DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 08 May 2026.
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 § 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) 1-11, 17-25 and 31-34 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 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. Although Sano does not expressly recite the optical element to be a waveguide, Sano clearly teaches a dielectric multilayer film to be used as the fixed reflection film. [0076] Furthermore, dielectric multilayer films provide layered structures includes alternating high and low index of refraction layers to create a refractive index contrast that confine and guide light thereby functioning as a waveguide. Therefore, although not expressly stated, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the optical element to be a waveguide or function as a waveguide since this is how the dielectric multilayered film functions.
In regards to claim 18, Sano recites a method of processing a laser signal, the method comprising: providing the laser signal [200] to through an optical element (541) on a substrate (51), wherein the laser signal is provided through the waveguide in a direction parallel with respect to a surface of the substrate; 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 space 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 through the optical element, wherein the first space and/or the first pressure are different (first electrical signal 151 and second electrical signal 153) than the second space and/or the second pressure. (Figures 2 & 4) Although Sano does not expressly recite the optical element to be a waveguide, Sano clearly teaches a dielectric multilayer film to be used as the fixed reflection film. [0076] Furthermore, dielectric multilayer films provide layered structures includes alternating high and low index of refraction layers to create a refractive index contrast that confine and guide light thereby functioning as a waveguide. Therefore, although not expressly stated, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the optical element to be a waveguide or function as a waveguide since this is how the dielectric multilayered film functions.
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 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 and 21-25, 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 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.
In regards to claim 30, Sano recites the providing the first space and/or pressure comprises providing the first space between the waveguide and the shifter, wherein providing the second space and/or pressure comprises providing the second space between the waveguide and the shifter, and wherein the first and second spaces are different. (Figure 4)
In regards to claim 31, Sano recites the waveguide is configured to confine propagation of the laser signal through the waveguide in a plane that is parallel with respect to a surface of the substrate.
In regards to claim 32, Sano recites providing the first space and/or the first pressure comprises providing the first space between the optical element and the shifter, and wherein providing the second space and/or the second pressure comprises providing the second space between the optical element and the shifter. (Figure 4)
In regards to claim 33, Sano recites the actuator is configured to change the space between the waveguide and the shifter.
In regards to claim 34, Sano recites the waveguide is configured to confine propagation of a laser signal through the waveguide in a plane that is parallel with respect to the surface of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 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.
In regards to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest shifter cladding on the shifter, wherein the shifter is between the shifter cladding and the waveguide, and wherein a refractive index of the shifter cladding is lower than a refractive index of the shifter in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the shifter comprises a first shifter layer and a second shifter layer having different refractive indices in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-14 and 35 are allowed. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest an optical device comprising: a substrate having a surface; a metasurface on the surface of the substrate; a shifter adjacent to the metasurface such that the metasurface is between the substrate and the shifter; an actuator coupled with the shifter, wherein the actuator is configured to change a space and/or a pressure between the metasurface and the shifter; a controller coupled with the actuator, wherein the controller is configured to apply a first electrical signal to the actuator to provide a first space and/or a first pressure between the metasurface and the shifter responsive to the first electrical signal, wherein the controller is configured to apply a second electrical signal to the actuator to provide a second space and/or a second pressure between the metasurface and the shifter, and wherein the first space and/or the first pressure is different than the second space and/or the second pressure; and a laser source configured to direct a laser beam through the substrate to the metasurface, wherein the metasurface is configured to reflect the beam having a first tuning responsive to the first space and/or pressure and to reflect the beam having a second tuning responsive to the second space and/or pressure, and wherein the first tuning and the second tuning are different in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim.
Claims 26, 28 and 29 are allowed. The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a method of processing a laser signal, the method comprising: providing the laser signal to an optical element comprising a metasurface on a substrate, wherein the laser signal is provided through the substrate to the optical element comprising the metasurface; providing a first space and/or a first pressure between the optical element comprising the metasurface and a shifter, while providing the laser signal to the optical element comprising the metasurface; and after providing the first space and/or the first pressure, providing a second space and/or a second pressure between the optical element comprising the metasurface and the shifter while providing the laser signal to the optical element comprising the metasurface, wherein the first space and/or the first pressure are different than the second spacing and/or the second pressure; wherein the optical element comprising the metasurface is configured to reflect the laser signal having a first tuning responsive to the first space and/or pressure and to reflect the laser signal having a second tuning responsive to the second space and/or pressure, and wherein the first tuning and the second tuning are different in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Sano fails to teach a waveguide. However, as stated above, Sano clearly teaches a dielectric multilayer film to be used as the fixed reflection film. [0076] Furthermore, dielectric multilayer films provide layered structures includes alternating high and low index of refraction layers to create a refractive index contrast that confine and guide light thereby functioning as a waveguide.
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 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
Prosecution Insights