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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed March 16, 2026. Claims 1-10 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 11-22 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. Namely, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose that the plurality of conducting rails behave as transparent dielectric slabs with respect to optical radiation. However, as set forth below, newly cited reference to Takama et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19): the conducting rails 316+315S (i.e. including wall spacer 316 and shield electrodes 315S, see e.g. Figure 19 and paragraph [0126]) are transparent at said optical wavelength (see e.g. paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0126]), wherein the plurality of conducting rails 316+215S is configured for behaving as simple transparent dielectric slabs with respect to optical radiation (see e.g. paragraphs [0040] and [0043] for being transparent, thus behaving as a transparent dielectric slab with respect to optical radiation).
Applicant further argues that the cited references fail to disclose “the height of said plurality of conducting rails is at least equal to λ/Δn”. However, as set forth below, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the height H of said plurality of 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). Further, it is known that selecting the dimensions such as height and width directly affects the resonance of the layer (see e.g. paragraph [0048] of Akselrod et al.).
Therefore, claims 11-22 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 11-22 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.
In regard to independent claim 11, the limitation, “said dielectric surfaces” in line 5, renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, “said dielectric surfaces” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the conducting rails are between the dielectric substrate and dielectric cover window.
Further, the limitations, “a plurality of conducting rails (Vo - VN)” and “an electric potential (Vo - VN)” render the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether applicant is referring to the conducting rails or the electric potential applied to the conducting rails is (Vo - VN).
Claims 12-22 depend from claim 11.
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 11-14, 16, and 19-21 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) in view of Takama et al. (US 2013/0063691 A1) and further in view of Akselrod et al. (US 2019/0285798 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Travis discloses an active beam-steering device (BSD) 44 (denoted “light-steering optic”, Column 6, lines 11-12 and Figure 8) comprising (see e.g. Figure 8):
a dielectric substrate (DS) 50 (see e.g. Column 6, lines 25-29 and Figure 8) and a cover window (DCW) 66 (see e.g. Column 7, lines 59-61 and Figure 8), transparent at one optical wavelength λ (see e.g. Column 6, lines 25-29 for transparent dielectric substrate), defining a space between them (see e.g. Figure 8 for space between 50 and 66);
a plurality of conducting rails (Vo - VN) 54, 54’ (denoted “opposing sidewalls”, see e.g. Column 6, line 61-Column 7, line 16 and Figure 8), extending parallel to each other between said dielectric surfaces 50, 66 (see e.g. Figure 8), so as to divide said space into a plurality of elongated cells (LCC) 52 (denoted “trench”, see e.g. Column 7, lines 4-5 and Figure 8),
a nematic liquid crystal (LC) 62 (see e.g. column 7, lines 17-19 and Figure 8) filling said plurality of elongated cells 52 (see e.g. Figure 8); and
a plurality of electrical interconnections (ELI) 64 (denoted “optically transparent conductors”, see e.g. Column 8, lines 22-26 and Figure 8) suitable to apply an electric potential (Vo - VN) to each conducting rail 54, 54’ of said plurality of conducting rails 54, 54’ (see e.g. Column 8, lines 22-26 and Figure 8).
Travis fails to disclose
the cover window is transparent and dielectric;
the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength,
wherein the plurality of conducting rails is configured for behaving as simple transparent dielectric slabs with respect to optical radiation;
wherein the pitch P of said plurality of conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength λ, and;
the height H of said plurality of conducting rails is at least equal to λ /Δn, An 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,
wherein the plurality of conducting rails is configured for behaving as simple transparent dielectric slabs with respect to optical radiation;
wherein the pitch P of said plurality of conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength λ, and;
the height H of said plurality of conducting rails is at least equal to λ /Δn, An being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.
However, Takama et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):
the conducting rails 316+315S (i.e. including wall spacer 316 and shield electrodes 315S, see e.g. Figure 19 and paragraph [0126]) are transparent at said optical wavelength (see e.g. paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0126]),
wherein the plurality of conducting rails 316+215S is configured for behaving as simple transparent dielectric slabs with respect to optical radiation (see e.g. paragraphs [0040] and [0043] for being transparent, thus behaving as a transparent dielectric slab with respect to optical radiation).
Given the teachings of Takama 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., with the conducting rails are transparent at said optical wavelength,
wherein the plurality of conducting rails is configured for behaving as simple transparent dielectric slabs with respect to optical radiation.
Using transparent materials for the device would allow for more light transmission through the device.
Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Takama et al., fails to disclose
wherein the pitch P of said plurality of conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength λ, and;
the height H of said plurality of conducting rails is at least equal to λ /Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.
However, Akselrod et al. discloses
wherein the pitch P of said plurality of conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength λ, and (see e.g. abstract, paragraph [0031], [0037], [0045]).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using the height H of said plurality of 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).
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 Takama et al., with wherein the pitch P of said plurality of conducting rails is smaller than said optical wavelength λ, and; the height H of said plurality of conducting rails is at least equal to λ /Δn, Δn being the birefringence of the liquid crystal at said optical wavelength.
Selecting the dimensions such as height and width directly affects the resonance of the layer (see e.g. paragraph [0048] of Akselrod et al.).
In regard to claim 12, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al. and Takama 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 Takama 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 Takama 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 Takama 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).
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 16, Travis discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
an electronic driving circuit board (DCB) 68 configured to apply 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, wherein the light only undergoes the phase-shift when it is confined in the liquid crystal, the phase shift being 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 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 plurality of conducting rails of the first and second beam-steering devices 44x, 44y extend along perpendicular directions (see e.g. Figure 10).
Claims 15 is 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 Takama et al. (US 2013/0063691 A1) in view of Akselrod et al. (US 2019/0285798 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 15, Travis, in view of Mocnizuki et al., Takama et al., and Akselrod 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., Takama et al., and Akselrod 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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