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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1 -4, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2020/0183148 A1), herein referred to as “Park-148” in view of Park et al (US 2009/0303598 A1), herein referred to as “Park-598”. In regard to claim 1, Park-148 discloses a spatial light modulator configured to modulate light (page 3, section [0076] – page 4, section [0079], Figure 2, “130”), the spatial light modulator comprising: a first reflective layer (Figure 2, “131”); a resonance layer (Figure 2, “132”) on the first reflective layer (Figure 2, “131”); and a second reflective layer (Figure 2, “133”) on the resonance layer (Figure 2, “132”), the second reflective layer comprising a plurality of grating structures spaced apart from each other (Figure 2, “134”), wherein the plurality of grating structures comprise silicon (Si) (page 4, section [0088]) , but does not specifically disclose wherein the silicon grating structure ha s an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band. Within the same field of endeavor, Park-598 teaches wherein it is desirable in light modulators to change the extinction coefficient of optical grating devices in order to control the spectral properties of the light reflected or transmitted by the device (page 1, section [0006]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the silicon grating structure to have an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the silicon grating structure of Park-148 to have an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band since Park-598 teaches wherein it is desirable in order to control the spectral properties of the light reflected or transmitted by the device and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 2, the disclosure “ wherein the silicon is deposited under a process in which a gas flow rate of hydrogen (H 2 ) is at least twice a gas flow rate of silane (SiH 4 ) ” is a product-by-process limitation and it has been held that “[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, said claim is being treated as anticipated. Regarding claim 3 , Park-148 discloses wherein the first reflective layer is a distributed Bragg reflective layer (page 3, section [0077], Figure 2, “131”) . Regarding claim 4 , Park-148 discloses wherein the distributed Bragg reflective layer includes silicon (Si), silicon nitride ( SiN ), silicon oxide (SiO2), or titanium oxide (TiO2) (page 3, section [0077] & page 4, section [0087], re: DBR having structure of SiN 4 and SiO 2 ) . Regarding claim 6 , Park-148 discloses wherein the resonance layer includes silicon oxide (SiO 2 ) (page 3, section [0076] & page 4, section [0088], Figure 2, “132,” re: cavity includes SiO 2 ). Regarding claim 11 , Park-148 discloses said spatial light modulator comprising a dielectric layer on an upper surface of the resonance layer and around the plurality of grating structures (page 4 , section [0078], Figure 2, “134,” re: “the grating structure may be arranged such that gratings “134” are spaced apart at certain intervals” meaning that air (i.e. dielectric) exists between the plurality of grating structures “134” on the resonance layer “132”) . Regarding claim 12 , Park-148 discloses wherein a refractive index of the dielectric layer ( n air =1) is less than a refractive index of each of the plurality of grating structures ( n Si ≈ 3.9) (page 4, section [0078], re: gratings “134” have higher refractive index than the surrounding material) . In regard to claim 1 4 , Park-148 discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device (page 6, section [0116] - page 7, section [012 7 ], Figures 30-33) comprising: a light source configured to emit light of a predetermined wavelength band (Figure 30, “1110”) ; a spatial light modulator (page 6, section [0119], Figure 30, “1100”) configured to adjust a traveling direction of the light emitted from the light source (Figure 30, “1110”) toward an object (Figure 30, “Object”) ; and a photodetector configured to detect light reflected from the object (page 7, section [0120]), Figure 30, “1120”) , wherein the spatial light modulator compris es : a first reflective layer (Figure 2, “131”) ; a resonance layer (Figure 2, “132”) on the first reflective layer (Figure 2, “131”) ; and a second reflective layer (Figure 2, “133”) on the resonance layer (Figure 2, “132”) , the second reflective layer comprising a plurality of grating structures spaced apart from each other (Figure 2, “134”) , wherein the plurality of grating structures comprise silicon (Si) (page 4, section [0088]), but does not specifically disclose wherein the silicon grating structure ha s an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band. Within the same field of endeavor, Park-598 teaches wherein it is desirable in light modulators to change the extinction coefficient of optical grating devices in order to control the spectral properties of the light reflected or transmitted by the device (page 1, section [0006]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the silicon grating structure to have an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the silicon grating structure of Park-148 to have an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band since Park-598 teaches wherein it is desirable in order to control the spectral properties of the light reflected or transmitted by the device and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 15 , the disclosure “ wherein the silicon (Si) is deposited under a process in which a gas flow rate of hydrogen (H 2 ) is at least twice a gas flow rate of silane (SiH 4 ) ” is a product-by-process limitation and it has been held that “[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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 22 7 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, said claim is being treated as anticipated. Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2020/0183148 A1), herein referred to as “Park-148” in view of Kaneko et al (US 2018/0212400 A1) and further in view of Park et al (US 2009/0303598 A1), herein referred to as “Park-598”. In regard to claim 1 6 , Park-148 discloses a method of manufacturing a spatial light modulator (page 3, section [0076] – page 4, section [0079], Figure 2, “130”) , the method comprising: forming a resonance layer (Figure 2, “132”) on a first reflective layer (Figure 2, “131”) ; forming a semiconductor layer (Figure 2, “13 3”) on the resonance layer (Figure 2, “132”) ; forming a plurality of grating structures spaced apart from each other by patterning the semiconductor layer (Figure 2, “134”) ; but does not specifically disclose heat-treating the plurality of grating structures or wherein the forming the semiconductor layer is performed so that an extinction coefficient (k) of silicon (Si) included in the semiconductor layer with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band is less than or equal to 1e-5. Within the same field of endeavor, Kaneko et al teaches wherein it is desirable for grating distributed Bragg reflectors to be patterned by electron beam lithography, which involves heat-treating from the high-energy electron beam (page 5, section [0050]), for the purpose of reducing optical loss (page 1, section [0002] & page 5, section [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of grating structures of Park-148 to be heat-treated since Kaneko et al teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of reducing optical loss. Furthermore, w ithin the same field of endeavor, Park-598 teaches wherein it is desirable in light modulators to change the extinction coefficient of optical grating devices in order to control the spectral properties of the light reflected or transmitted by the device (page 1, section [0006]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the silicon grating structure to have an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the silicon grating structure of Park-148 to have an extinction coefficient k that is less than or equal to 1e-5 with respect to light in a predetermined wavelength band since Park-598 teaches wherein it is desirable in order to control the spectral properties of the light reflected or transmitted by the device and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 18 , Park-148 discloses said method comprising filling a dielectric layer between the plurality of grating structures (page 4, section [0078], Figure 2, “134,” re: “the grating structure may be arranged such that gratings “134” are spaced apart at certain intervals” meaning that air (i.e. dielectric) exists between the plurality of grating structures “134”) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 7 - 10 , 13, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 5 : a spatial light modulator as claim ed , specifically wherein the first reflective layer is a metal reflective layer. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim s 7 and 8 : a spatial light modulator as claim ed , specifically wherein each of the plurality of grating structures comprises: a first type semiconductor layer; a second type semiconductor layer; and an intrinsic semiconductor layer between the first type semiconductor layer and the second type semiconductor layer. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 9 : a spatial light modulator as claim ed , specifically wherein a reflectance of the second reflective layer is less than a reflectance of the first reflective layer. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 10 : a spatial light modulator as claim ed , specifically comprising a first electrode and a second electrode that are configured to apply a voltage to the plurality of grating structures. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 13 : a spatial light modulator as claim ed , specifically wherein the dielectric layer includes at least one of silicon oxide (SiO2) and silicon nitride ( SiN ). The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 17 : a method as claim ed, specifically wherein the silicon (Si) is formed by a process in which a gas flow rate of hydrogen (H2) is at least twice a gas flow rate of silane (SiH4). The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim s 19 and 20 : a method as claim ed, specifically wherein the heat-treating the plurality of grating structures comprises heating the plurality of grating structures at a temperature in a range from 500 º C to 650 º C for 8 hours to 12 hours. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2324 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Pinping Sun can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1284 . 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. /WILLIAM CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 19, 2026