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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
By the 12/8/2025 Reply, claims 1, 3-19, and 21-22 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17 stand amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly presented. Claims 2 and 20 were canceled.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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, 5-7, 12, 13, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik (US 20050218793 A1, of record) in view of Xu1 and Redecker (DE 102004059083 B4).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, which are each independent but collectively recited by claim 17 therefore addressed at once, Bhowmik teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an optical modulator (10) comprising: a first layer (18) comprising at least one of an organic layer or an organometallic layer (¶17); and
a second layer (20) comprising at least one of an extrinsic semiconductor layer or an electrode layer; and
a voltage source that, when applied to the optical modulator, causes the optical modulator to vary in at least one of: a refractive index (¶15, “When an electric field is applied to the electro-optically active single crystal film 18, its refractive index may be modified due to second order hyper-polarizability of the medium.”); an absorption (which is inherently dependent on refractive index); or a polarization property (id.).
Bhowmik does not explicitly show an interlayer comprising a first surface in contact with the first layer and a second surface in contact with the second layer, wherein the interlayer comprises at least one of a charge injection layer or a charge transport layer that is configured to enable carrier injection into the first layer.
Redecker explicitly shows a modulated light emitter using organic material electrical contacts analogous to that of the instant claim (Fig. 1, contacts 6 and 4), comprising an interlayer (5) comprising a first surface (top or bottom) in contact with the first layer (6 or 4) and a second surface (bottom or top) in contact with the second layer (4 or 6), wherein the interlayer comprises at least one of a charge injection layer or a charge transport layer that is configured to enable carrier injection into the first layer (“a hole transport layer 5”). Xu highlights the importance of improving conductivity of Bhowmik’s organic material (p. 1, “In the past decades, 4-N,N-dimethylamino-4′-N ′-methyl-stilbazolium tosylate (DAST) has attracted considerable attention. Owing to its large nonlinear optical susceptibility and high electro-optic coefficient, DAST has become one of the most important and successful organic nonlinear optical (NLO) materials that is applied widely in optical signal processing and frequency conversion ... However, practical applications of DAST in optoelectronic or electronic devices have never been reported, largely due to its poor conductivity and the difficulty in preparing device-quality DAST–based thin films.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, using knowledge from the conductivity problems of DAST known from Bhowmik, enhanced conductivity of the organic or organometallic layer as known from Redecker in the modulator of Bhowmik for the purpose of enhancing modulating efficiency of poorly conductive organic materials.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the optical modulator further comprises an interlayer comprising a first surface in contact with the first layer and a second surface in contact with the second layer, the interlayer comprising an oxide layer (“(31) Although not shown and not required for the operation of device 100, it is recognized that a dielectric cladding layer of a type employed at a corresponding device position in optically active waveguides can be interposed between the optically active layer 107 and the transparent conductive layer 105.”; see also Redecker, “In a further preferred embodiment is between the hole transport layer and the emitter [organic] layer one Auxiliary layer of titanium dioxide or tin oxide arranged.”).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the modified Bhowman teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the electrode layer comprises at least one of: at least one of a metal or a metal derivative (indium tin oxide); an allotrope of carbon (Xu, which uses graphene); or at least one of an organic material or an organometallic material.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and further discloses wherein, when the predetermined voltage is applied to the optical modulator, the optical modulator varies in birefringence (C. 29, ll. 42-47, “The index of refraction of the optically active layer was a linear function of the potential gradient applied to it. Since the indices of refraction normal to and parallel to the plane of the optically active layer varied by different amounts, the application of a potential gradient produced birefringence in the film.”).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the charge injection layer or the charge transport layer is configured to generate regions of charge depletion or charge accumulation in the first layer (sequitur, being the primary purpose of the transport layer providing for movement of holes to generate depletion by the transport of holes, thus driving the modulation; in other words, the changes in the charge amounts necessarily drive the electro-optic effect).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the charge injection layer or the charge transport layer is configured to enable carrier injection into at least one of the first layer or the second layer (sequitur, the modulation being driven by the carrier injection into the organic layer; in other words, the change in charge necessarily drives the electro-optic effect).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (US 20150097167 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the interlayer comprises at least one of n-type organic molecules, n-type organometallic molecules, p-type organic molecules, p-type organometallic molecules, ambipolar organic molecules, or ambipolar organometallic molecules.
Song explicitly shows an analogous semiconductor optical device where the interlayer (injection layer 16, 17 and transport layer 13, 14) includes n-type and p-type organic materials (¶11-13, Claim 1).
It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the suitable materials of Song to improve the charge injection / transport layers of Bhowmik and obtained a predictable modulation by the first layer.
Regarding claim 4 and 11, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 3, and further discloses (in ¶54, ¶58 a list of suitable organic materials for electron transport and hole transport layers, e.g. N,N'-Di(naphthalen-2-yl)-N,N'-diphenylbenzene-1,4-diamine) wherein the interlayer comprises at least one of: tetracyanoquinodimethane; diphenylbenzene-1,4-diamine; N4,N4'-(Biphenyl-4,4'-diyl)bis(N4'-(naphthalen-1-yl)-N4,N4'-diphenylbiphenyl-4,4'-diamine); N2,N2'-(9,9-Dimethyl-9H-fluorene-2,7-diyl)bis(9,9-dimethyl-N2,N7,N7-triphenyl-9H-fluorene-2,7-diamine); 2-(2-Methoxyphenyl)-1,3-dimethyl-1H-benzoimidazol-3-ium iodide; 2,2'-Bis[N,N-bis(4-methoxy-phenyl)amino]-9,9-spirobifluorene; N,N,N',N'-Tetrakis(4-methoxyphenyl)benzidine; Pyrazino[2,3-f][1,10]phenanthroline-2,3-dicarbonitrile; 2,3,5,6-Tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyano-quinodimethane; Titanium oxide phthalocyanine; 4,4',4''-Tris(N,N-diphenyl-amino)triphenylamine; Copper(II) phthalocyanine; Poly{9,9-dimethyl-10-(9-(4-vinylbenzyl)-9H-carbazol-3-yl)-9,10-dihydroacridine}; Poly[(9,9-dioctylfluorenyl-2,7-diyl)-co-(4,4'-(N-(diphenylamine))-(2-cyanoisopropylphenyl))]; 2,2',7,7'-Tetrakis[N-naphthalenyl(phenyl)-amino]-9,9-spirobifluorene; Tris(phenylpyrazole)iridium; 9,10-Dihydro-9,9-dimethyl-10-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)-acridine; N2,N2,N6,N6-Tetraphenylnaphthalene-2,6-diamine; N,N'-Di(naphthalen-2-yl)-N,N'-diphenylbenzene-1,4-diamine; 2,8-bis(4,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)dibenzo-[b,d]furan; 4,6-Bis(3,5-di(pyridin-2-yl)phenyl)-2-methylpyrimidine; Poly[(9,9-bis(3'-(N,N-trimethylamino)propyl)-2,7-fluorene)-alt-1,4-phenylene]diiodide; phenanthroline; 8-Hydroxyquinoline sodium salt; 1,3,5-Tri(diphenylphosphoryl-phen-3-yl)benzene; 2,2'-(4,4'-(Phenylphosphoryl)bis(4,1-phenylene))bis(1-phenyl-1H-benzo[d]imidazole); 3,5-Di(pyren-1-yl)pyridine; ReO3; Rb2CO3; CsF; MoO3; or Cs2CO3.
Regarding claim 10, Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the first layer comprises at least one of p-type dopants or n-type dopants.
Song explicitly shows an analogous semiconductor device wherein the first layer comprises at least one of p-type dopants or n-type dopants (¶53). Official Notice is taken that doping of active semiconducting layers toward improving availability of charge carriers is exceptionally well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have doped the first layer of Bhowmik with n-type or p-type dopants toward improving availability of free charge carriers, thus enhancing the semiconducting characteristics of the first layer, vis-à-vis the modulation function of the device.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Bhowmik as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cannavale ‘065 (US 20200127065 A1, of record).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but does not explicitly show wherein the electrode layer comprises at least one of carbon nanotubes or graphene.
It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Cannavale ‘065 establishes the claimed materials (¶37-38) as suitable for implementing electrodes in an analogous charge injection device (Fig. 1), and therefore would have been prima facie obvious to employ in the device of Bhowmik, thus obtaining a predictable application of voltage to the device.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Bhowman as applied to claims 12 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 13, but Bhowmik does not explicitly show the particular value of birefringence variation, i.e. wherein, when the predetermined voltage is applied to the optical modulator, the optical modulator varies in birefringence by about 0.005 or more.
However, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions and function being known from Bhowmik, including variation of birefringence in the modulator, benefit of optimizing the degree of birefringence variation includes achieving sufficient contrast in the modulated image.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the degree of variation of refractive index to achieve sufficient contrast in the modulated image, thereby achieving the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and explicitly shows wherein, when the predetermined voltage is applied to the optical modulator, the optical modulator varies in the refractive index (C. 29, ll. 42-47, “The index of refraction of the optically active layer was a linear function of the potential gradient applied to it. Since the indices of refraction normal to and parallel to the plane of the optically active layer varied by different amounts, the application of a potential gradient produced birefringence in the film”).
The modified Bhowmik does not explicitly show the refractive index variation is by about 0.005 or more.
However, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions and function being known from the modified Bhowmik, including variation of refractive index in the modulator, benefit of optimizing the degree of refractive index variation includes achieving sufficient contrast in the modulated image.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the degree of variation of refractive index to achieve sufficient contrast in the modulated image, thereby achieving the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bhowmik teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and explicitly shows wherein, when the predetermined voltage is applied to the optical modulator, the optical modulator varies in the absorption within a predetermined range of wavelength (C. 5, ll. 35 – 47, “Efficient absorption of radiation W and limited absorption of radiation from the scanning beam can be realized by choosing differing wavelengths for information source W radiation and the scanning beam with a knowledge of the absorption profile of the photoreceptor layer unit as a function of wavelength. The writing radiation is generally chosen to exhibit a wavelength or broad range of wavelengths corresponding to one or more absorption peaks of the photoreceptor layer unit.”).
Bhowmik does not explicitly show the degree [of variation in absorption to be] by a factor of about 2 or more.
However, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The general conditions and function being known from Bhowmik, including variation of absorption in the modulator, benefit of optimizing the degree of absorption includes achieving sufficient contrast in the modulated image.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the degree of variation of absorption to achieve sufficient contrast in the modulated image, thereby achieving the claimed range.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Bhowmik as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Youn (US 20200035769 A1) and Lee (US 20180074326 A1), evidenced by Mizusako (US 20070247731 A1).
Regarding claim 18 and 19, the modified Bhowmik teaches the system of claim 17, but does not explicitly show further comprising a head-mounted display that comprises the optical modulator.
Use of organic semiconductor devices in artificial reality head mounted displays are known from Youn (¶4) and Lee (Abstract, ¶65, ¶97). Mizusako provides evidence that OLEDs are considered as electro-optical devices, e.g. refractive index changing, and therefore optical modulators (¶11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the optical modulator of Bhowmik in an artificial reality head mounted display as disclosed in Youn and Lee, since it is known from Mizusako that such organic light modulators are predictably effective in such applications.
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 COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Xiangdong Xu et Al. Conversion of 4-N,N dimethylamino-4’-N’-methylstilbazolium tosylate (DAST) from a Simple Optical Material to a Versatile Optical Material. Nature Scientific Reports | 5:12269 | DOi: 10.1038/srep12269 (Year: 2014)