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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/31/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 17 and 18 recite “polarsation state”. Correctly spelled “polarization state”. Appropriate spelling correction is required. For examination purposes “polarsation state” will be read as “polarization state”.
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 Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0371370).
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 (Figure 1 depicts: 105, reflective polarizer and 110, mirror, separated by distance z, wherein an actuation mechanism moves the mirror, the polarizer, or both to change the separation position of z, see [0023]), thereby altering a phase difference between the light of the first polarization state reflected by the polarization changing surface and the light of the second polarization state reflected by the mirror and re-transmitted through the polarization state such that the combined polarization state of light reflected by the apparatus is adjustable ([0025] discloses: one component is reflected by 105, reflective polarize while the orthogonal polarization component is transmitted toward 110, mirror, reflected by 110, mirror and transmitted back through 105, polarizer wherein the additional round up distance traveled by the mirror reflected component produces a relative phase delay dependent on separation z); and a mirror arranged such that the light of the second polarization state is re-transmitted through the same polarization changing surface and recombines with the light of the first polarization state reflected by the polarization changing surface to form a combined polarization state (Figure 1 depicts and [0023] discloses: 105, polarizer and 110, mirror, wherein one polarization component is reflected by 105, polarizer while orthogonal is transmitted toward 110, mirror that returns light and is transmitted back through 105, polarizer and is recombined at 105, polarizer with the polarization component initially reflected by 105, polarizer).
Bloom fails to disclose an apparatus with a polarization changing optical metasurface that simultaneously reflects light of a first polarization state, and transmits light of a second polarization state. Bloom and Ouderkirk are related because both disclose polarizing beam splitter apparatus.
Ouderkirk teaches an apparatus with a polarization changing optical metasurface ([0174] teaches: 462, incident light contains two orthogonal polarization components; [0175] teaches: 410, receives light and is configured to reflect horizontally polarized light and transmit vertically polarized light; [0175] teaches: 410, reflector may include a polarization element comprising a metasurface) that simultaneously (Examiner notes that the reflection/transmission of 426, incident light, is considered to occur concurrently at 410, selective reflector, see Figure 4) reflects light of a first polarization state, and transmits light of a second polarization state ([0175] teaches: 410, receives light and is configured to reflect horizontally polarized light and transmit vertically polarized light).
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 Bloom in view of Ouderkirk and provide an apparatus with a polarization changing optical metasurface that simultaneously reflects light of a first polarization state, and transmits light of a second polarization state. Doing so would allow for a more compact and lightweight polarization selective optical arrangement, thereby reducing the size and weight of the optical apparatus while maintaining polarization dependent reflection and transmission.
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 discover 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 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 state is orthogonal ([0024] discloses: 105, reflective polarizer, reflects orthogonal polarization, and transmits polarized light) to the second polarization state(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); such that the light of the second polarization state is re-transmitted through the same polarization changing surface and recombines with the light of the first polarization state reflected by the polarization changing surface to form a combined polarization state (Figure 1 depicts and [0023] discloses: 105, polarizer and 110, mirror, wherein one polarization component is reflected by 105, polarizer while orthogonal is transmitted toward 110, mirror that returns light and is transmitted back through 105, polarizer and is recombined at 105, polarizer with the polarization component initially reflected by 105, polarizer);
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 surface and the mirror thereby altering a phase difference between the light of the first polarization state reflected by the polarization changing surface and the light of the second polarization state reflected by the mirror and re-transmitted through the polarization changing surface such that the combined polarization state of light reflected by both the polarization changing surface 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 method with a polarization changing optical metasurface that simultaneously reflects light of a first polarization state, and transmits light of a second polarization state. Bloom and Ouderkirk are related because both disclose polarizing beam splitter apparatus.
Ouderkirk teaches a method with a polarization changing optical metasurface ([0174] teaches: 462, incident light contains two orthogonal polarization components; [0175] teaches: 410, receives light and is configured to reflect horizontally polarized light and transmit vertically polarized light; [0175] teaches: 410, reflector may include a polarization element comprising a metasurface) that simultaneously (Examiner notes that the reflection/transmission of 426, incident light, is considered to occur concurrently at 410, selective reflector, see Figure 4) reflects light of a first polarization state, and transmits light of a second polarization state ([0175] teaches: 410, receives light and is configured to reflect horizontally polarized light and transmit vertically polarized light).
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 Bloom in view of Ouderkirk and provide a method with a polarization changing optical metasurface that simultaneously reflects light of a first polarization state, and transmits light of a second polarization state. Doing so would allow for a more compact and lightweight polarization selective optical arrangement, thereby reducing the size and weight of the optical apparatus while maintaining polarization dependent reflection and transmission.
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 Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0371370), 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 Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0371370), 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).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2009/0237785, of record) in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0371370), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, in view of Mueller et al. (US 2018/0066991).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Bloom discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, configured to itself reflect light of the first polarization state, and transmit light of the second polarization state, wherein first polarization state is orthogonal to the second polarization state (Figure 1 depicts and [0023] discloses: 105, polarizer and 110, mirror, wherein one polarization component is reflected by 105, polarizer while orthogonal is transmitted toward 110, mirror that returns light and is transmitted back through 105, polarizer and is recombined at 105, polarizer with the polarization component initially reflected by 105, polarizer).
Bloom fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the polarization changing OMS comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength structures. Bloom and Mueller are related because both disclose polarizing selective components.
Mueller teaches an apparatus wherein the polarization changing OMS comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength structures configured to itself reflect light of the first polarization state, and transmit light of the second polarization state, wherein first polarization state is orthogonal to the second polarization state (Figure 1 depicts and [0023] discloses: 105, polarizer and 110, mirror, wherein one polarization component is reflected by 105, polarizer while orthogonal is transmitted toward 110, mirror that returns light and is transmitted back through 105, polarizer and is recombined at 105, polarizer with the polarization component initially reflected by 105, polarizer).
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 Bloom in view of Mueller and provide an apparatus wherein the polarization changing OMS comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength structures. Doing so would allow for the polarization selective functionality to be implemented in a compact, integrated structure, thereby reducing device size while maintaining polarization dependent interaction with the incident light.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Bloom discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, configured to itself reflect light of the first polarization state, and transmit light of the second polarization state, wherein first polarization state is orthogonal to the second polarization state.
Bloom fails to disclose a method wherein the polarization changing OMS comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength structures. Bloom and Mueller are related because both disclose polarizing selective components.
Mueller teaches a method wherein the polarization changing OMS ([0005] teaches: polarization selective antenna arrays; [0046] teaches arrays formed using metasurfaces) comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength structures ([0074] teaches: two columns of subwavelength spaced rod antennas)
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 Bloom in view of Mueller and provide a method a method wherein the polarization changing OMS comprises a two-dimensional array of sub-wavelength structures. Doing so would allow for the polarization selective functionality to be implemented in a compact, integrated structure, thereby reducing device size while maintaining polarization dependent interaction with the incident light.
Compact Prosecution
Examiner notes that in light of the prior art found. Examiner recommends to combine the limitations of claim 6 and claim 17 into claim 1; Example “wherein the polarization changing OMS comprises a two-dimensional periodically repeating array of subwavelength nanostructures, wherein the first and second reflection/transmission factors of the polarization changing OMS are independent of the separation between the polarization changing OMS and the mirror, and wherein the polarization changing OMS is arranged to transmit less than 10% of the light of the first polarization state and more than 40% of the light of the second polarization state”, if supported by the specification, to tie the specific structure to a functional aspect. Such amendment would likely overcome the rejection of record, subject to the specific amendment presented and further consideration of the prior art.
Conclusion 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 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights