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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-29 recite “the actuator is configured to change a space and/or pressure between the optical element and the shifter”. The Examiner has not found support in the disclosure regarding the actuator changing both the space and the pressure. Applicant’s figures clearly support a change in space (Figure 1) or a change in pressure (Figure 2). Furthermore, Applicant’s Specification clearly support two different embodiments in at least paragraphs [0047] and [0051], each paragraph teaching the change in space and the change in pressure to be two separate alternate embodiments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0218586 to Sano.
In regards to claim 1, Sano recites an optical device (Figure 2) comprising: a substrate (51) having a surface (512A); an optical element (541)on the surface of the substrate; a shifter (542) adjacent to the optical element such that the optical element is between the substrate and the shifter; and an actuator (55 & 56) coupled with the shifter, wherein the actuator is configured to change a space (G1) and/or a pressure between the optical element and the shifter.
In regards to claim 2, Sano recites a controller (151 & 153 & 154 together) coupled with the actuator, wherein the controller is configured to apply a first electrical signal (151) to the actuator to provide a first space and/or a first pressure between the optical element and the shifter responsive to the first electrical signal, wherein the controller is configured to apply a second electrical signal (153) to the actuator to provide a second space and/or a second pressure between the optical element and the shifter, and wherein the first space and/or the first pressure is different than the second space and/or the second pressure. (Figure 4)
In regards to claim 18, Sano recites a method of processing a laser signal, the method comprising: providing the laser signal [200] to an optical element (541); providing a first spacing (G1) and/or a first pressure between the optical element and a shifter (542), while providing the laser signal to the optical element; and after providing the first spacing and/or the first pressure, providing a second spacing and/or a second pressure between the optical element and the shifter while providing the laser signal to the optical element, wherein the first spacing and/or the first pressure are different (first electrical signal 151 and second electrical signal 153) than the second spacing and/or the second pressure. (Figures 2 & 4)
In regards to claim 19, Sano recites the shifter is coupled with an actuator (55 & 56), wherein providing the first spacing and/or the first pressure comprises providing a first electrical signal (151) to the actuator, wherein providing the second spacing and/or the second pressure comprises providing a second electrical signal (153) to the actuator, and wherein the first and second electrical signals are different.
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.
Claim(s) 3-17 and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0218586 to Sano.
In regards to claims 3, 17 and 20, Sano recites the actuator comprises a piezoelectric actuator [0174], and wherein the controller is configured to apply the first electrical signal across the first and second electrodes and to apply the second electrical signal across the first and second electrodes. Although Sano does not expressly recite a piezoelectric material between a first electrode and a second electrode and wherein the piezoelectric material defines a window therethrough, in order for the piezoelectric actuator to function and apply an electrical signal between the first and second electrodes, the piezoelectric material must be placed between the first and second electrode. This placement of the piezoelectric material is common place and provides the desired functionality. Therefore, although not expressly stated, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a piezoelectric material between a first electrode and a second electrode and wherein the piezoelectric material defines a window therethrough.
In regards to claims 4-9, 12 and 21-26, Sano recites a laser source [200] configured to provide a laser signal to the optical element. Although Sano does not expressly recite a laser source and laser signal to alter an effective index and/or a dispersion, for tuning, steering or reflecting so that there is a change in the spacing or pressure, a laser signal for modification of the signal to provide alterations in an optical element is commonly chosen since laser sources are versatile and can provide a number of different signals for the desired modification. Therefore, although not expressly stated, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the desired modification of the spacing or pressure as claimed.
In regards to claims 10 and 11, Sato fails to expressly recite the shifter has at least one side surface that is non-orthogonal with respect to a source direction of the laser signal, and wherein the shifter has a circular or a triangular shape in a plane that is parallel with the surface of the substrate and shifter cladding on the shifter, wherein the shifter is between the shifter cladding and the optical element, and wherein a refractive index of the shifter cladding is lower than a refractive index of the shifter, wherein the shifter comprises a first shifter layer and a second shifter layer having different refractive indices. However, the shape and properties of the shifter and its side surface would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill to use such features for the purpose of providing the desired signal because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally as well with such features and it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the shifter has at least one side surface that is non-orthogonal with respect to a source direction of the laser signal, and wherein the shifter has a circular or a triangular shape in a plane that is parallel with the surface of the substrate and wherein the shifter is between the shifter cladding and the optical element, and wherein a refractive index of the shifter cladding is lower than a refractive index of the shifter, wherein the shifter comprises a first shifter layer and a second shifter layer having different refractive indices. KSR v Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727
In regards to claims 13, 14 and 27-29, although Sano does not expressly disclose the optical element comprises a metasurface on a substrate, wherein the optical element comprises an array of features having dimensions that are less than a wavelength of the laser signal and wherein the array of features comprises an array of holes and/or pillars, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill to use such features for the purpose of providing the desired output/signal manipulation because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally as well with such features and it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the optical element comprises a metasurface on a substrate, wherein the optical element comprises an array of features having dimensions that are less than a wavelength of the laser signal and wherein the array of features comprises an array of holes and/or pillars. KSR v Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of form PTO-1449.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874