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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed May 12, 2026. Claims 2, 11, and 14 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-22 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, and 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Namely, regarding independent claims 1 and 9, newly cited reference to Sakurai discloses all of the limitations of said claims as set forth below.
Regarding claim independent 10, applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-14 that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 10, as newly amended, have been fully considered and appreciated. However, as set forth below, Kim ‘539, in view of Sakurai, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Therefore claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, and 15-22 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 1-5 and 9 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 configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode 33 and reflect the laser light to the second electrode 33 (see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044] and Figures 6a,b),
a reflection angle of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer 37 is controlled by deformation of the first electrode layer 37 when the first voltage and the second voltage are applied (see e.g. Figures 4-6 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044] where it is noted that 37 is a metal electrode and thus capable of being deformed by a voltage), and
a refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 changes with a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0044]), thereby controlling a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer 37 (see e.g. paragraph [0044]).
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).
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 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]).
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 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 propogation 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 configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode and reflect the laser light to the second electrode,
a reflection angle of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer is controlled by deformation of the first electrode layer when the first voltage and the second voltage are applied, and a refractive index of the light-guiding layer changes with a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage, thereby controlling a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer.
However, Sakurai discloses
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 configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode 33 and reflect the laser light to the second electrode 33 (see e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0044] and Figures 6a,b),
a reflection angle of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer 37 is controlled by deformation of the first electrode layer 37 when the first voltage and the second voltage are applied (see e.g. Figures 4-6 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044] where it is noted that 37 is a metal electrode and thus capable of being deformed by a voltage), and a refractive index of the light-guiding layer 35 changes with a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage (see e.g. paragraph [0044]), thereby controlling a propagation direction of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer 37 (see e.g. paragraph [0044]).
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 configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the second electrode and reflect the laser light to the second electrode, a reflection angle of the laser light reflected by the first electrode layer is controlled by deformation of the first electrode layer when the first voltage and the second voltage are applied, and a refractive index of the light-guiding layer changes with a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage, thereby controlling 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
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