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.
Preliminary Amendment
The amendments to Claims 3,4,6-11,13-15,18-20,22,24,25, in the submission filed 1/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-25.
Drawings
The drawings with 8 Sheets of Figs. 1-15 received on 1/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Abstract recites “The disclosure relates to display devices” in line 1. This is incorrect language and it is suggested to be replaced with –Display devices--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references (viz. WO2017-134506A1) in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: switching arrangement in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof “switching arrangement comprising heating elements” in page 10
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" in lines 3-4, 6-10, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the phrases following “preferably” are considered to be part of the limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,8,10,15,19,25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rottenberg et al (US 2021/0033895 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Rottenberg teaches (fig 1, 5g) a display device (optical device 100, fig 1, para 94, “the present inventive concept relates to an optical device which may form a three-dimensional light field to display a holographic image”, para 1, “The three-dimensional light field may for instance be used for displaying a holographic image”, para 97) for displaying a pattern (holographic image, para 97), comprising:
at least one display element (array 102 of unit cells 104, para 94) having a layered structure (“The unit cells 104 comprise a resonance defining layer including a phase change material (PCM) layer. The resonance defining layer is patterned to define a geometric structure, which may be at least partly present in the PCM layer”, para 100, the geometric structure is considered the layered structure, structure in fig 5g configuration is being considered as the layered structure), the layered structure (structure in fig 5g) comprising:
a diffraction layer (first and second dielectric materials 146,148, and part of the PCM layer 134 till the bottom depth of the cavity 136, para 175) comprising a periodic structure (“the periodicity may be set to be P<λ/2”, para 123) configured to diffract incident visible light (“visible wavelength”, para 18) into a guided-mode resonance (“A minimum thickness/depth may be set to 20 nm. Simulations and tests indicate that a smaller thickness/depth do not show the desired in-plane resonance”, para 132, in-plane resonance indicates a guide-mode resonance, also “The localized resonances in the nanoparticles or cavities strongly depend on in-plane and out-of-plane dimensions”, para 113, Also, “It should be realized that variations on this theme, providing a spacer layer between the electrode 132 and the cavity 136 are possible for other implementations, such as cavities in bulk PCM, where the thickness of the PCM at the bottom of the cavity 136 is sufficiently small”, para 185, “This effect can be attributed to the fact that the resonance in the GST nanoparticle is now coupled to the film below where it will induce an out-of-phase dipole”, para 215, film below is a spacer where guided mode resonances are generated) in the layered structure (structure in fig 5g); and
a phase change material layer (PCM layer 134, para 175, layer of PCM 134 from the bottom of the cavity 136 to electrode 132) comprising phase change material (PCM is phase change material, para 100) that is thermally switchable between two stable states having different refractive indices (“The electrodes 112, 132 may be part of a conductor line such that a current may be transmitted through the electrode 112, 132 and the PCM layer 114,134 for providing a local thermal heating and, hence, controlling a switching of the state of the PCM of the unit cell 104”, para 119, “upon switching of the state of GST, the optical properties are significantly altered, resulting in large changes in both real and imaginary parts of refractive index”, para 109),
the phase change material (PCM layer 134, para 175) being positioned to allow coupling between the guided-mode resonance (“and the phase change material (PCM layer 134, para 175) (“The optical device comprises a PCM layer which is patterned so as to control the resonance properties of the unit cell by defining a resonance in the plane of the resonance defining layer”, para 9, hence resonance due to PCM layer couples with guided mode resonance due to diffractive structure, see “This effect can be attributed to the fact that the resonance in the GST nanoparticle is now coupled to the film below where it will induce an out-of-phase dipole”, para 215, film below is a spacer where guided mode resonances are generated”, para 215).
Regarding Claim 2, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
wherein the phase change material (PCM layer 134, para 175) is positioned such that a guided mode propagates at least partially through the phase change material (PCM layer 134 is adjacent to the diffractive layer and hence the guided mode passes through the PCM).
