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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. In response to the Office Action mailed 2/11/2026 Applicant amended claims 1, 5-9, and 12-16.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 9-10, 13-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7517096 B2 to Park in view of US 20140192399 A1 to Pilossof.
Regarding Claim 9. Park discloses a system for modulating one or more beams of light using a microelectromechanical structure, the microelectromechanical structure comprising a plurality of electrostatically deformable diffractive elements (Fig. 5A), each diffractive element comprising a pedestal (Fig. 5B support structure 423) and a flexible reflective member; the reflective member having an elongated shape of a long dimension and a short dimension (See at least Fig. 5A reflecting electrode 424 and 421), the reflective member comprising a supported part and at least one unsupported part (See at least Fig. 5B); and a substrate supporting one or more bottom electrodes or serving as a bottom electrode (See Fig. 5B substrate 426 and electrode 425); the diffractive elements being configured to reflect the light as planar mirrors (as shown in Fig. 5C) and to flex independently from other diffractive elements upon application of a predetermined electrostatic force (Col 5 lines 24-26) corresponding to each diffractive element; wherein each diffractive element is either flexed continuously through a range of deflected positions or held stably at a single deflected position in the range of deflected positions to create a desired grating configuration (See Fig. 5A-5D Col 4 lines 56-59).
Park does not specifically disclose that the system comprises a control circuit in electrical contact with the reflective members of the plurality of electrostatically deformable diffractive elements, and wherein the control circuit is configured to provide control voltages to the reflective members of the plurality of electrostatically deformable diffractive elements such that at least one of (a) or (b) is true: (a) at least a set of adjacent diffractive elements has a varying deflection to provide a phase adjustment pattern emulating a variable pitch blazed grating; and/or (b) a number of individual diffractive elements collectively approximating a single grating period is varied so as to vary an effective grating pitch Λ, thereby varying a beam steering angle θ of the modulated light.
However, Pilossof discloses that the system comprises a control circuit in electrical contact with the reflective members of the plurality of electrostatically deformable diffractive elements, and wherein the control circuit is configured to provide control voltages to the reflective members of the plurality of electrostatically deformable diffractive elements (See at least Fig. 4) such that at least one of (a) or (b) is true: (a) at least a set of adjacent diffractive elements has a varying deflection to provide a phase adjustment pattern emulating a variable pitch blazed grating (para 24); and/or (b) a number of individual diffractive elements collectively approximating a single grating period is varied so as to vary an effective grating pitch Λ, thereby varying a beam steering angle θ of the modulated light (as shown in at least Fig. 4) to control the diffraction efficiency as desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that
Regarding Claim 10. Park further discloses the diffractive elements are asymmetric having an inverted L-shaped cross section (See at least Fig. 5B), wherein, in one configuration of the microelectromechanical structure, each of the diffractive elements is configured to receive the same predetermined electrostatic force and flex upon application of the same predetermined electrostatic force (See Col 4 lines 56-59 where micro-mirror light modulator is capable of operating is such manner).
Regarding Claim 13. Pilossof further discloses (a) is true (See para 24).
Regarding Claim 14. Pilossof further discloses (b) is true in passive sterring, and the reflective member is configured to be held in a resting position when the control voltage provided to the reflective member is 0 V (See Fig. 4 para 23).
Regarding Claim 15. Pilossof further discloses wherein (a) and (b) are true and the reflective member is configured to be movable continuously through a range of flexed positions in a predetermined pattern when the control voltage provided to the reflective member is greater than 0 V and applied incrementally, with each increment corresponding to each flexed position within the range (See Fig. 4 para 23-24).
Regarding Claim 16. Park further discloses the reflective member is configured to be movable from the resting position to be held stably at a single position when the control voltage provided to the reflective member is greater than 0 V and corresponds to the single position (Col 3 lines 3-6).
Regarding Claim 17. Park further discloses the reflective member comprises one or more layers of electrically conductive material (Fig. 5A reflecting electrode 421), and one or more layers of additional material placed over the electrically conductive material for conferring one or more of an optical function or a structural function (Fig. 5A reflecting electrode substrate 424).
Regarding Claim 19. Park further discloses the one or more bottom electrodes comprise one or more layers of electrically conductive material (Fig. 5B an electrode wiring layer 425), and one or more layers of additional material placed over the electrically conductive material for conferring one or more of an optical function, a structural function, or an electrical function (See at least Fig. 5B electrode 422, and substrate 426).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Pilossof as applied to claim 9 in view of US 20040114210 A1 to Fitzpatrick et al.
Regarding Claim 11. As stated above, Park and Pilossof disclose all the limitations of base claim 9.
Park and Pilossof do not specifically disclose the diffractive elements are symmetric having a T-shaped cross section.
However, Fitzpatrick the diffractive elements are symmetric having a T-shaped cross section (See Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the diffractive elements are symmetric having a T-shaped cross section.
Regarding Claim 12. Fitzpatrick further discloses each diffractive element is configured to flex about an axis parallel to the long dimension of each reflective member to vary a curvature of each reflective member to create the desired grating configuration, and wherein the supported part of the reflective member of each diffractive element has ends pinned on the pedestal along the long dimension (See Fig. 2a-2d).
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Pilossof as applied to claim 17 in view of US 20040114210 A1 to Fitzpatrick et al.
Regarding Claim 18. As stated above, Park and Pilossof disclose all the limitations of base claim 17.
Park and Pilossof do not specifically disclose the one or more layers comprise aluminum, gold, a refractory metal having a reflection enhancement coating, a material for enhancing optical reflectivity, or a combination thereof.
However, Fitzpatrick the one or more layers comprise aluminum, gold, a refractory metal having a reflection enhancement coating, a material for enhancing optical reflectivity, or a combination thereof (para 38). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the one or more layers comprise aluminum, gold, a refractory metal having a reflection enhancement coating, a material for enhancing optical reflectivity, or a combination thereof.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Pilossof as applied to claim 19 in view of US 20040114210 A1 to Fitzpatrick et al.
Regarding Claim 20. As stated above, Park and Pilossof disclose all the limitations of base claim 19.
Park and Pilossof do not specifically disclose the one or more layers comprise aluminum, enhanced reflectivity aluminum, silver, gold, a refractory metal, a doped semiconductor with a reflection altering coating, a dielectric barrier, or a combination thereof.
However, Fitzpatrick the one or more layers comprise aluminum, enhanced reflectivity aluminum, silver, gold, a refractory metal, a doped semiconductor with a reflection altering coating, a dielectric barrier, or a combination thereof (para 38). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that the one or more layers comprise aluminum, enhanced reflectivity aluminum, silver, gold, a refractory metal, a doped semiconductor with a reflection altering coating, a dielectric barrier, or a combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9-20 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.
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights