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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 6/24/2026. In that response, Applicant amended the specification, amended the drawings, and added new claim 21.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/663,808 filed on 5/14/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been overcome.
Specification
The objection to the specification has been overcome.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foo (US 2018/0083364, hereinafter, “Foo”).
Regarding claim 1, Foo discloses an optical member comprising, in the following order (Fig. 3):
a reflective layer 122 (Fig. 3, [0006]);
a liquid crystal layer 146 that includes a liquid crystal compound 602 (Fig. 1, 3, 6, [0030]); and
a meta surface structure 100 where a plurality of microstructures 106 are arranged (Fig. 1, 3, 4, [0025], [0030]-[0031]);
wherein an in-plane refractive index of the liquid crystal layer continuously changes according to a region of the meta surface structure where two or more microstructures arranged adjacent to each other are present (Fig. 6, 11, [0035]. Here, according to the present specification, the in-plane refractive index of the LC layer continuously changes along the X direction, i.e., along successive microstructures, by changing the orientation of the LC rods, see Fig, 1. This is the same as shown in Fig. 6 of Foo, where the orientation of the rods 602 changes from horizontal to vertical, across a period, i.e., across 3 patches 140. In Fig. 6 of Foo, the orientation of the LC molecules 602 changes from the left to the right so that the refractive index also changes accordingly).
Regarding claim 2, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1, wherein
all of the plurality of microstructures 106 have the same structure (Fig. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 3, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of microstructures are arranged at regular intervals (Fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 5, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1, wherein
in the liquid crystal layer 146, an angle between an optical axis of the liquid crystal compound 602 and a main surface of the liquid crystal layer continuously changes (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1, wherein
a direction in which the in-plane refractive index continuously changes in the liquid crystal layer and an arrangement direction of the microstructures in the meta surface structure match with each other (Fig. 6, see direction of 140’s and 602’s).
Regarding claim 7, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1, wherein
in a case where a region of the liquid crystal layer where the in-plane refractive index changes from a maximum value to a minimum value is set as a single period (Fig. 6, from left end to right end), the liquid crystal layer repeatedly includes the single period (including the three 140’s) in at least one direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 2, wherein
the plurality of microstructures are arranged at regular intervals (Fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 11, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 2, wherein
in the liquid crystal layer 146, an angle between an optical axis of the liquid crystal compound 602 and a main surface of the liquid crystal layer continuously changes (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 2, wherein
a direction in which the in-plane refractive index continuously changes in the liquid crystal layer and an arrangement direction of the microstructures in the meta surface structure match with each other (Fig. 6, see direction of 140’s and 602’s).
Regarding claim 13, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 2, wherein
in a case where a region of the liquid crystal layer where the in-plane refractive index changes from a maximum value to a minimum value is set as a single period (Fig. 6, from left end to right end), the liquid crystal layer repeatedly includes the single period (including the three 140’s) in at least one direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 3, wherein
in the liquid crystal layer 146, an angle between an optical axis of the liquid crystal compound 602 and a main surface of the liquid crystal layer continuously changes (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 3, wherein
a direction in which the in-plane refractive index continuously changes in the liquid crystal layer and an arrangement direction of the microstructures in the meta surface structure match with each other (Fig. 6, see direction of 140’s and 602’s).
Regarding claim 18, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 3, wherein
in a case where a region of the liquid crystal layer where the in-plane refractive index changes from a maximum value to a minimum value is set as a single period (Fig. 6, from left end to right end), the liquid crystal layer repeatedly includes the single period (including the three 140’s) in at least one direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 4, wherein
in the liquid crystal layer 146, an angle between an optical axis of the liquid crystal compound 602 and a main surface of the liquid crystal layer continuously changes (Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 8, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo.
Regarding claim 8, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1.
Foo does not disclose a wavelength of target electromagnetic waves is 10 μm to 1 cm.
However, Foo discloses that meta surface element 100 is used to reflect microwave frequencies, i.e., wavelengths in the range 1 mm to 1 m ([0034]-[0035]).
The parameter of the wavelength of the reflected light is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting optical propagation properties, see [0003] in Foo.
Foo discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the reflected wavelength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo so that the reflected wavelength lies within the claimed range, 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, the reflected wavelength is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the propagation characteristics.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the range of the reflected wavelength 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”.
Regarding claim 14, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 2.
Foo does not disclose a wavelength of target electromagnetic waves is 10 μm to 1 cm.
However, Foo discloses that meta surface element 100 is used to reflect microwave frequencies, i.e., wavelengths in the range 1 mm to 1 m ([0034]-[0035]).
The parameter of the wavelength of the reflected light is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting optical propagation properties, see [0003] in Foo.
Foo discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the reflected wavelength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo so that the reflected wavelength lies within the claimed range, 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, the reflected wavelength is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the propagation characteristics.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the range of the reflected wavelength 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”.
Regarding claim 19, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 3.
Foo does not disclose a wavelength of target electromagnetic waves is 10 μm to 1 cm.
However, Foo discloses that meta surface element 100 is used to reflect microwave frequencies, i.e., wavelengths in the range 1 mm to 1 m ([0034]-[0035]).
The parameter of the wavelength of the reflected light is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting optical propagation properties, see [0003] in Foo.
Foo discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the reflected wavelength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo so that the reflected wavelength lies within the claimed range, 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, the reflected wavelength is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the propagation characteristics.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the range of the reflected wavelength 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”.
Claims 4, 10, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo in view of Nagai et al. (US 2012/0251781, hereinafter, “Nagai”).
Regarding claim 4, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1.
Foo does not disclose wherein in the liquid crystal layer, the liquid crystal compound is immobilized.
Nagai discloses a laminate film used in liquid crystal display devices ([0281]). In one embodiment, an optically anisotropic layer is formed of a liquid crystal composition that includes rod-shaped liquid crystal compounds ([0283]). The liquid crystal compounds are immobilized at the desired aligned state ([0405]).
Foo and Nagai disclose optical components utilizing liquid crystal layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo, so that the liquid crystal rods 602 are immobilized, as taught by Nagai, for achieving the desired optical (i.e., reflection) properties of the liquid crystal layer with the liquid crystal compounds turned at the desired fixed angle ([0405] in Nagai).
Regarding claim 10, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 2.
Foo does not disclose wherein in the liquid crystal layer, the liquid crystal compound is immobilized.
Nagai discloses a laminate film used in liquid crystal display devices ([0281]). In one embodiment, an optically anisotropic layer is formed of a liquid crystal composition that includes rod-shaped liquid crystal compounds ([0283]). The liquid crystal compounds are immobilized at the desired aligned state ([0405]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo, so that the liquid crystal rods 602 are immobilized, as taught by Nagai, for achieving the desired optical (i.e., reflection) properties of the liquid crystal layer with the liquid crystal compounds turned at the desired fixed angle ([0405] in Nagai).
Regarding claim 15, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 3.
Foo does not disclose wherein in the liquid crystal layer, the liquid crystal compound is immobilized.
Nagai discloses a laminate film used in liquid crystal display devices ([0281]). In one embodiment, an optically anisotropic layer is formed of a liquid crystal composition that includes rod-shaped liquid crystal compounds ([0283]). The liquid crystal compounds are immobilized at the desired aligned state ([0405]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo, so that the liquid crystal rods 602 are immobilized, as taught by Nagai, for achieving the desired optical (i.e., reflection) properties of the liquid crystal layer with the liquid crystal compounds turned at the desired fixed angle ([0405] in Nagai).
Regarding claim 21, Foo discloses the optical member according to claim 1.
Foo does not disclose wherein the liquid crystal layer is layer obtained by polymerizing and immobilizing a polymerizable rod-like liquid crystal compound.
Nagai discloses a laminate film used in liquid crystal display devices ([0281]). In one embodiment, an optically anisotropic layer is formed of a liquid crystal composition that includes rod-shaped liquid crystal compounds ([0283]). The liquid crystal compounds are polymerized and immobilized at the desired aligned state ([0405]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Foo, so that the liquid crystal rods 602 are polymerized and immobilized, as taught by Nagai, for achieving the desired optical (i.e., reflection) properties of the liquid crystal layer with the liquid crystal compounds turned at the desired fixed angle ([0405] in Nagai).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 Applicant stated “FIG. 6 above, i.e., paragraph [0036], it is described that " may change its dielectric properties due to different orientations of the molecules 602 caused by application of electrostatic field between the microstrip patches 140 and 142 as represented in the three images of FIG. 6," which merely mentions that three orientation states may be taken. More specifically, FIG. 6 merely shows that the orientation state of the liquid crystal compound in one cell may be changed by varying the voltage (see relevant portion of Foo, paragraph [0035] below). Therefore, Foo does not describe the embodiment in which "an in-plane refractive index continuously changes" in one direction, e.g., "the in-plane refractive index continuously changes in the X direction that is the arrangement direction of the resonators 20" as described in paragraph [0044] of the present application”, see p. 11 of the Remarks.
Applicant's above argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. As discussed above, in [0035], Foo suggests that the orientation of the LC molecules may change between states, positionally, in one direction, thus, reading on the features of claim 1.
Regarding new claim 21, Applicant stated that “As described above, considering the purpose of the technique of Foo, the technique of fixing the liquid crystal compound could not be applied to Foo. Therefore, new Claim 21 would not be achieved from the reading of Foo”, see p. 12 of the Remarks.
It is noted that in response to Applicant's above argument against the references individually (i.e., the references having different purposes), one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection of claim 1 and its dependents is maintained.
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights