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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed December 17, 2025. Claims 1-10 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 11-21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 11, applicant’s arguments on pages 5-8 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 11, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as cited above.
Namely, applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose “the conducting rails being transparent dielectric slabs”. However, as cited below, newly cited reference to Xing et al. discloses silicon doped GaN as a transparent conductive layer (see e.g. abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength; the conducting rails being transparent dielectric slabs in the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al., in order to provide a transparent semiconductor that may be more robust.
Applicant’s further arguments regarding the Schwartz reference are moot since it is no longer used in the rejection of claims 11-21.
Applicant further argues that the combination of references would not result in “the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and; the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.” Travis discloses a submicron period of the trenches 52 (i.e. separated by conducting rails 54, 54’) and a depth of the trench (i.e. applicant’s height of the rails is at least 2 microns (see e.g. Column 6, lines 44-60) and that the optical path length is related to the delay of the phase of the light rays in order to steer the light rays (see e.g. Column 6, lines 44-60). Based on the disclosure of Travis, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using Applicant further argues that the combination of references would not result in “the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and; the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travis (US 10,156,768 B1) in view of Mocnizuki et al. (US 2017/0038628 A1) and further in view of Xing et al. “High laser damage threshold liquid crystal optical switch based on a gallium nitride transparent electrode”. Optics Letters Vol. 45, No. 13, July 1, 2020, pp 3537-3540.
In regard to claim 11, Travis discloses an active beam-steering device (BSD) comprising (see e.g. Figure 8):
a dielectric substrate (DS) 50 and a cover window 66, transparent at one optical wavelength, λ, defining a space between them (see e.g. Column 6, lines 11-29 and Column 7, lines 59-65);
a plurality of conducting rails (Vo - VN) 54, 54’, extending parallel to each other between said surfaces, so as to divide said space into a plurality of elongated cells (LCC) (denoted “trench” 52) (see e.g. Column 6, line 61-Column 7, line 16);
a nematic liquid crystal (LC) 62 filling said elongated cells 52 (see e.g. Column 7, lines 17-26); and
a plurality of electrical interconnections (ELI) 64 suitable to apply an electric potential (Vo - VN) to each one of said conducting rails 54, 54’ (i.e. via 58, see e.g. Column 7, lines 4-26);
Travis fails to disclose
the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength;
the cover window is dielectric; and
the conducting rails being transparent dielectric slabs;
wherein:
the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and;
the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.
However, Mocnizuki et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0060]):
the cover window 110 is dielectric.
Given the teachings of Mocnizuki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Travis with the cover window is dielectric.
Doing so would provide a typical configuration for housing a liquid style device using an upper and lower dielectric substrates which allows for containment of the liquid crystal material without shorting between electrical layers.
Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. fails to disclose
the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength;
the conducting rails being transparent dielectric slabs;
wherein:
the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and;
the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.
However, Xing et al. discloses using silicon doped GaN as a transparent conductive layer (see e.g. abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength; the conducting rails being transparent dielectric slabs in the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al., in order to provide a transparent semiconductor that may be more robust.
Given the teachings of Xing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. with the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength; the conducting rails being transparent dielectric slabs.
Providing a transparent conductive layer allows for transmission of light while using a dielectric slab such as silicon doped GaN allows for a layer more robust to damage.
Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and further in view of Xing et al., fails to disclose
wherein:
the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and;
the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.
However, Travis does disclose a submicron period of the trenches 52 (i.e. separated by conducting rails 54, 54’) and a depth of the trench (i.e. applicant’s height of the rails is at least 2 microns (see e.g. Column 6, lines 44-60). Travis further notes the optical path length is related to the delay of the phase of the light rays in order to steer the light rays (see e.g. Column 6, lines 44-60). Therefore, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses the claimed invention except for “the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and; the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the pitch P of said conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength, λ and; the height H of said conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, pitch and height of the rails is an art recognized results effective variable in that the optical path length and birefringence of the liquid crystal layer result directly in how the beam is steered as taught by Travis (see e.g. Column 6, lines 44-60 and Column 8, lines 17-34). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the pitch and height of the conducting rails because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the physical characteristics of the system such as the height and pitch of the conductive rails and the system’s operation as a beam steering device directly depends upon the birefringence of the liquid crystal used and the operational wavelength of the device.
In regard to claim 14, Travis discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein pitch P is in the sub- micrometer range (see e.g. Column 6, lines 44-60).
In regard to claim 15, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the conducting rails are made of Si-doped GaN.
However, Xing et al. discloses silicon doped GaN as a transparent conductive layer (see e.g. abstract). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using wherein the conducting rails are made of Si-doped GaN in the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al., in order to provide a transparent semiconductor that may be more robust.
Given the teachings of Xing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. with wherein the conducting rails are made of Si-doped GaN.
Providing a transparent conductive layer allows for transmission of light while using a dielectric slab such as silicon doped GaN allows for a layer more robust to damage.
In regard to claim 16, Travis discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
an electronic driving circuit board (DCB) 68 configured for applying variable electric potential values to said conducting rails through said electrical interconnections, an electric potential difference between two adjacent conducting rails determining a phase-shift of light at wavelength, λ, introduced by the cell delimitated by said rails (see e.g. Figure 10, Column 8, lines 50-61 and Column 9, lines 12-23).
In regard to claim 17, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein said electronic DCB is configured for applying to said rails a spatially periodic pattern of electric potentials such that the electric potential difference between two adjacent rails varies monotonically between zero and a maximum value, the maximum value being such that the phase-shift of light at wavelength λ introduced by the corresponding cell is equal to 2 π.
Travis does disclose said electronic controller 68 or 16 (see e.g. Figure 10).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize applying to said rails a spatially periodic pattern of electric potentials such that the electric potential difference between two adjacent rails varies monotonically between zero and a maximum value, the maximum value being such that the phase-shift of light at wavelength λ introduced by the corresponding cell is equal to 2π, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., with wherein said electronic DCB is configured for applying to said rails a spatially periodic pattern of electric potentials such that the electric potential difference between two adjacent rails varies monotonically between zero and a maximum value, the maximum value being such that the phase-shift of light at wavelength λ introduced by the corresponding cell is equal to 2 π.
Doing so would provide a desired refractive index profile to the liquid crystal layer to adjust beam steering properties of the device, which is a known and predictable behavior of liquid crystals.
In regard to claim 18, Travis discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, and
wherein said electronic controller is configured for varying a deflection angle of a light beam at wavelength λ by varying the spatial period of said pattern (see e.g. Column 9, lines 3-12).
In regard to claim 19, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above and a beam-steering device according to claim 11 above (see e.g. 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11 above):
Travis further disclose a bi-dimensional beam-steering apparatus (BSA) comprising a first (BSD1) 44x and a second (BSD2) beam-steering devices 44y, suitable to operate at a same optical wavelength λ, arranged in such a way that a light beam (LB) (i.e. from 12) traversing the first beam-steering device 44x impinges onto the second beam-steering device 44y, the first and second beam-steering devices 44x,44y having conducting rails extending along nonparallel directions (see e.g. Figure 10).
In regard to claim 20, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses a beam-steering device (BSD) according to claim 11 (see e.g. 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11 above):
Travis further discloses
an optical system comprising (see e.g. Figure 10): a light source (LS) 12 and
the light source 12 being configured for directing a light beam (LB) at optical wavelength λ towards said beam-steering device 52 or apparatus.
In regard to claim 21, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 19 above.
Travis further discloses
wherein the conducting rails of the first and second beam-steering devices 44x, 44y extend along perpendicular directions (see e.g. Figure 10).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Travis (US 10,156,768 B1) in view of Mocnizuki et al. (US 2017/0038628 A1) in view of Xing et al. “High laser damage threshold liquid crystal optical switch based on a gallium nitride transparent electrode”. Optics Letters Vol. 45, No. 13, July 1, 20202, pp 3537-3540 and further in view of Akselrod et al. (US 2019/0285798 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the width W of said conducting rails is small, compared to their pitch P, such that W/P is equal to or smaller than 25% to allow confining light at said wavelength X in the liquid crystal filling said elongated cells.
However, Akselrod et al. discloses
the resonance of an adjustable plasmonic resonant waveguide depends on multiple physical characteristics, including height, length and/or length of metal rails (see e.g. paragraph [0048]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the width W of said conducting rails is small, compared to their pitch P, such that W/P is equal to or smaller than 25% to allow confining light at said wavelength X in the liquid crystal filling said elongated cells, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of Akselrod et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., with wherein the width W of said conducting rails is small, compared to their pitch P, such that W/P is equal to or smaller than 25% to allow confining light at said wavelength X in the liquid crystal filling said elongated cells.
Doing so would provide a device that is tunable to operate at a desired resonance (see e.g. paragraph [0048] of Akselrod et al. where the resonance is dependent on features of the metal rails).
In regard to claim 13, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein P= λ /2 ± λ X, where P is the pixel size, X is the optical wavelength and X is comprised between 0 and 40%.
However, Akselrod et al. discloses
wherein P= λ /2 ± λ X, where P is the pixel size, X is the optical wavelength and X is comprised between 0 and 40% (see e.g. paragraph [0045] where the described values fall within applicant’s claimed range).
Given the teachings of Akselrod et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Xing et al., with wherein P= λ /2 ± λ X, where P is the pixel size, X is the optical wavelength and X is comprised between 0 and 40%.
Doing so would provide a device that is tunable to operate at a desired resonance (see e.g. paragraph [0048] of Akselrod et al. where the resonance is dependent on features of the metal rails).
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights