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 with respect to claim 1 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0109854 A1) in view of Hashimura (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0077036 A1) and in further view of Qiu (CN Patent Number 107741656 A).
Tang teaches, as in claim 1, an optical modulation element (Fig. 8, ¶0032 “plasmonic device with a partially modulated refractive index”) comprising an electrode layer (102), a dielectric layer (104) provided on the electrode layer (102), and a light absorbing layer (106) provided on the dielectric layer (104) and including inorganic nanoparticles (112, ¶0036 “Plasmonic particle materials include Ag”), wherein the inorganic nanoparticles (112) exhibit localized surface plasmon resonance by light irradiation (¶0050 “localized plasmon resonance”), Tang fails to teach an electrode layer provided on the substrate. In a related art, Hashimura teaches a substrate (102) an electrode layer (104) is provided on the substrate (102).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, with the electrode layer provided on the substrate, as taught by Hashimura, for the purpose of providing a way to allow light to pass through the droplets with very little scattering and resulting in a transparent state (¶0014).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach wherein the dielectric layer is composed of hafnium oxide. In a related art, Qiu teaches an optical device wherein the dielectric layer is composed of hafnium oxide (Page 3, third para. “the dielectric layer is hafnium oxide” ).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the second electrode layer, as taught by Alton, for the purpose of providing a way to allow light to pass through the droplets with very little scattering and resulting in a transparent state (¶0026).
Tang teaches, as in claim 2, further comprising a second electrode layer (108) provided on the light absorbing layer (110).
Tang teaches, as in claim 3, wherein the second electrode layer is an oxide semiconductor (¶0040 “indium tin oxide (ITO) or ZnO”).
Tang teaches, as in claim 12, wherein reflected light of light incident into the optical modulation element (100) is dynamically modulated by changing a voltage to be applied to the light absorbing layer (¶0053 “The dielectric properties of liquid crystal can be changed through application of an external voltage”).
Tang teaches, as in claim 14, an optical modulation method comprising dynamically modulating reflected light (Fig. 8 “reflected light”) of light incident into the optical modulation element (100) by changing a voltage to be applied to the light absorbing layer of the optical modulation element (¶0053 “The dielectric properties of liquid crystal can be changed through application of an external voltage”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0109854 A1) in view of Hashimura (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0077036 A1) and in further view of Qiu (CN Patent Number 107741656 A), and in even further view of Alton (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0355521 A1).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 4, wherein the second electrode layer includes tin-doped indium oxide (¶0040 “indium tin oxide (ITO) or ZnO”). In a related art, Alton teaches an optical device wherein the second electrode layer includes tin-doped indium oxide (¶0026).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the second electrode layer, as taught by Alton, for the purpose of providing a way to allow light to pass through the droplets with very little scattering and resulting in a transparent state (¶0026).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0109854 A1) in view of Hashimura (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0077036 A1) and in further view of Qiu (CN Patent Number 107741656 A) and in even further view of Milliron (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0109652 A1).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 5, wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are particles of a semiconductor. In a related art, Milliron teaches an optical device wherein the inorganic nanoparticles are particles of a semiconductor (¶0026 “nanostructures 214 include tin-doped indium oxide (ITO)”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the nanoparticles, as taught by Milliron, for the purpose of providing a way to modify the plasmon resonance frequencies (¶0016).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 6, wherein the semiconductor is an oxide semiconductor. In a related art, Milliron teaches an optical device wherein the semiconductor is an oxide semiconductor (¶0026 “nanostructures 214 include tin-doped indium oxide (ITO)”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura, Qiu and Milliron, with the nanoparticles, as taught by Milliron, for the purpose of providing a way to modify the plasmon resonance frequencies (¶0016).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 7, wherein the oxide semiconductor includes at least one atom selected from indium, zinc, tin, or cerium. In a related art, Milliron teaches an optical device wherein the oxide semiconductor includes at least one atom selected from indium, zinc, tin, or cerium (¶0026 “nanostructures 214 include tin-doped indium oxide (ITO)”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura amd Qiu, with the nanoparticles, as taught by Milliron, for the purpose of providing a way to modify the plasmon resonance frequencies (¶0016).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 8, wherein the inorganic nanoparticles include tin-doped indium oxide particles. In a related art, Milliron teaches an optical device wherein the inorganic nanoparticles include tin-doped indium oxide particles (¶0026 “nanostructures 214 include tin-doped indium oxide (ITO)”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the nanoparticles, as taught by Milliron, for the purpose of providing a way to modify the plasmon resonance frequencies (¶0016).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0109854 A1) in view of Hashimura (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0077036 A1) Qiu (CN Patent Number 107741656 A) and in even further view of (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0059957 A1).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 9, wherein an average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles is 1 to 100 nm. In a related art, Garcia teaches optical device wherein an average particle diameter of the inorganic nanoparticles is 1 to 100 nm (¶0090).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the ligand, as taught by Garcia, for the purpose of providing a way to configured to exhibit a neutral gray color in the bright mode (¶ 0102).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0109854 A1) in view of Hashimura (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0077036 A1) Qiu (CN Patent Number 107741656 A) and in even further view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0050464 A1).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 10, wherein a ligand is coordinated to the inorganic nanoparticles. In a related art, Zhang teaches an optical device wherein a ligand (2) is coordinated to the inorganic nanoparticles (1 and ¶0035 “plasmonic nanostructure being a silver nano decahedron, a size of which is 20 nm, a surface ligand molecule being cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the ligand, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way to improve quantum efficiency of the device by optimizing the structure of the semiconductor material (¶0028).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 11, wherein the ligand includes at least one selected from a ligand including a halogen atom or a multidentate ligand including two or more coordination sites. In a related art, Zhang teaches wherein the ligand includes at least one selected from a ligand including a halogen atom (¶0035 “a surface ligand molecule being cetyltrimethylammonium bromide”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Zhang, with the ligand, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way to improve quantum efficiency of the device by optimizing the structure of the semiconductor material (¶0028).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0109854 A1) in view of Hashimura (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0077036 A1) Qiu (CN Patent Number 107741656 A) and in even further view of Sakai (US Patent Number US 5,888,420 A).
Tang, Hashimura and Qiu fail to teach, as in claim 13, an optical shutter comprising the optical modulation element. In a related art, Sakai teaches an optical shutter comprising the optical modulation element (Col.11, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical modulation element, as taught by Tang, Hashimura and Qiu, with the optical shutter, as taught by Sakai, for the purpose of providing liquid crystal device which can conduct optical modulation with a high contrast (Col 3, lines 15-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/JOURNEY F SUMLAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
10 November 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872