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 (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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shorokhov et al. (US 2019/0369458 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Shorokhov et al. discloses a light modulating apparatus (see e.g. paragraph [0085] where it is noted that disclosed embodiments may be applied to spatial light modulators) comprising (see e.g. Figure 9):
a plurality of pixels MS4 (denoted “additional metasurface” which comprises “nanoresonators”, see e.g. paragraphs [0071]-[0072]), each pixel of the plurality of pixels being configured to steer incident light and operate as an on-pixel or an off-pixel (see e.g. Figure 9 and paragraph [0025] where it is noted that voltages are applied to the plurality of nanoresonators to control a light propagation direction, and further note the on and off states correspond to voltages being applied or not applied, respectively);
a spatial light modulator 500 configured to modulate the incident light and emit the light at a predetermined steering angle (see e.g. paragraph [0025] where it is noted that light propagation direction is controlled by applying voltages and paragraph [0085] where it is noted that the disclosed embodiments may be applied to spatial light modulators);
a processor configured to apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0082] where it is noted that controlling the device includes applying voltages to nanoresonators MS4, and further note that in order to apply voltages the device inherently has a controller/processor capable of doing so).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shorokhov et al. (US 2019/0369458 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Shorokhov et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is further configured to:
apply a first voltage corresponding to a first steering angle of the on-pixel; or
apply a second voltage corresponding to a second steering angle of the on-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying first and second voltages result in changes in steering angles of the incident light.
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 device of Shorokhov et al. with wherein the processor is further configured to: apply a first voltage corresponding to a first steering angle of the on-pixel; or apply a second voltage corresponding to a second steering angle of the on-pixel.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allow for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 3, Shorokhov et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage.
However, Shorokhov et al. discloses applying a voltage to each of the nanoresonators MS4 results in different phase shifts of the incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0056]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shorokhov et al. with wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage.
Selecting the voltage to provide a change in angle would allow a controllable 2D deflection of incident light.
In regard to claim 4, Shorokhov et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose that the number of nanoresonators MS4 forming a phase gradient determines the degree of deflection of the laser light, where the pitch would be based on the number of MS4 in each pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shorokhov et al. with wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel.
Using a pitch of the pixels to control a deflection angle allows for the device to have the deflection angle changed dynamically.
In regard to claim 5, Shorokhov et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose that the number of nanoresonators MS4 forming a phase gradient determines the degree of deflection of the laser light, where the pitch would be based on the number of MS4 in each pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shorokhov et al. with wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels.
Using a pitch of the pixels to control a deflection angle allows for the device to have the deflection angle changed dynamically.
Claims 6-11, 13, and 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0183148 A1) in view of Shorokhov et al. (US 2019/0369458 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Park et al. discloses a spatial light modulator 130 (see e.g. paragraph [0073] and Figures 1-2) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2, 30):
a first reflective layer 131 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2);
a cavity layer 132 provided on the first reflective layer 131 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2);
a second reflective layer 133 provided on the cavity layer 132 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2), the second reflective layer 133 comprising a plurality of grating structures 174 spaced apart from each other (see e.g. paragraph [0078] and Figure 2);
a plurality of pixels 120 (see e.g. paragraph [0075] and Figure 1), each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprising the first reflective layer 131, the cavity layer 132, and the second reflective layer 133 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2), and being configured to operate as an on-pixel or an off-pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0074] where it is noted that a voltage may be applied and thus is configured to be on or off); and
a processor 1130 (see e.g. paragraph [0120]).
Park et al. fails to disclose
the processor configured to modulate incident light and emit the modulated light at a predetermined steering angle ,
and apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 9);
the processor (see e.g. paragraph [0082] where it is noted that controlling the device includes applying voltages to nanoresonators MS4, and further note that in order to apply voltages the device inherently has a controller/processor capable of doing so) configured to modulate incident light and emit the modulated light at a predetermined steering angle (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082] for a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients),
and apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082] for a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients).
Given the teachings of Shorokhov et al., 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 device of Park et al. with the processor configured to: modulate incident light, emit the modulated light at a predetermined steering angle, and apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel.
Using a processor to apply voltages allows the device to be controlled to apply voltages based on the steering angle needed for the particular application.
In regard to claim 7, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is further configured to:
apply a first voltage corresponding to a first steering angle of the on-pixel; or
apply a second voltage corresponding to a second steering angle of the on-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying first and second voltages result in changes in steering angles of the incident light.
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein the processor is further configured to: apply a first voltage corresponding to a first steering angle of the on-pixel; or apply a second voltage corresponding to a second steering angle of the on-pixel.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allow for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 8, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage.
However, Shorokhov et al. discloses applying a voltage to each of the nanoresonators MS4 results in different phase shifts of the incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0056]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage.
Selecting the voltage to provide a change in angle would allow a controllable 2D deflection of incident light.
In regard to claim 9, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose that the number of nanoresonators MS4 forming a phase gradient determines the degree of deflection of the laser light, where the pitch would be based on the number of MS4 in each pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel.
Using a pitch of the pixels to control a deflection angle allows for the device to have the deflection angle changed dynamically.
In regard to claim 10, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose that the number of nanoresonators MS4 forming a phase gradient determines the degree of deflection of the laser light, where the pitch would be based on the number of MS4 in each pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels.
Using a pitch of the pixels to control a deflection angle allows for the device to have the deflection angle changed dynamically.
In regard to claim 11, Park et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, and
wherein each grating of the plurality of grating structures includes silicon (see e.g. paragraph [0088] for SiO2).
In regard to claim 13, Park et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, and
wherein the first reflective layer is a distributed Bragg reflective layer (see e.g. paragraph [0087]).
In regard to claim 15, Park et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, and
wherein the cavity layer comprises silicon oxide (SiO2) (see e.g. paragraph [0088]).
In regard to claim 16, Park et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, and
wherein a reflectivity of the first reflective layer is different from a reflectivity of the second reflective layer (see e.g. Figures 7 and 8 and paragraphs [0087]-[0088] where the figures illustrate the reflection spectrum of the first and second reflective layers).
In regard to claim 17, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than or equal to 2 V and less than or equal to 8 V.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than or equal to 2 V and less than or equal to 8 V, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than or equal to 2 V and less than or equal to 8 V.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allows for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 18, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein an absolute value of the first voltage is different from an absolute value of the second voltage.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein an absolute value of the first voltage is different from an absolute value of the second voltage, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein an absolute value of the first voltage is different from an absolute value of the second voltage.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allows for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 19, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allows for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 20, Park et al. discloses an electronic apparatus 1000 (denoted “system”, see e.g. paragraph [0117] and Figure 30) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2, 30):
a light source 1110 configured to emit light (see e.g. Figure 30 and paragraph [0117]);
a spatial light modulator 130 (see e.g. paragraph [0073] and Figures 1-2 and note it is part of Beam Scanning Device 1100 in Figure 30) configured to adjust a propagation direction of the light emitted by the light source 1100 and emit the light to an object (see e.g. Figure 30 for object); and
a light detector 1120 configured to detect light reflected from the object (see e.g. Figure 30 and paragraph [0117]), wherein the spatial light modulator 130 (see e.g. paragraph [0073] and Figures 1-2 ) comprises:
a first reflective layer 131 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2);
a cavity layer 132 provided on the first reflective layer 131 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2);
a second reflective layer 133 provided on the cavity layer 132 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2), the second reflective layer 133 comprising a plurality of grating structures 174 spaced apart from each other (see e.g. paragraph [0078] and Figure 2);
a plurality of pixels 120 (see e.g. paragraph [0075] and Figure 1), each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprising the first reflective layer 131, the cavity layer 132, and the second reflective layer 133 (see e.g. paragraph [0076] and Figures 1-2), and being configured to operate as an on-pixel or an off-pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0074] where it is noted that a voltage may be applied and thus is configured to be on or off); and
a processor 1130 (see e.g. paragraph [0120]).
Park et al. fails to disclose
the processor configured to: modulate incident light, emit the modulated light at a predetermined steering angle, and apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 9);
the processor (see e.g. paragraph [0082] where it is noted that controlling the device includes applying voltages to nanoresonators MS4, and further note that in order to apply voltages the device inherently has a controller/processor capable of doing so) configured to modulate incident light and emit the modulated light at a predetermined steering angle (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082] for a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients),
and apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082] for a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients).
Given the teachings of Shorokhov et al., 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 device of Park et al. with the processor configured to: modulate incident light, emit the modulated light at a predetermined steering angle, and apply different voltages respectively corresponding to steering angles of the on-pixel.
Using a processor to apply voltages allows the device to be controlled to apply voltages based on the steering angle needed for the particular application.
In regard to claim 21, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 20 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is further configured to:
apply a first voltage corresponding to a first steering angle of the on-pixel; or
apply a second voltage corresponding to a second steering angle of the on-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose a voltage induced phase shift that is controlled by choosing specific voltages that result in a deflection of light based on formed phase gradients (see e.g. paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0082]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying first and second voltages result in changes in steering angles of the incident light.
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein the processor is further configured to: apply a first voltage corresponding to a first steering angle of the on-pixel; or apply a second voltage corresponding to a second steering angle of the on-pixel.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allow for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 22, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage.
However, Shorokhov et al. discloses applying a voltage to each of the nanoresonators MS4 results in different phase shifts of the incident light (see e.g. paragraph [0056]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein, based on the first steering angle being less than the second steering angle, the first voltage is less than the second voltage.
Selecting the voltage to provide a change in angle would allow a controllable 2D deflection of incident light.
In regard to claim 23, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 20 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose that the number of nanoresonators MS4 forming a phase gradient determines the degree of deflection of the laser light, where the pitch would be based on the number of MS4 in each pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein the predetermined steering angle is obtained based on a pitch of the on-pixel and the off-pixel.
Using a pitch of the pixels to control a deflection angle allows for the device to have the deflection angle changed dynamically.
In regard to claim 24, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 23 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels.
However, Shorokhov et al. does disclose that the number of nanoresonators MS4 forming a phase gradient determines the degree of deflection of the laser light, where the pitch would be based on the number of MS4 in each pixel (see e.g. paragraph [0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein the pitch is obtained based on a first group comprising a plurality of on-pixels and a second group comprising a plurality of off-pixels.
Using a pitch of the pixels to control a deflection angle allows for the device to have the deflection angle changed dynamically.
In regard to claim 25, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than or equal to 2 V and less than or equal to 8 V.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than or equal to 2 V and less than or equal to 8 V, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is greater than or equal to 2 V and less than or equal to 8 V.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allows for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 26, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein an absolute value of the first voltage is different from an absolute value of the second voltage.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein an absolute value of the first voltage is different from an absolute value of the second voltage, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein an absolute value of the first voltage is different from an absolute value of the second voltage.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allows for the control of laser light in various directions.
In regard to claim 27, Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Park et al., in view of Shorokhov et al., with wherein a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is greater than or equal to 1 degree and less than or equal to 30 degrees.
Using a voltage application to vary the deflection angle allows for the control of laser light in various directions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0183148 A1) in view of Shorokhov et al. (US 2019/0369458 A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0196138 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Shorokhov et al., in view of Park et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each grating of the plurality of grating structures comprises at least one of a PIN structure, a NIN structure, or a PIP structure.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein each grating 50 of the plurality of grating structures comprises at least one of a PIN structure, a NIN structure, or a PIP structure (see e.g. paragraph [0055] for PIN structure).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., 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 device of Shorokhov et al., in view of Park et al., with wherein each grating of the plurality of grating structures comprises at least one of a PIN structure, a NIN structure, or a PIP structure.
Using a PIN structure allows the grating structure to have a tunable core, thus it may have its optical properties varies based on an applied electric field.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0183148 A1) in view of Shorokhov et al. (US 2019/0369458 A1) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0255468 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Shorokhov et al., in view of Park et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first reflective layer comprises layers comprising two of silicon (Si), silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon oxide (SiO2), and titanium oxide (TiO2), and the layers are alternately stacked.
However, Kim et al. discloses
wherein the first reflective layer comprises layers comprising two of silicon (Si), silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon oxide (SiO2), and titanium oxide (TiO2), and the layers are alternately stacked.
Given the teachings of Kim et al., 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 device of Shorokhov et al., in view of Park et al., with wherein the first reflective layer comprises layers comprising two of silicon (Si), silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon oxide (SiO2), and titanium oxide (TiO2), and the layers are alternately stacked.
Selecting an alternating configuration of silicon (Si), silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon oxide (SiO2), and titanium oxide (TiO2) uses a structure of alternating materials with different refractive indices, which allows a reflectance that may be controlled based on the configuration of the layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-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, 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871