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 Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of informalities.
According to the guidelines set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i) which state: “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”. See MPEP §§ 608.01(i) and 608.01(m).
In the present case, Claims 1 and 15 present a list of elements and a list of steps, respectively, in which each line of text is indented. However, these claims are rendered more difficult to read due to the beginning of a new element or step being indented the same degree as all other lines of the text. See the annotated claims below showing arrows to denote lines of text which should be less indented for easier readability.
PNG
media_image1.png
192
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
260
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the phrase: “the partially reflective membrane is configured to a predetermined fraction of light that is passed when light strikes a surface of the first layer”. This phrase, as presently written, appears to be missing a word after the term “configured to”. Specifically, this phrase appears to be missing a verb following the term “configured to” which would convey to the reader what the partially reflective membrane is configured to do.
The Office’s best understanding is that the partially reflective membrane is configured to pass or transmit the “predetermined fraction of light” (see, e.g., paragraphs [0007], [0038], [0056] on pages 2, 7, 13 of Applicant’s originally-filed specification). Thus, for examination, this phrase will be treated as: “the partially reflective membrane is configured such that a predetermined fraction of light is passed when light strikes a surface of the first layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al., US 2013/0135705 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Hong discloses: A reflective display device comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a first layer comprising a partially reflective membrane (optical stack 16 includes a partially reflective layer; see paragraph [0038] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3-5, 9 of Hong, but see especially FIG. 3 of Hong);
a second layer for reflecting light (movable reflective layer 14; paragraph [0038] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong); and
at least one metal disposed on the second layer (deformable layer 34 is disposed on movable reflective layer 14, and deformable layer 34 may be formed from a flexible metal, such as nickel; paragraph [0044] and FIG. 3 of Hong);
wherein the first layer is coupled to the at least one metal (optical stack 16 is coupled to deformable layer 34 via posts/supports 18; paragraphs [0041], [0051] and FIG. 3 of Hong);
wherein the first layer and the second layer are separated by a gap ranging from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm in size (gap 19 [optical cavity] is formed between optical stack 16 and movable reflective layer 14, wherein gap 19 may be on the order of less than 10,000 Angstroms [1000 nm]; paragraph [0041] and FIG. 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the partially reflective membrane is configured to a predetermined fraction of light that is passed when light strikes a surface of the first layer (a portion of the light incident upon the optical stack 16 will be transmitted through the partially reflective layer of the optical stack 16; paragraph [0039] and FIG. 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 8, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the second layer comprises aluminum, silicon, glass, gold, rhodium, silver, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof (a highly conductive and reflective material, such as aluminum [Al], may be used for the movable reflective layer 14; paragraphs [0041], [0044] and FIG. 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 12, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses: wherein the device is configured to reflect light at predetermined wavelengths corresponding to the thickness of the gap (reflectance spectrums of interferometric modulators [IMODs] create fairly broad spectral bands which can be shifted across the visible wavelengths to generate different colors, wherein the position of the spectral band can be adjusted by changing the thickness of the optical resonant cavity; paragraphs [0035]-[0039], [0066] and FIG. 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 13, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: The device of claim 1, configured to be a pixel (pixels 12 are defined by individual units of the optical stack 16 and movable reflective layer 14 having the gap 19 [optical cavity] therebetween; paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0044] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 14, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses: wherein a size of the pixel ranges from about 1 micron to about 100 microns (spacing between posts/supports 18 [which define the individual pixels 12] may be on the order of 1 to 1,000 um [micrometers, i.e., microns]; paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0041], [0044] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 15, Hong discloses: A method for modifying light for display, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
transmitting at least a portion of the light through a first layer comprising a partially reflective membrane (optical stack 16 includes a partially reflective layer, wherein a portion of light 13 incident upon the optical stack 16 will be transmitted through the partially reflective layer of the optical stack 16; see paragraphs [0038], [0039] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3-5, 9 of Hong, but see especially FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong);
reflecting the transmitted light using a second layer (the portion of light 13 that is transmitted through the optical stack 16 will be reflected at the movable reflective layer 14; paragraph [0039] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong);
wherein the first layer and the second layer are separated by a gap ranging from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm in size (a gap 19 [optical cavity] is formed between optical stack 16 and movable reflective layer 14, wherein the gap 19 may be on the order of less than 10,000 Angstroms [1000 nm]; paragraph [0041] and FIG. 3 of Hong);
resonating the reflected light in the gap (interference [constructive or destructive] between the light reflected from the partially reflective layer of the optical stack 16 and the light reflected from the movable reflective layer 14; paragraph [0039] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong); and
outputting the resonated light at a predetermined wavelength (interference [constructive or destructive] between the light reflected from the partially reflective layer of the optical stack 16 and the light reflected from the movable reflective layer 14 will determine the wavelength(s) of light 15 reflected from the pixels 12; paragraphs [0035]-[0039], [0066] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong, but see especially paragraph [0039] of Hong).
Regarding Claim 16, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: further comprising changing an amplitude and a phase of the resonating light by tuning the size of the gap (changing the size of the gap would necessarily change the amplitude and phase of the light because it would increase or decrease the optical path length of the light, wherein a longer path will cause light to undergo greater losses due to absorption and dispersion, and thus lower the amplitude, and a longer path will result in a phase change of light because the lightwave oscillates through more cycles [or at least a greater partial cycle] due to the longer distance; paragraphs [0035]-[0039], [0066] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong).
Regarding Claim 19, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: further comprising forming at least one pixel using the first layer and the second layer (pixels 12 are defined by individual units of the optical stack 16 and movable reflective layer 14 having the gap 19 [optical cavity] therebetween; paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0044] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3 of Hong).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
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.
Claims 5-7, 9, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong.
Regarding Claims 5-7 and 17, Hong discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 15, but does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first layer is configured to be electrically actuated by applying a voltage thereto, or wherein the size of the gap is tuned by electronically actuating the first layer, or wherein one or more edges of the first layer are clamped for buckling thereof, or wherein a height of the buckling is configured to be tuned by adjusting an applied voltage.
However, it has been held that mere reversal of parts is generally considered to be an obvious modification of the prior art. MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, Subsection A, citing In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, Hong discloses a device comprising an adjustable-thickness resonance gap (i.e., a constructive/destructive interference optical cavity) which requires a semi-reflective layer to allow light into the gap, and a reflective layer to cause light to be “bounced” back and forth between the reflective layer and the semi-reflective layer, until the light finally exits the gap (see, e.g., paragraphs [0035]-[0039], [0066] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong). At least one of the upper boundary of the gap or the lower boundary of the gap must be able to be displaced (i.e., by applied voltage) for the gap to be adjustable in thickness. However, either boundary may be displaced to result in a change in gap thickness, and thus either the reflective layer OR the partially reflective [semi-reflective] layer may be the displaced/deformed layer to effectuate the change in gap thickness/size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the reflective layer and partially-reflective layer of Hong because doing so would result in the same functional device, i.e., an optical cavity based on a variable gap between a partially-reflective layer and a reflective layer, and note that in such configuration the first layer is configured to be electrically actuated by applying a voltage thereto, and the size of the gap is tuned by electronically actuating the first layer (Hong states: when the “applied voltage exceeds a threshold … the movable reflective layer 14 can deform and move near or against the optical stack 16”, but in reversing these layers/stacks, the optical stack would receive the voltage and would deform; paragraphs [0038], [0042] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3, 5 of Hong), and one or more edges of the first layer are clamped for buckling thereof (optical stack 16, placed in the position of movable reflective layer 14, would be clamped into place at its edges; FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3 of Hong), and wherein a height of the buckling is configured to be tuned by adjusting an applied voltage (Hong states: when the “applied voltage exceeds a threshold … the movable reflective layer 14 can deform and move near or against the optical stack 16”, but in reversing these layers/stacks, the optical stack would receive the voltage and would deform, and wherein a greater voltage is known to result in greater deformation; paragraphs [0038], [0042] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3, 5 of Hong).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose numerical dimensions of all layers, or spaces between layers, such that: wherein a thickness of the second layer ranges from about 100 nm to about 1000 nm, or wherein a thickness of the gap ranges from about 100 nm to about 300 nm.
It is believed that Hong contemplates such dimensions for the components of Hong (see at least Abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0041] of Hong, and discussion of such sections of Hong below). However, even if not, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Hong discloses a display device [and thus a device which benefits from miniaturization, i.e., smaller pixels for greater number of pixels per area], and discloses electromechanical systems at microscales and nanoscales, for example, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) of a micron, or nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) having sizes smaller than a micron, for example, several hundred nanometers, and Hong further discloses that the size of an individual pixel [i.e., the spacing between posts/supports 18] may be as small as 1 um [1 micron, i.e., 1000 nm] (see, e.g., Abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0041] of Hong).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed thicknesses for the reflective layer and gap of Hong because such dimensions are commensurate with the disclosed nanoscale device of Hong, and individual pixel size of Hong, in addition to the desired miniaturization of display device, as evidenced by Abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0041] of Hong.
Claims 2, 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Cummings et al., US 2012/0044563 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the partially reflective membrane comprises a film [or films] of metal (the optical stack 16 can include a single semi-transparent thickness of metal; paragraph [0040] and FIG. 3 of Hong).
Hong does not appear to explicitly disclose: the metal is a film of platinum, a film of titanium, or a combination thereof.
Cummings is related to Hong with respect to pixel display using reflective and semi-reflective layers having a gap therebetween.
Cummings teaches: the metal is a film of platinum, a film of titanium, or a combination thereof (partial reflector 16 may comprise chromium, titanium, and/or molybdenum; paragraph [0052] and FIGS. 1, 7A-7E of Cummings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the titanium of Cummings for the optical stack [partially-reflective layer] of Hong because such metal enables the partial reflector to additionally function as an electrode of the interferometric modulator [unit pixel], as taught in paragraph [0052] of Cummings.
Regarding Claim 3, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses: wherein a thickness of the film ranges from about 1 nm to about 50 nm (partial reflector may have a thickness in the range of about 60-100 Angstroms [6 to 10 nm]; paragraph [0055] of Hong).
Regarding Claim 18, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising adjusting a thickness of the first layer, wherein the thickness of the first layer ranges from about 1 nm to about 10 nm.
Cummings is related to Hong with respect to pixel display using reflective and semi-reflective layers having a gap therebetween.
Cummings teaches: further comprising adjusting a thickness of the first layer, wherein the thickness of the first layer ranges from about 1 nm to about 10 nm (the detailed description of Cummings explains that as a thickness of the partial reflector increases, the reflectivity of the partial reflector also increases, thus reducing the effectiveness of a dark state and limiting the contrast of the interferometric modulator [pixel unit], and therefore, in order to achieve a desired reflectivity of the partial reflector, in many embodiments reduction of a thickness of a partial reflector is desired, wherein a thickness of the partial reflector may be selected as about 60-100 Angstroms [6 to 10 nm]; paragraphs [0054], [0055] of Cummings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the thickness adjustment of Cummings for the optical stack [partial reflector] of Hong because reduction of thickness will enable avoiding [or minimizing] the contrast reduction problem, as taught in paragraph [0054] of Cummings.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Natarajan et al., US 2009/0002804 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Hong discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to disclose: wherein the gap is filled with water.
Natarajan is related to Hong with respect to pixel display using reflective and semi-reflective layers having a gap therebetween.
Natarajan teaches: wherein the gap is filled with water (cavity surfaces exposed by etching or otherwise removing a sacrificial material, treated with water vapor; paragraph [0095] and FIG. 10 of Natarajan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the water of Natarajan for the gap of Hong because water vapor reduces inter-device variation in at least one electrical property, for example, actuation voltage, release voltage, offset voltage, or window, as taught in paragraph [0093] of Natarajan.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872