Regarding Claim 3, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
wherein the periodic structure has a period of less than 600nm in at least one direction (“Using a periodicity below λ, where λ is the wavelength of light with which the optical device 100 is to be used”, “the periodicity may be set to be P<λ/2”, para 123, wavelength being visible wavelengths 400-700nm, P<200nm-350nm and hence P<600nm).
Regarding Claim 8, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
wherein the layered structure further comprises a reflector layer (electrode 132, para 117, “the electrode of each unit cell is reflective”, para 74).
Regarding Claim 10, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
wherein the periodic structure (“the periodicity may be set to be P<λ/2”, para 123) is periodic in one direction only (as in fig 5g).
Regarding Claim 15, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
wherein the two stable states of the phase change material (PCM layer 134, para 175, “the phase change material may be formed by Ge2Sb2Te5 (GST)”, para 76) comprise a high extinction coefficient state and a low extinction coefficient state (“Upon switching of the state of GST, the optical properties are significantly altered, resulting in large changes in both real and imaginary parts of refractive index and permittivity”, para 109).
Regarding Claim 19, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
wherein the phase change material layer (PCM layer 134, para 175) comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of, one or more of the following:
Sb2S3; Ge2Sb2Se4Te; GeSbTeO; GeSnTeO; GeSnSbTeO; TeBiSnN; TeBiSnS; TeBiSnO; SeSnBi; SeSnBiO; SeSnGeO (“the phase change material may be formed by Ge2Sb2Te5 (GST)”, para 76, GeSbTeO is an oxygenated GeSbTe)
Regarding Claim 25, Rottenberg teaches a projection device (“The optical device 100 for forming a three-dimensional light field may project a controlled distribution in three dimensions of an incident light beam”, para 98) comprising the display device of claim 1,
wherein the display device (optical device 100, fig 1, para 94, “the present inventive concept relates to an optical device which may form a three-dimensional light field to display a holographic image”, para 1, “The three-dimensional light field may for instance be used for displaying a holographic image”, para 97) comprising a plurality of the display elements (array 102 of unit cells 104, para 94); and
the projection device (“The optical device 100 for forming a three-dimensional light field may project a controlled distribution in three dimensions of an incident light beam “, para 98) is configured to project an image defined by respective switched states of the phase change material layers (PCM layer 134, para 175 in the display elements (array 102 of unit cells 104, para 94) (“The three-dimensional light field may for instance be used for displaying a holographic image. Thanks to the unit cells 104 being controllable, a change in the holographic image formed may be provided”, para 98).
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(s) 4-7,14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottenberg et al (US 2021/0033895 A1, of record) in view of Abdollahramezani et al (US 2023/0288773 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the layered structure comprises a first support layer positioned between the periodic structure and the phase change material layer.
Rottenberg and Abdollahramezani are related as periodic structures and PCM.
Abdollahramezani teaches (fig 2A)
wherein the layered structure (system 100, para 127) comprises a first support layer (first protective layer 140, para 148) positioned between the periodic structure (periodic structure with dielectric material 120, para 127) and the phase change material layer (phase change material 110, para 127).
Therefore, 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 layered structure of Rottenberg to include the first support layer of Abdollahramezani for the purpose of adding a protective layer (para 127).
Regarding Claim 5, Rottenberg-Abdollahramezani teaches the device of claim 4.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the first support layer is configured to act as a waveguiding layer for guiding the guided-mode resonance.
Rottenberg and Abdollahramezani are related as periodic structures and PCM.
Abdollahramezani teaches (fig 2A)
wherein the first support layer (first protective layer 140, para 148) is configured to act as a waveguiding layer for guiding the guided-mode resonance (layer 140 being adjacent to the periodic structure or metasurface grating (para 164) which generates diffractive resonance modes, the support layer will act as a waveguide for the modes).
Therefore, 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 layered structure of Rottenberg to include the first support layer of Abdollahramezani for the purpose of adding a protective layer (para 127).
Regarding Claim 6, Rottenberg-Abdollahramezani teaches the device of claim 4.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the first support layer has the same composition as a portion of the periodic structure and is integrally formed with the portion of the periodic structure.
Rottenberg and Abdollahramezani are related as periodic structures and PCM.
Abdollahramezani teaches (fig 2A)
wherein the first support layer (first protective layer 140, para 148) has the same composition as a portion of the periodic structure (periodic structure with dielectric material 120, para 127) and is integrally formed with the portion of the periodic structure (as in fig 2A) (first protective layer 140 is made of silicon dioxide, para 149, dielectric material 120 is made of silicon dioxide, para 141 and hence 140 and 120 have same composition).
Therefore, 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 layered structure of Rottenberg to include the first support layer having the same composition as a portion of the periodic structure of Abdollahramezani for the purpose of adding a protective layer (para 127).
Regarding Claim 7, Rottenberg-Abdollahramezani teaches the device of claim 4.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the layered structure further comprises a second support layer having a different composition to the first support layer, the second support layer being between the first support layer and the phase change material layer.
Rottenberg and Abdollahramezani are related as periodic structures and PCM.
Abdollahramezani teaches (fig 2A)
wherein the layered structure (system 100, para 127) further comprises a second support layer (second protective layer 150 , para 148) having a different composition (second protective layer 150 includes any of materials titanium dioxide, hafnium oxide and more, para 149) to the first support layer (first protective layer 140, para 148), the second support layer being between the first support layer the phase change material layer (phase change material 110, para 127) and plasmonic layer (130) (“a second protective layer 150, 250 located at the second surface of phase change material 110 or phase change material layer 210, along the interface of phase change material 110, 210 and plasmonic material 130”, para 148).
Therefore, 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 layered structure of Rottenberg to include the second support layer of Abdollahramezani for the purpose of easily adding another protective layer using common deposition methods (para 127) .
However, Rottenberg-Abdollahramezani does not teach
second support layer being between the first support layer and the phase change material layer.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the metasurface properties have not been changed. Benefits include providing additional protection to the PCM.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rottenberg-Abdollahramezani so that second support layer being between the first support layer and the phase change material layer for the purposes of added protective function.
Regarding Claim 14, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the periodic structure comprises a blazed grating or a meta structure.
Rottenberg and Abdollahramezani are related as periodic structures.
Abdollahramezani teaches (fig 2A)
wherein the periodic structure (periodic structure with dielectric material 120, para 127) comprises a blazed grating or a meta structure (meta surface system, para 125).
Therefore, 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 periodic structure of Rottenberg to include the meta grating of Abdollahramezani for the purpose of subwavelength reconfiguration with unexpected dynamic range (para 125).
Claim(s) 9,11-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottenberg et al (US 2021/0033895 A1, of record) in view of Magnusson et al (US 9,081,150 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the periodic structure has a period greater than 600nm in at least one direction
Rottenberg and Magnusson are related as periodic structures.
Magnusson teaches
wherein the periodic structure has a period greater than 600nm (“Rayleigh reflector devices for infrared applications can have a period λ between about 800 nm and about 1700 nm, between about 800 nm and about 1200 nm, between about 1000 nm and about 1700 nm, or between about 900 nm and about 1300 nm”, col 6, lines 19-25) in at least one direction.
Therefore, 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 period of periodic structure of Rottenberg to have a period greater than 600nm of Magnusson for the purpose of working with infrared wavelengths (col 6, lines 19-25).
Regarding Claim 11, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the periodic structure is periodic in two directions.
Rottenberg and Magnusson are related as periodic structures.
Magnusson teaches
wherein the periodic structure is periodic in two directions (“two dimensional grating structure”, “repeating grating structure”, col 6, lines 43-55).
Therefore, 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 periodic structure of Rottenberg to be periodic in two directions as in Magnusson for the purpose of using common grating structures with guided mode resonances (col 1, lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 12, Rottenberg-Magnusson teaches the device of claim 11.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the periodic structure defines crossed diffraction gratings.
Rottenberg and Magnusson are related as periodic structures.
Magnusson teaches
wherein the periodic structure defines crossed diffraction gratings (“two dimensional grating structure”, “repeating grating structure”, “the two directions can be perpendicular”, col 6, lines 43-55).
Therefore, 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 periodic structure of Rottenberg to have crossed gratings as in Magnusson for the purpose of using common grating structures with guided mode resonances (col 1, lines 28-30).
Regarding Claim 13, Rottenberg-Magnusson teaches the device of claim 11.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the periodic structure has a pattern with a first periodicity in at least one direction and a second periodicity in at least one direction, the first periodicity being different to the second periodicity.
Rottenberg and Magnusson are related as periodic structures.
Magnusson teaches
wherein the periodic structure has a pattern with a first periodicity in at least one direction and a second periodicity in at least one direction, the first periodicity being different to the second periodicity (“a two-dimensional grating structure comprises or is formed by superimposing two orthogonal one-dimensional grating structures. In such a configuration, the superimposed one-dimensional grating structures can have any structure described hereinabove.”, col 6, lines 43-55, this indicates periodicity is different in the two directions).
Therefore, 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 periodic structure of Rottenberg to have first and second different periodicities as in Magnusson for the purpose of using common grating structures with guided mode resonances (col 1, lines 28-30).
Claim(s) 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottenberg et al (US 2021/0033895 A1, of record) in view of Fang et al (US 10,634,938 B2).
Regarding Claim 16, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 15.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein a ratio of a mean average over the visible spectrum of the extinction coefficient of the phase change material layer in the high extinction coefficient state to a mean average over the visible spectrum of the extinction coefficient of the phase change material layer in the low extinction coefficient state is greater than 3.0.
Rottenberg and Fang are related as PCM.
Fang teaches
wherein a ratio of a mean average over the visible spectrum of the extinction coefficient of the phase change material layer (GexSbySezTem, col 6, lines 15-25) in the high extinction coefficient state to a mean average over the visible spectrum of the extinction coefficient of the phase change material layer in the low extinction coefficient state is greater than 3.0 (in the crystalline state, extinction coefficient k2 is10−3 The extinction coefficient k1 of the alloy in the amorphous state is usually even smaller around 10 −4 or less in visible wavelength, col 6, lines 15-25. Hence a ratio is around 10−3 / 10−4 which is around 10 which is greater than 3.0)
Therefore, 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 PCM of Rottenberg to the PCM of Fang for the purpose of using common PCMs in the art for use in optical switches and modulators (col 6, lines 6-10).
Regarding Claim 17, Rottenberg-Fang teaches the device of claim 16.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein a mean average over the visible spectrum of the extinction coefficient in the high extinction coefficient state is less than 1.0.
Rottenberg and Fang are related as PCM.
Fang teaches
wherein a mean average over the visible spectrum of the extinction coefficient in the high extinction coefficient state (in the crystalline state, extinction coefficient k2 is10−3 , col 6, lines 15-25) is less than 1.0.
Therefore, 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 PCM of Rottenberg to the PCM of Fang for the purpose of using common PCMs in the art for use in optical switches and modulators (col 6, lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 18,20, (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottenberg et al (US 2021/0033895 A1, of record) in view of Bhaskaran et al (US 9,823,538 B2).
Regarding Claim 18, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the phase change material layer comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of, one or more of the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
227
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rottenberg and Bhaskaran are related as PCM.
Bhaskaran teaches
wherein the phase change material layer comprises (AgSbSe, col 6, lines 5-15).
Therefore, 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 PCM of Rottenberg to the PCM of Bhaskaran for the purpose of using common PCMs in the art for use in displays that can operate at high speeds (col 1, lines 40-43). (para 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the layered structure of the display element further comprises one or more further phase change material layers, each further phase change material layer being switchable between two stable states having different refractive indices Rottenberg and Bhaskaran are related as PCM.
Bhaskaran teaches (fig 7)
wherein the layered structure of the display element (spacer 14, PCM layer 10, capping layer 16, col 5, lines 32-35) further comprises one or more further phase change material layers (“provide one or more additional phase change material layers 10 and spacer layers 14 to the previously described structure to create a multilayer stack. “, col 6, lines 33-35), each further phase change material layer being switchable between two stable states having different refractive indices (PCM layers are amorphous or crystalline states, col 6, lines 17-20)
Therefore, 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 PCM of Rottenberg to the PCM of Bhaskaran for the purpose of using common PCMs in the art for use in displays that can operate at high speeds (col 1, lines 40-43). (para 9).
Claim(s) 22-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottenberg et al (US 2021/0033895 A1, of record) in view of Hosseini et al (US 2019/0064555 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Rottenberg teaches the device of claim 1,
further comprising a switching arrangement capable of applying heating to the display element (“The electrodes 112, 132 may be part of a conductor line such that a current may be transmitted through the electrode 112, 132 and the PCM layer 114, 134 for providing a local thermal heating”, para 119).
However, Rottenberg does not teach
further comprising a switching arrangement capable of applying heating to the display element according to each of a plurality of different heating profiles.
Rottenberg and Hosseini are related as display elements.
Hosseini teaches (fig 5-7)
further comprising a switching arrangement capable of applying heating to the display element (pixel 100 with layered structure 2, PM 10, para 78) according to each of a plurality of different heating profiles (“Depending on the PCM used, each element 17 may need be energized according to two (or more) distinct signals, so as to apply two (or more) distinct heat pulses, to reversibly switch a PCM 10 to two (or more) switchable states, respectively. This will create two (or more) distinct temporal heat profiles P1, P2, as needed for reversibly switching the PCM 10 to two (or more) switchable states”, para 84).
Therefore, 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 display element of Rottenberg to include the switching arrangement of Hosseini for the purpose of using common switching techniques for a large portion of PCM to be switched achieving larger lateral dimensions (para 11).
Regarding Claim 23, Rottenberg-Hosseini teaches the device of claim 22.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
wherein the stable states comprise a first stable state and a second stable state, and the heating profiles comprise a first profile for switching the phase change material from the first stable state to the second stable state, and a second profile for switching the phase change material from the second stable state to the first stable state.
Rottenberg and Hosseini are related as display elements.
Hosseini teaches (fig 5-7)
wherein the stable states comprise a first stable state and a second stable state, and the heating profiles comprise a first profile(P1, para 84) for switching the phase change material from the first stable state to the second stable state, and a second profile (P2, para 84) for switching the phase change material from the second stable state to the first stable state (“Depending on the PCM used, each element 17 may need be energized according to two (or more) distinct signals, so as to apply two (or more) distinct heat pulses, to reversibly switch a PCM 10 to two (or more) switchable states, respectively. This will create two (or more) distinct temporal heat profiles P1, P2, as needed for reversibly switching the PCM 10 to two (or more) switchable states”, para 84).
Therefore, 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 display element of Rottenberg to include the switching arrangement with heating profiles of Hosseini for the purpose of using common switching techniques for a large portion of PCM to be switched achieving larger lateral dimensions (para 11).
Regarding Claim 24, Rottenberg-Hosseini teaches the device of claim 22.
However, Rottenberg does not teach
comprising a plurality of the display elements and wherein the switching arrangement is configured to allow the display elements to be heated substantially independently of each other.
Rottenberg and Hosseini are related as display elements.
Hosseini teaches (fig 5-7,13)
comprising a plurality of the display elements (“display devices 1c-1f comprise pixels, whose layer structure 2c-2f includes at least a PCM 10”, para 97) and wherein the switching arrangement (heating element 17, para97, controller, para 98) is configured to allow the display elements to be heated substantially independently of each other (“The present display devices further comprise a controller (comprising, e.g., elements 31, 32, 41, 42 such as depicted in FIG. 13) and, consistently with principles already described earlier, the controller can be used to energize any of the pixels, so as to independently heat a PCM thereof, to thereby reversibly change its refractive index”, para 98).
Therefore, 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 display element of Rottenberg to include the switching arrangement with independent control of display elements of Hosseini for the purpose of using common switching techniques for a large portion of PCM to be switched achieving larger lateral dimensions (para 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
Claim 21 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the phase change material layer and at least one of the further phase change material layers are positioned on opposite sides of the diffraction layer.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/14/2026