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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li discloses a metasurface that is either reflective or transmissive, and therefore does not disclose the OMS that reflects light of a first polarization state while transmitting light of a second polarization state.
Regarding applicants argument that “Li discloses a metasurface that is either reflective or transmissive, and therefore does not disclose the OMS that reflects light of a first polarization state while transmitting light of a second polarization state”. This argument is misguided. The rejection does not rely on Li alone for the selective reflection and transmission of different polarization states. Rather, Bloom discloses reflective polarizer, which transmits one polarization component and reflects and orthogonal polarization component, with the transmitted polarization component being reflected by the mirror and recombined with the polarization component reflected by the reflective polarizer. Li is relied upon for teaching that a polarization changing optical surface element or light conversion element may be implemented as a metasurface. Thus, the proposed combination modifies Bloom’s polarization changing optical surface reflective polarizer to be implemented as an optical metasurface, while retaining Bloom’s disclosed function of reflecting one polarization state and transmitting a different polarization state. Applicants argument attacks Li individually and does not address the combined teaching of Bloom and Li. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").The rejection under U.S.C. § 103, remains appropriate.
(Applicant may overcome the present rejection by amending the independent claims to include: the OMS comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength nanostructures configure to itself predominantly reflect a first linearly polarization and predominantly transmit an orthogonal second linear polarizing, or similar, if supported by the specification; Applicant may further recite that the transmitted second polarization is reflected by a MEMS mirror and retransmitted through the same OMS, with movement of the MEMS mirror relative to the OMS varying and air gap to tune the phase differences between the recombined polarizing components, to further distinguish the OMS of the instant application over the prior art, if supported by the specification)
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 1-5 and 7-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2009/0237785, of record) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0099861, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Bloom discloses an apparatus (Figure 1) for adjustably changing the polarization state of incident light having at least a first wavelength ([0024] discloses: one polarization and its orthogonal; Examiner notes that these polarized counterparts are considered to be of the same wavelength, considered the first wavelength), the apparatus comprising: a polarization changing optical surface ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, 110, mirror, that alters the optical path of light; in at least abstract discloses: wave plate imparts a relative phase delay on polarization components if incident light, thereby transforming the overall polarization of the light) arranged to reflect light of a first polarization state ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, reflects orthogonal polarization), and to transmit light of a second polarization state ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, transmits one polarization, orthogonal to the reflected polarization), said second polarization state being different to said first polarization state (Examiner notes that the first and second polarizations are orthogonal to each other, and considered to be different); and a mirror arranged to reflect the transmitted light of the second polarization state ([0023] discloses: 110, mirror), wherein the apparatus is arranged to move the mirror and/or the polarization changing OMS relative to one another to alter a separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror ([0023] discloses: mirror may move, to change separation), thereby altering a phase difference between the light reflected by the polarization changing OMS and the light reflected by the mirror such that a combined polarization state of light reflected by the apparatus is adjustable (in at least abstract discloses: wave plate imparts phase delay on polarization components if incident light thereby transforming the overall polarization of light).
Bloom fails to disclose a polarization changing optical metasurface (OMS). Bloom and Li are related because both teach an apparatus for changing the polarization state of incident light.
Li teaches an apparatus for changing the polarization state of incident light (Figure 2), wherein the polarization changing optical surface is a polarization changing optical metasurface (OMS) ([0032] disclose: metasurface, light conversion element that may be reflective or transmissive of linearly polarized light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Bloom to incorporate the teachings of Li and provide wherein the polarization changing optical surface is a polarization changing optical metasurface. Doing so would allow for regulation and control of polarized light and for a vector light field distribution with a sub-wavelength special resolution (Li: [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polarization changing OMS is configured to predominantly reflect light of the first polarization ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, transmits one polarization, orthogonal to the reflected polarization), and transmit light of the second polarization ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, reflects orthogonal polarization), independent of the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror (Figure 1 depicts and [0024] discloses: reflective polarizer works independent of mirror to transmit one polarization and reflects the orthogonal polarization; Examiner note that this process happens entirely before the incident light hits the mirror).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bloom fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is arranged such that said separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a minimum value of at least 10% of the first wavelength. However, choosing a separation distance between the optical surface and the mirror is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Bloom teaches adjusting mirror separation to control phase retardation and thereby tune optical output polarization, see [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design the apparatus arranges such that said separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a minimum value of at least 10% of the first wavelength since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing an optical surface and mirror separation described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized surface distance relative to wavelength, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus that is arranged such that said separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a minimum value of at least 10% of the first wavelength represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bloom fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is arranged such that the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a maximum value of at most 10 times the first wavelength. However, choosing a separation distance between the optical surface and the mirror is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Bloom teaches adjusting mirror separation to control phase retardation and thereby tune optical output polarization, see [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus that is arranged such that the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a maximum value of at most 10 times the first wavelength since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing an optical surface and mirror separation described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized surface distance relative to wavelength, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus that is arranged such that the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a maximum value of at most 10 times the first wavelength represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bloom fails to disclose wherein the apparatus is arranged to alter the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror between respective minimum and maximum values which differ by at least 9/10 of the first wavelength. However, choosing a separation distance between the optical surface and the mirror is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Bloom teaches adjusting mirror separation to control phase retardation and thereby tune optical output polarization, see [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus that is arranged to alter the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror between respective minimum and maximum values which differ by at least 9/10 of the first wavelength since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing an optical surface and mirror separation described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized surface distance relative to wavelength, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus that is arranged to alter the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror between respective minimum and maximum values which differ by at least 9/10 of the first wavelength represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, the modified bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polarization changing OMS is arranged such that the first polarization is orthogonal ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, reflects orthogonal polarization, and transmits polarized light) to the second polarization (Examiner notes that the first and second polarization are considered to be orthogonal).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, arranged to move the mirror relative to the polarization changing OMS ([0019] discloses: mirror that moves to adjust separation between mirror and polarizer, the optical surface).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the mirror is a Micro-electromechanical systems mirror ([0019] discloses: mirror is a MEMS mirror).
Regarding claim 12, Bloom discloses a method of adjustably changing the polarization state of incident light having at least a first wavelength ([0024] discloses: one polarization and its orthogonal; Examiner notes that these polarized counterparts are considered to be of the same wavelength, considered the first wavelength), the method comprising: reflecting light from said incident light having a first polarization state ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, reflects orthogonal polarization) with a polarization changing optical surface ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, 110, mirror, that alters the optical path of light; in at least abstract discloses: wave plate imparts a relative phase delay on polarization components if incident light, thereby transforming the overall polarization of the light); transmitting light from said incident light having a second polarization state ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, transmits one polarization, orthogonal to the reflected polarization) through said polarization changing optical surface, said second polarization state being different to said first polarization state (Examiner notes that the first and second polarizations are orthogonal to each other, and considered to be different); reflecting the transmitted light of the second polarization state with a mirror (Figure 1 depicts: reflected light transmitted by 105, reflective polarizer with 110, mirror); moving the mirror ([0023] discloses: mirror may move, to change separation) and/or the polarization changing OMS in order to alter a separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror thereby altering a phase difference between the light reflected by the polarization changing OMS and the light reflected by the mirror such that a combined polarization state of light reflected by both the polarization changing OMS and the mirror is adjusted (in at least abstract discloses: wave plate imparts phase delay on polarization components if incident light thereby transforming the overall polarization of light).
Bloom fails to disclose a polarization changing OMS. Bloom and Li are related because both teach an apparatus for changing the polarization state of incident light.
Li teaches an apparatus for changing the polarization state of incident light (Figure 2), wherein the polarization changing optical surface is a polarization changing optical metasurface (OMS) ([0032] disclose: metasurface, light conversion element that may be reflective or transmissive of linearly polarized light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Bloom to incorporate the teachings of Li and provide wherein the polarization changing optical surface is a polarization changing optical metasurface. Doing so would allow for regulation and control of polarized light and for a vector light field distribution with a sub-wavelength special resolution (Li: [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Bloom disclose the method as claimed in claim 12, comprising moving the mirror relative to the polarization changing OMS ([0019] discloses: mirror that moves to adjust separation between mirror and polarizer, the optical surface).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Bloom disclose the method as claimed in claim 12.
Bloom fails to disclose a method wherein the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a minimum value of at least 10% of the first wavelength. However, choosing a separation distance between the optical surface and the mirror is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Bloom teaches adjusting mirror separation to control phase retardation and thereby tune optical output polarization, see [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design a method wherein the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a minimum value of at least 10% of the first wavelength since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing an optical surface and mirror separation described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized surface distance relative to wavelength, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a method wherein the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a minimum value of at least 10% of the first wavelength represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Bloom disclose the method as claimed in claim 12.
Bloom fails to disclose a method wherein the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a maximum value of at most 10 times the first wavelength. However, choosing a separation distance between the optical surface and the mirror is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Bloom teaches adjusting mirror separation to control phase retardation and thereby tune optical output polarization, see [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design a method wherein the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a maximum value of at most 10 times the first wavelength since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing an optical surface and mirror separation described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized surface distance relative to wavelength, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a method wherein the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror has a maximum value of at most 10 times the first wavelength represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bloom discloses the method as claimed in claim 12.
Bloom fails to disclose a method comprising altering the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror between respective minimum and maximum values which differ by at least 9/10 of the first wavelength. However, choosing a separation distance between the optical surface and the mirror is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Bloom teaches adjusting mirror separation to control phase retardation and thereby tune optical output polarization, see [0032]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design a method comprising altering the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror between respective minimum and maximum values which differ by at least 9/10 of the first wavelength since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing an optical surface and mirror separation described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized surface distance relative to wavelength, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a method comprising altering the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror between respective minimum and maximum values which differ by at least 9/10 of the first wavelength represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2009/0237785, of record) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0099861, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Davis et al. (US 2022/0035002, of record).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bloom fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the polarization changing OMS is arranged to transmit less than 10% of the light of the first polarization state, and to transmit more than 40% of the light of the second polarization state. However, optimizing transmission and reflectance of an optical surface is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Davis teaches in [0017] the percentages of reflected and polarized light may be optimally configured and as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting an apparatus wherein the polarization changing OMS is arranged to transmit less than 10% of the light of the first polarization state, and to transmit more than 40% of the light of the second polarization state and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to an apparatus wherein the polarization changing OMS is arranged to transmit less than 10% of the light of the first polarization state, and to transmit more than 40% of the light of the second polarization state since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2009/0237785, of record) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0099861, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chen-Ho et al. (US 2020/0341180, of record).
Regarding claim 10, The modified Bloom discloses a system comprising: an apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bloom fails to disclose a light source configured to emit light of at least a first wavelength containing the first polarization state and the second polarization state; wherein the light source and apparatus are arranged such that the light emitted by the light source is incident on the apparatus. Bloom and Chen-Ho are related because both disclose optical systems.
Chen-Ho teaches disclose a light source configured to emit light of at least a first wavelength containing the first polarization state and the second polarization state ([0052] teaches: polarized light source, to emit different polarization states); wherein the light source and apparatus are arranged such that the light emitted by the light source is incident on the apparatus ([0052] teaches: light source incident on retroreflector).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bloom to incorporate the teachings of Chen-Ho and provide a light source configured to emit light of at least a first wavelength containing the first polarization state and the second polarization state; wherein the light source and apparatus are arranged such that the light emitted by the light source is incident on the apparatus. Doing so would allow for the polarization changing apparatus of Bloom to receive incident light containing the required polarized components, thereby enabling the system to operate as intended for polarization control.
Regarding claim 11, The modified Bloom discloses the system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the light source is configured to emit linearly polarized light (Chen-Ho: [0052] teaches: linearly polarized light; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 10, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights