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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolis (US 2016/0357010 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boris discloses an adjustable optical aperture (Figs. 1A-3C), comprising:
a first optical layer (13) having a first surface (inner surface of 13);
a second optical layer (1) having a second surface (inner surface of 1);
an amorphous layer (3, 4 para 94) disposed between the first surface and the second surface (3 and 4 are sandwiched between the inner surfaces of 13 and 1); and
an actuator (5, para 94) configured to adjust a spacing between the first optical layer (13) and the second optical layer (1), wherein adjustment of the spacing between the first optical layer and the second optical layer adjusts a size of the optical aperture by changing an amount of surface area contact between the amorphous layer (3, 4) and the first and second surfaces (see Figs. 3A-3C and paras 104 and 105).
Regarding claim 3, the adjustable optical aperture of claim 1, wherein the amorphous layer is made of an optically transparent material (Boris, para 94, transparent fluid 4), and wherein the adjustable aperture further includes an optical stop material (Boris, Fig. 3A-3C, peripheral supports 10 and 12) disposed between the first surface (11) and the second surface (13) alongside of the optically transparent material (4, see Figs. 3A-3C).
Regarding claim 5, the adjustable optical aperture of claim 1, wherein the first surface is sloped at an angle greater than a critical angle for incident light to experience total reflection (Figs. 3B and 3C, slope along actuator 5).
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses an adjustable optical aperture (Figs. 1A-3C), comprising:
a first optical layer (13) having a first surface (inner surface of 13);
a second optical layer (1) having a second surface (inner surface of 1);
wherein the first surface is distanced from the second surface by a gap (see the gap between 13 and 1); and
at least an actuator (5, para 94) configured to adjust the gap between the first surface (inner surface of 13) and the second surface (inner surface of 1), wherein adjustment of the gap between the first surface and the second surface controls an amount of light transmission from the first optical layer through the gap and into the second optical layer (see Figs. 3A-3C and para 104 and 105).
Regarding claim 11, the adjustable optical aperture of claim 10, wherein the at least
one actuator (5) is configured to move either or both the first optical layer and the second
optical layer to increase or decrease a distance of the gap (gap between 13 and 1), wherein a relatively shorter distance of the gap increases the amount of light transmission (Fig. 3B), and wherein a relatively longer distance of the gap decreases the amount of light transmission (Fig. 3C).
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.
Claim 2, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolis (US 2016/0357010 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Boris discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the first optical layer, the second optical layer, and the amorphous layer are refractive index matched.
Bolis (Figs. 3A-3C) teaches the importance of matching refractive index (para 130 “the first and second transparent fluids can be selected to have identical refraction indices” and para 131 “to simultaneously optimize transmission of the assembly, a transparent fluid or fluids having a similar refraction index or even near the membrane and the substrate or substrates can be selected”) for the first optical layer (11), the second optical layer (13) and the amorphous layer (3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective fling date to make the first optical layer, the second optical layer, and the amorphous layer are refractive index matched for the purpose of simultaneously optimize transmission of the assembly by reducing reflection losses and reducing flare and ghosting.
Regarding claim 12, further comprising an index matching material disposed in the gap (Boris, para 130 “the first and second transparent fluids can be selected to have identical refraction indices”) and having surface area contact with the first and second surfaces, wherein the adjustment of the gap deforms the index matching material to change the surface area contact with the first and second surfaces, and wherein an amount of the surface area contact controls the amount of light transmission through the gap (see Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising: an optically transparent material disposed in the gap (Boris, para 94, transparent fluid 4); and an optical stop material disposed in the gap (Boris, Fig. 3A-3C, peripheral supports 10 and 12) alongside the optically transparent material (4), wherein the adjustment of the gap deforms the optically transparent material (4, see Figs. 3A-3C) and the optical stop material (actuation device 5) to control the amount of light transmission through the optically transparent material and to control an amount of light absorption by the optical stop material (para 94, by deflection of the actuation device 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolis (US 2016/0357010 A1) in view of Henriksen et al (US 2011/0164330 A1).
Boris discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for the first surface is formed with an optical grating, wherein rulings of the optical grating are at an angle greater than a critical angle for incident light to experience total reflection.
Henriksen teaches using gratings as adjustable optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to have the first surface is formed with an optical grating, wherein rulings of the optical grating are at an angle greater than a critical angle for incident light to experience total reflection for the purpose of reducing or effectively eliminating model dispersion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
Claims 4, 14 and 15 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:
Regarding claims 7-9, 14 and 15, claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest an adjustable optical aperture further comprising
a first near field coupling layer disposed on the first surface;
a second near field coupling layer disposed on the second surface, wherein the
first and second near field coupling layers define a gap therebetween, and wherein the
gap accommodates an electromagnetic field as an evanescent wave; and
an actuator configured to adjust the gap between the first and second near field
coupling layers, wherein adjustment of the gap adjusts near field tunneling across the
gap for near field coupling that enables transmission of light from the first optical layer
through the gap and into the second optical layer as set forth in the claimed combination.
Regarding claim 4, claim is allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the optical stop material includes an optically absorbent dye, and wherein at least one of the first and second surfaces has a surface treatment to increase wetting of the dye on the at least one of the first and second surfaces as set forth in the claimed combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
1/6/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872