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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Castillo discloses a TFT switching element which cannot be considered an electronic backplane. The examiner respectfully disagrees. An electronic backplane is a broad term which can be used to identify a layer that contains any sort of circuitry, switching element, or electric element. Based on this definition, a layer containing the TFT switching element would also be considered an electronic backplane. For this reason, identifying the layer containing the TFT 16 as the electronic backplane is reasonable. The applicant also states that there is a spacer layer between the PCM material 12 and the reflective layer 14 so it cannot read on the limitation “an encapsulation layer disposed atop the PCM layer such that PCM layer is sandwiches between the reflective layer and the encapsulation layer”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no limitation which requires that the PCM layer is directly disposed on the reflective layer and the encapsulation is directly disposed on the PCM layer. Castillo’s arrangement still discloses the PCM layer to be sandwiches between a reflective layer and an encapsulation layer, even if there are other elements in between.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castillo et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0231982 A1 of record, “Castillo”).
Regarding Claim 1, Castillo discloses a spatial light modulation device (Figures 1-12; Paragraphs 0023-0055) comprising:
An electronic backplane (Figure 4/Figure 12, electronic backplane 16); and
A pixel array structure comprising a plurality of pixels (Figure 1 discloses a pixel array structure comprising a plurality of pixels 4), each pixel comprising:
A reflective layer disposed atop the electronic backplane (Figure 4, reflective layer 14; Paragraph 0037);
A phase change material (PCM) layer disposed atop the reflective layer (Figure 12, phase change material (PCM) is a part of element 20; Paragraph 0023; Figure 4, phase change material 12; Paragraph 0025),
A phase of the PCM layer being selectively in a crystalline state or an amorphous state based on a temperature thereof (Paragraph 0031 discloses a PCM layer switching between an amorphous to crystalline (and vice versa) state based on temperature); and
An encapsulation layer disposed atop the PCM layer such that PCM layer is sandwiches between the reflective layer and the encapsulation layer (Figure 4, encapsulation layer 11; Paragraph 0037),
The electronic backplane being operatively connected to a controller (Paragraph 0031 discloses that the switching device 22 is controlled by a controller, where Paragraph 0046 discloses that the electronic backplane is controlled by the control signal of the controller),
The electronic backplane being configured to generate, based on instructions receive from the controller, electrical current for defining an independent heat profile in the PCM layer of each pixel of the pixel array structure through Joule’s effect (Paragraphs 0031-0032 disclose that the controller CTRL produces two predefined types of pulses meant for variating temperature (a heating profile) that is suitable for a different type of switching (corresponding to electrical current for defining an independent heat profile in the PCM layer of each pixel of the pixel array structure through Joule’s effect)),
A variation of the phase of the PCM layer being used to modulate optical properties of an incoming optical signal reaching the spatial light modulation device (Paragraphs 0023-0024 and Paragraph 0026 discloses using a variation of the phase of the PCM layer to modulate optical properties of an incoming optical signal).
Regarding Claim 7, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1, wherein the pixel array structure configured for an active matrix driving scheme (Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 8, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1, wherein the controller has a digital driving scheme, the controller being configured to adjust a pulse width and a pulse duration of the electrical current (Paragraph 0031 discloses two predefined pulses, which would suggest a digital driving scheme).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Hao et al (US Publication No.: US 2025/0093688 A1 of record, “Hao”).
Regarding Claim 2, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1.
Castillo fails to disclose for a given pixel of the plurality of pixels: a first electrode and a second electrode thermally connected to the reflective layer and distant from one another; the controller being configured to cause the electronic backplane to generate electric current flowing from the first electrode to the second electrode to define heat profiles in the PCM layer through Joule’s effect.
However, Hao discloses a similar device comprising for a given pixel of the plurality of pixels: a first electrode and a second electrode thermally connected to the reflective layer and distant from one another; the controller being configured to cause the electronic backplane to generate electric current flowing from the first electrode to the second electrode to define heat profiles in the PCM layer through Joule’s effect (Hao, Figure 7B, first electrode 101, second electrode 102, reflective layer 301; Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Castillo to include electrodes as disclosed by Hao. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of modulating optical properties of the device thereby achieving multi-phase states (Hao, Paragraph 0095; Paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 3, Castillo in view of Hao discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 2, further comprising: a heater layer and an electrically insulating layer disposed between the reflective layer and the heater layer (Castillo, Figure 12, heater layer 33, insulating layer 32).
Castillo fails to disclose that the heater layer is thermally connected to the first and second electrodes.
However, Hao discloses a similar device where the heater layer is thermally connected to the first and second electrodes (Hao, Figure 7B, heater layer 60, first and second electrodes 101/102; Paragraph 0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Castillo to include electrodes and a heater layer as disclosed by Hao. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of modulating optical properties of the device thereby achieving multi-phase states (Hao, Paragraph 0095; Paragraph 0116).
Regarding Claim 4, Castillo in view of Hao discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 3.
Castillo fails to explicitly disclose that the heater layer is made of aluminum doped zinc oxide (AZO) and the insulating layer is made of aluminum nitride (AIN). However, Castillo discloses a general environment of using a metallic layer for the heater material and using an electrically insulating material for the insulating layer (Castillo, Paragraph 0055). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover a known material for its intended use (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding the materials of the heater and insulating layer is the result-effective variable, and when this material is optimized to the appropriate elements within the specified parameters of a given device, the recognized results of optimizing switchability within a phase change material are realized. While Castillo does not directly disclose that the exact material of the layers, Castillo does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Castillo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that the heater layer is made of aluminum doped zinc oxide (AZO) and the insulating layer is made of aluminum nitride (AIN) for the purpose of optimizing heat production and switchability of the phase change material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Mazed (US Publication No.: US 2025/0094380 A1 of record).
Regarding Claim 5, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1.
Castillo fails to disclose that the PCM layer is formed from one of: antimony trisulfide (Sb2S3); and antimony triselenide (Sb2Se3).
However, Mazed discloses a similar device where the PCM layer is formed from one of: antimony trisulfide (Sb2S3); and antimony triselenide (Sb2Se3) (Mazed, Paragraph 0224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the PCM layer as disclosed by Castillo to be made of a particular material as disclosed by Mazed. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light modulation and optical control (Mazed, Paragraph 0224; Paragraph 0214).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Handschy et al (US Publication No.: US 2005/0207313 A1 of record, “Handschy”).
Regarding Claim 6, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1.
Castillo fails to disclose that the electronic backplane is a Silicon-based Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) backplane, the reflective layer is made of aluminum, and the encapsulation layer is made of indium tin oxide (ITO).
However, Handschy discloses a similar device where the electronic backplane is a Silicon-based Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) backplane (Handschy, Paragraph 0005), the reflective layer is made of aluminum (Handschy, Paragraph 0055; Figure 1, reflective layer 130), and the encapsulation layer is made of indium tin oxide (ITO) (Handschy, Paragraph 0047; Figure 1, encapsulation layer 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device elements as disclosed by Castillo to be made of a particular material as disclosed by Handschy. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light modulation and optical control (Handschy, Paragraph 0047; Paragraph 0055).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Zhang et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0183108 A1 of record, “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 9, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1.
Castillo fails to disclose an electric current mirroring circuit communicably connected to the controller for defining an electric current programming scheme of the optical modulation device.
However, Zhang discloses a similar device comprising an electric current mirroring circuit communicably connected to the controller for defining an electric current programming scheme of the optical modulation device (Zhang, Paragraphs 0054-0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device elements as disclosed by Castillo to include an electric current mirroring circuit as disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light modulation and optical control (Zhang, Paragraphs 0054-0058).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo in view of Han et al (US Publication No.: US 2024/0329784 A1 of record, “Han”).
Regarding Claim 10, Castillo discloses the spatial light modulation device of claim 1.
Castillo fails to disclose a glass layer disposed atop the encapsulation layer.
However, Han discloses a similar device comprising a glass layer disposed atop the encapsulation layer (Han, Figure 4A, glass layer BL, encapsulation layer ES; Paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the encapsulation layer as disclosed by Castillo to include a glass layer as disclosed by Han. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light modulation and optical control (Han, Paragraph 0094).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871