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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/29/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 7/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to an unelected invention. In response to the Office Action mailed 8/06/2025 Applicant amended claims 1, 8 and 14.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170160600 A1 to Galstian et al. in view of US 20220196799 A1 to Tien et al.
Regarding Claim 8. Galstian discloses an optical device comprising: a liquid crystal lens comprising (See at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 disclosing the top cell wall of a tunable liquid crystal lens): a first optical substrate (Fig. 1 upper substrate); a second optical substrate overlying and spaced away from the first optical substrate (Fig. 1 lower substrate); a liquid crystal (LC) layer disposed between the first and second optical substrates (Fig. 1 liquid crystal LC); a first electrode structure between the LC layer and the first optical substrate (Fig. 1 hole patterned electrode HPE); and a second electrode structure between the LC layer and the second optical substrate (Fig. 1 uniform transparent electrode UTE); a sensor configured to assess at least one attribute of the liquid crystal layer (Fig. 5 temperature sensor 12, para 56); a heat source (para 56 “a heater to keep the temperature stable”); and a controller configured to mediate heat flow between the heat source and the liquid crystal layer based on a signal provided by the sensor in an amount effective to tune the at least one attribute (para 56, Fig. 5 Controller 20).
Galstian does not specifically disclose that the at least one attribute comprises a switching speed of the liquid crystal layer during operation of the liquid crystal lens.
However, Matsushima discloses switching speed of the liquid crystal layer during operation of the liquid crystal device is at least dependent on temperature (See para 44), and includes a controller configured to mediate heat flow between the heat source and the liquid crystal layer (See para 44), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the at least one attribute comprises a switching speed of the liquid crystal layer during operation of the liquid crystal lens.
Regarding Claim 9. Galstian further discloses a first dielectric layer disposed between the first electrode structure and the liquid crystal layer; and a second dielectric layer disposed between the second electrode structure and the liquid crystal layer (See Fig. 1 LC alignment layer, para 22).
Regarding Claim 12. Galstian further discloses the first electrode structure and the second electrode structure each comprise an optically transparent conductive layer (para 19).
Regarding Claim 13. Galstian further discloses the first electrode structure and the second electrode structure are each disposed within an optical aperture of the liquid crystal lens (as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian and Tien as applied to claim 8 in view of US 20220057691 A1 to Piskunov et al.
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above, Galstian and Tien discloses all the limitations of base claim 8.
Galstian does not specifically disclose the liquid crystal lens comprises an optical aperture having mutually orthogonal lateral dimensions each measuring at least approximately 10 mm.
However, Piskunov discloses a liquid crystal lens comprises an optical aperture having mutually orthogonal lateral dimensions each measuring at least approximately 10 mm (See para 94), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the liquid crystal lens comprises an optical aperture having mutually orthogonal lateral dimensions each measuring at least approximately 10 mm
Regarding Claim 11. Piskunov further discloses the first optical substrate and the second optical substrate each have a thickness independently ranging from approximately 100 to 300 micrometers (para 82).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-13 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.
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-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, 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871