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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Noda et al. (US 2020/0393547 A1) in view of Ogawa (US 6,368,681 B1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Re claim 1, Noda et al. discloses a device comprising a first structural body (30) with a first surface; a second structural body (40) with a second surface facing the first surface; one or more optical guide regions (20) positioned between the first surface of the first structural body and the second surface of the second structural body, the one or more optical guide regions including a liquid crystal material (62); and a first alignment film (23) disposed on the first surface and aligning the liquid crystal material, the first alignment film being a rubbing alignment film, wherein the optical device further comprises a second alignment film (23) disposed on the second surface of the second structural body. Noda et al. does not disclose the device wherein the second alignment film is a film containing a material that is bonded to the second surface through a siloxane bond interposed between the second alignment film and the second surface.
Ogawa discloses a device wherein an alignment film is a film containing a material that is bonded to a surface through a siloxane bond interposed between the alignment film and the surface (paragraph 0008-0009).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the second alignment film is a film containing a material that is bonded to the second surface through a siloxane bond interposed between the second alignment film and the second surface since one would be motivated to obtain a thin alignment film with improved adhesiveness (paragraph 0005, 0008).
Re claim 2, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the second alignment film (23) is an optical alignment film formed by irradiation (paragraph 0504). As to the product-by-process claim limitations, “with polarized light”, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113).
Re claim 3, Noda et al. does not disclose the device wherein the film is a monomolecular film.
Ogawa discloses a device wherein the film is a monomolecular film (paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the film is a monomolecular film since one would be motivated to obtain an alignment film thinly and without performing a rubbing treatment (paragraph 0005).
Re claim 4, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the second surface has one or more recesses with a depth of greater than or equal to 1 μm and smaller than or equal to 10 μm, and the liquid crystal material fills the one or more recesses (paragraph 0447; Fig. 55).
Re claim 5, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the one or more recesses are multiple recesses, the one or more optical guide regions are multiple optical guide regions, and the multiple optical guide regions include the multiple recesses in one-to-one correspondence (Fig. 76).
Re claim 6, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the first surface is a flat surface or an uneven surface with a difference in height of less than 1 μm, and the liquid crystal material (76) covers the flat surface or the uneven surface (Fig. 2, ref. 30, 40).
Re claim 7, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the first structure body includes a first mirror (30) having the first surface, and the second structure body includes a second mirror (40) having the second surface.
Re claim 8, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the first mirror and the second mirror are each formed of a dielectric multilayer film (paragraph 0198).
Re claim 9, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the first mirror has a higher light transmittance than the second mirror (paragraph 0186).
Re claim 10, Noda et al. discloses the device wherein the first structure body includes a first electrode, the second structure body includes a second electrode facing the first electrode, the one or more optical guide regions are positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode, and a direction of light emitted from the one or more optical guide regions through the first structure body or an incident direction of light taken into the one or more optical guide regions through the first structure body is changed by changing a voltage applied between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraph 0375).
Re claims 11 and 12, Noda et al. discloses the device further comprising: phase shifters connected to the one or more optical guide regions directly or through other waveguides, wherein the one or more optical guide regions are multiple optical guide regions, and the optical device further comprises multiple phase shifters connected to multiple optical guide regions directly or through other waveguide in one-to-one correspondence (paragraph 0366-0367).
Re claim 13, Noda et al. discloses the device comprising an optical detector that detects light emitted from the optical device and reflected from an object; and a signal processing circuit that creates distance distribution data based on outputs of the optical detector (paragraph 0658).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. and Ogawa in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0268494 A1).
Noda et al. as modified by Ogawa does not disclose the device wherein the first alignment film is made of polyimide.
Yamaguchi et al. discloses a device wherein a first alignment film is made of polyimide (paragraph 039). Yamaguchi also discloses the device wherein only one of the alignment films is formed by rubbing (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the first alignment film is made of polyimide since one would be motivated to obtain a device wherein only one alignment film is obtained by a rubbing method. The combination of Noda et al., as modified by Ogawa and Yamaguchi et al. may result in a device wherein only one of the alignment films is formed by rubbing, which would include a polyimide material, and the other alignment film is formed by photo-alignment with a siloxane bond. Additionally, substituting one of the alignment films of Noda et al. with the alignment film bonded to the surface by a siloxane bond taught by Oda comprises the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
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 RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871