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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 8-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended such that they now require the limitation “the first electric connector is a first electrode lead, which is led outwards from one end of the conductive wires near the center of the second electrode layer, the conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead; the curved segment is an arc, and the spacing between adjacent curved segments is equal or unequal”.
The specification describes four different electrode arrangements to form a liquid crystal lens. A first arrangement (as shown in figures 3 and 8) in which the first electric connector is a first electrode lead, which is led outwards from one end of the conductive wires near the center of the second electrode layer, the conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead, a second arrangement (shown in figure 6) in which a single conductive wire extends from the center of the lens to the outside of the lens in a continuous spiral which can be obtained from the first to third spiral equations (see paragraphs 64-88 of spec), a third arrangement (shown in figure 5) in which the conductive wire comprises multiple conductive wires each of which extends from the center of the lens to the outside of the lens in a continuous spiral which can be obtained from the first to third spiral equations (see paragraphs 62 and 65-88 of spec) and which has rotational symmetry (see paragraph 62 of spec), and a fourth arrangement (shown in figure 12) in which the conductive wire comprises a single conductive wire which extends in a continuous spiral and the second electrode layer further comprises several equipotential wires which are a series of concentric circles with different radii connected to the conductive wire (see paragraph 104 of spec). The specification as originally filed does not teach or describe any embodiments in which:
The conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead while also having rotational symmetry around appoint in the second electrode layer (as required by claim 3).
The conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead while also satisfying one of the first to third helix equations (as required by claim 8).
The conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead while also comprising several equipotential wires electrically connected to the conducive wire at different positions along the conductive wire (as required by claim 9 and claims 10-12 which depend from claim 9).
As noted above, the specification as originally filed fails to teach any teaching or embodiment in which the conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead while also teaching a second electrode with: rotational symmetry, a shape satisfying one of the first to third helix equations, and/or equipotential wires. Consequently, the original specification fails to reasonably convey that the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as now claimed at the time of filing. This is a new matter rejection.
Claims 10-12 are rejected due to their dependency.
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, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian (US Pub. 20230004050) in view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. 20070279539, Suzuki).
As per claim 1, Galstian teaches (in figures 7B-8A) a liquid crystal lens, comprising a liquid crystal layer (“liquid crystal material”, paragraph 18), a first electrode layer (uniform electrode arrangement”, paragraph 18), a second electrode layer (“stepped electrode arrangement”, formed as a modified spiral see paragraphs 18, 21, 126, and 128), a first transparent substrate (bottom substrate as shown in figure 7b), and a second transparent substrate (top substrate as shown in figure 7b), wherein the first electrode layer (uniform electrode arrangement”, paragraph 18) and the second electrode layer (“stepped electrode arrangement”, see paragraphs 18, 21, and 126-129), a first transparent substrate (bottom substrate as shown in figure 7b) are respectively located on opposite sides of the liquid crystal layer, the first transparent substrate is positioned on one side of the first electrode layer opposite to the liquid crystal layer, and the second transparent substrate is positioned on one side of the second electrode layer opposite to the liquid crystal layer; the second electrode layer includes a first electrical connector (“internal electric contact 2”, see figure 8a) a second electrical connector (“external electric contact 1”, see figure 8a), and one or more conductive wires (turns of the ITO spiral between the external electric contact and the internal electric contact), the conductive wires extend from the center of the second electrode layer towards the periphery, one end of the conductive wires is electrically connected to the first electrical connector, and the opposite end is connected to the second electrical connector (see figure 8a), the first electrical connector provides a first driving voltage to the end portions of the conductive wires electrically connected thereto, while the second electrical connector provides a second driving voltage to the end portions of the conductive wires electrically connected thereto (see paragraph 127) the first electric connector (“internal electric contact 2”, see figure 8a) is a first electrode lead, which is led outwards from one end of the conductive wires near the center of the second electrode layer, the conductive wire comprises multiple curved segments (turns of the ITO spiral between the external electric contact and the internal electric contact) arranged from outer to inner, each curved segment is disconnected at the electrode lead, the curved segment is an arc, and the spacing between adjacent curved segments is equal or unequal (see figure 8A).
Galstian does not explicitly teach that the spacing between adjacent conductive wires is equal to or less than 100μm.
However, Galstian teaches that the spacing between adjacent conductive wires is a result effective variable in that it in combination with the other variables determines the liquid crystal spatial distribution and thereby the lens effect of the liquid crystal lens (paragraphs 21 and 140).
Additionally, Suzuki teaches (in figure 4) teaches that it is known to form the spacing between conductive wires (core electrode 20, ring electrodes 21 and peripheral electrode 22) to be less than 100 µm (3µm taught in paragraph 143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spacing between adjacent conductive wires to be equal to or less than 100μm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 2, Galstian teaches (in figures 7B-8A) that the first electrical connector (“internal electric contact 2”, see figure 8a) is used to provide the same driving voltage to the end portions of each conductive wire electrically connected thereto, and/or the second electrical connector (“external electric contact 1”, see figure 8a) is used to provide the same driving voltage to the end portions of each conductive wire electrically connected thereto, and/or the second electrical connector is in the form of a perforated electrode (see figures and paragraphs 126-129).
As per claim 4, Galstian teaches (in figures 7B-8A) that the outermost curved segment is connected to the second electric connector (“external electric contact 1”, see figure 8a) at one end and connected to the adjacent curved segment on the same side as the first electrode lead at the opposite end, the end of the curved segment closest to the center of the second electrode layer is electrically connected to the first electrode lead at one end and connected to the adjacent segment on the same side as the first electrode lead at the opposite end, the remaining curved segments are connected to an adjacent curved segment on the same side as the first electrode lead at one end and connected to another adjacent curved segment on the same side as the first electrode lead at the opposite end (see figure 8A).
As per claim 6, Galstian teaches (in figures 7B-8A) that the spacing between adjacent curved segments satisfies a potential distribution formed by the liquid crystal lens to be a spherical distribution, a conical distribution, or a parabolic distribution (by driving the contacts at specific potentials with specific phases a parabolic distribution can be obtained, see figure 11b and paragraph 137-138).
As per claim 7, Galstian teaches (in figures 7B-8A) that the shape of the conductive wires (turns of the ITO spiral between the external electric contact and the internal electric contact) is a spiral (see figure 8A).
As per claim 13, Galstian teaches (in figures 7A-8A) a high-resistance film (HDCL paragraph 118) is provided between the second electrode layer (“stepped electrode arrangement”, see paragraphs 18, 21, 126, and 128) and the liquid crystal layer (see figure 7b).
As per claim 14, Galstian teaches (in figures 7A-8A) an insulating layer (HDCL paragraph 118) is provided between the second electrode layer (“stepped electrode arrangement”, see paragraphs 18, 21, 126, and 128) and the liquid crystal layer (see figure 7b).
As per claim 15, Galstian teaches (in figures 7A-8A) a high-resistance film is provided between the insulating layer and the liquid crystal layer (Galstian teaches forming the HDCL to comprise multiple layers, see paragraph 125).
As per claim 16, Galstian teaches eyeglasses, comprising the liquid crystal lens according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and figures 16a-16b and paragraph 159).
As per claim 17, Galstian teaches a VR device, comprising the liquid crystal lens according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and figures 16a-16b and paragraph 159).
As per claim 18, Galstian teaches an AR device, comprising the liquid crystal lens according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above and figures 16a-16b and paragraph 159).
As per claim 19, Galstian teaches an electronic product, comprising a control circuit (miniature driver 5) and the liquid crystal lens according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit is electrically connected to the liquid crystal lens (see rejection of claim 1 above and figures 16a-16b and paragraph 159).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galstian (US Pub. 20230004050) in view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. 20070279539, Suzuki) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hashimoto (US Pub. 20080002139).
As per claim 20, Galstian in view of Suzuki does not teach a driving method for liquid crystal lens, used for driving the liquid crystal lens according to claim 1, wherein the voltage applied between the first electrode layer and the first electrical connector is denoted as V1, and the voltage applied between the second electrical connector and the first electrode layer 20 is denoted as V2, the method comprises the following steps of: S1: obtaining a linear response voltage range of the liquid crystal lens; S2: determining a minimum voltage Vmin and a maximum voltage Vmax within the linear response voltage range of the liquid crystal lens; S3: adjusting the voltage difference between V1 and V2 based on the minimum voltage Vmin and maximum voltage Vmax to control the focal power of the liquid crystal lens, wherein Vmin<V1< Vmax and Vmin< V2 < Vmax.
However, Hashimoto teaches (in figures 1-7) a driving method for liquid crystal lens, wherein the voltage applied between a first electrode layer (transparent counter electrode 108) and a first electrical connector (connection from power supply 20 to ring 201) is denoted as V1, and the voltage applied between a second electrical connector (connection from power supply 20 to ring 215) and the first electrode layer is denoted as V2, the method comprises the following steps of: S1: obtaining a linear response voltage range of the liquid crystal lens (see figure 7 and paragraph 82); S2: determining a minimum voltage Vmin (V2) and a maximum voltage Vmax (V1) within the linear response voltage range of the liquid crystal lens, S3: adjusting the voltage difference between V1 and V2 based on the minimum voltage Vmin and maximum voltage Vmax to control the focal power of the liquid crystal lens, wherein Vmin≤ V1 ≤ Vmax and Vmin≤ V2 ≤ Vmax (see figure 7 and paragraphs 82-85) in order to allow for easier control of the liquid crystal lens (see paragraph 101).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the lens of Galstian in view of Suzuki in the manner suggested by Hashimoto.
The motivation would have been to allow for easier control of the liquid crystal lens.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that each of the curved segments forms a circular arc having a constant radius for each curved segment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, and as shown in the rejection above the claim as written only requires that the curve segment is an arc and as such includes any device in which the curved segment forms a continuous curved shape. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In the event applicant were to amend the claim to recite the limitation “each of the curved segments forms a circular arc having a constant radius for each curved segment” it is noted that the specification does not appear to support such a limitation as no details are given to the radii of the curved segments in figures 3 and 8 beyond that the distance between the curved segments may be equal or unequal (paragraphs 95 and 97).
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 ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights