide (see e.g. paragraph [0123] where ITO is noted to be used as a conductive electrode).
Given the teachings of Jang 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 Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, with wherein the second electrode layer is made of transparent conductive oxide.
Selecting ITO or another conductive oxide is known in the art for use in applying electric fields to electro optic devices when transparency to light is required, due to its high conductivity and transparency.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘539 (US 2018/0136539 A1) in view of Sakurai (US 2014/0016079 A1) and further in view of in view of Hikmet (US 2008/0089073 A1).
In regard to claim 20, Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first electrode layer is an anode electrode, and the second electrode layer is a cathode electrode.
However, Hikmet discloses
wherein the first electrode layer is an anode electrode, and the second electrode layer is a cathode electrode (see e.g. paragraph [0068] where a cathode and anode electrode are used to apply an electric field to an electrooptic layer).
Given the teachings of Hikmet, 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 Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, with wherein the first electrode layer is an anode electrode, and the second electrode layer is a cathode electrode.
Using a cathode and anode electrode to apply an electric field to electrooptic layer is known to change the optical characteristics such as the refractive index of the material, which may be used in various deflection applications.
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 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.
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
Prosecution Insights