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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakenov (Graphene-enabled electrically controlled terahertz spatial light modulators”, OPTICS LETTERS / Vol. 40, No. 9 / May 1, 2015) in view of Wu (US 20160202505 A1).
With regards to claims 1 and 22, Kakenov discloses a spatial modulator for terahertz (THZ) radiation (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising: a two-dimensional array of THz modulator pixels having a layered structure (Fig. 1) comprising: an electrolyte layer; a graphene top electrode, and a polymer outer layer disposed on the graphene top electrode, wherein the polymer outer layer is substantially transparent to THz radiation (pg. 1984, right column). Kakenov does not explicitly teach the claimed active matrix array and control circuitry. Wu discloses a graphene based terahertz (THz) device, including THz modulators [0013, 0037], comprising: graphene electrodes formed on substrates, with electrodes deposited on the graphene layers [0008-0011, 0019] (Fig. 1) and further wherein gate voltages applied between the graphene electrodes control charge accumulation and modulate THz transmission [0037-0039, 0046]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed configuration as suggested by Wu in view of the recited benefits and further in order to improve voltage stability at each pixel. Furthermore, although Kakenov does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer layer is disposed on the graphene top electrode, Wu teaches such a modification was known [0010, 0011, 0020, 0031]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed polymer layer in order to protect the graphene electrode from environmental contamination.
With regards to claims 2 and 3, Wu teaches substrate-supported layered graphene THz devices suitable for integration with electronic driving circuitry, and further teaches electrodes, dielectric layers, and voltage-controlled operations [0008-0011, 0019, 0037-0039], which are compatible with conventional TFT-capacitor active-matrix implementations. Although Wu does not teach the specific configuration, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to implement the active-matrix backplane mentioned above using a TFT and capacitor structure and controlling the charge on each capacitor by varying a gate pulse duration, because TFT array with storage capacitors as well as gate pulse controlled charge storage are well known means of storing pixel charge and maintaining pixel voltage in active-matrix devices, yielding predictable improvements in addressing accuracy and stability.
With regards to claim 4, Kakenov discloses wherein each pixel is individually addressable via row and column voltages (pg. 1985, left column), but does not explicitly teach wherein the back electrodes of the pixels are electrically isolated from each other. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known and considered obvious to enable independent pixel addressing and to prevent unintended charge leakage.
With regards to claim 8, Wu teaches a flexible polymer substrate [0020, 0031].
With regards to claim 9, Kakenov does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte layer comprises a discontinuous layer of electrolyte. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been considered obvious since pixel isolation requires confinement of electrolyte to avoid electrical crosstalk. Therefore, in view of the recited benefit, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed electrolyte layer.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, Kakenov discloses wherein the graphene top electrode comprises a common graphene layer over the two-dimensional array (large area graphene electrodes that extend across multiple pixels; Fig. 1a and corresponding description). Although Kakenov does not specify wherein the graphene top electrode comprises one common graphene layer, such a modification would have been obvious in order to reduce fabrication complexity and improve sheet uniformity.
With regards to claim 12, Wu discloses the claimed polymer outer layer [0031.
With regards to claim 13, Kakenov does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to apply an additional bias voltage to the graphene top electrode. However, Wu teaches applying bias voltages between graphene electrodes to control carrier density and THz modulation [0037-0039, 0046]. Therefore, in view of the recited benefit, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed control circuitry.
With regards to claim 14, Kakenov discloses wherein the applied voltage is selected to independently modulate transmitted THz radiation through each pixel (Fig. 2 and corresponding description).
With regards to claim 15, Kakenov does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte layer has a thickness of less than a quarter wavelength of the THz radiation. However, those skilled in the art recognize that functional layers in THz modulators are routinely designed to be sub-wavelength, and commonly well below a quarter wavelength, in order to minimize unintended phase shifts. As such, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed electrolyte layer in view of the recited benefit.
With regards to claim 16, Kakenov does not teach wherein the applied voltage is selected to independently modulate reflected THz radiation from each pixel. However, Wu teaches that voltage-controlled graphene structures modulate THz transmission, absorption, and reflection [0037-0046], depending upon the device configuration and electrode arrangement. As such, reflection mode THz modulators are a standard alternative to transmission-mode devices. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed configuration for integration convenience or for signal-to-noise reasons.
With regards to claim 17, Kakenov does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte layer has the claimed thickness. However, those skilled in the art recognize that functional layers in THz modulators are routinely designed to be sub-wavelength in order to minimize unintended phase shifts as well as to balance capacitance, response speed, and fabrication practicality. As such, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Kakenov with the claimed electrolyte layer in view of the recited benefits.
With regards to claim 18, Wu does not teach wherein the polymer outer layer has a thickness of 1um to 500um. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been considered a matter of routine design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu with the claimed thickness in order to provide sufficient mechanical support/protection.
With regards to claim 19, Kakenov discloses the invention according to claim 1 and further wherein the spatial modulator is used in THz imaging systems (pg. 1984, left column; Abstract; wherein THz imaging system inherently comprise a THz source, detector and controller as claimed).
With regards to claim 20, Kakenov discloses the invention according to claim 16 and further wherein the spatial modulator is used in beam steering systems (pg. 1984, left column; wherein beam steering systems inherently comprise a THz source and modulator as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 21 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:
Prior art does not teach or suggest a spatial modulator wherein the back electrodes are arranged to cover only a portion of each pixel; and/or a method of manufacturing the spatial modulator comprising: plasma treating a porous electrolyte host layer in combination with the laminating steps as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884