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 .
As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments.
Priority
The present application, 18/762131, claims priority to Provisional Application 63/512187, filed on July 6, 2023. The claim for priority through this chain is acknowledged as properly supported under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Similarly, Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,636,526 to Julius Feinleib (hereafter Feinleib) in view of US 11,187,889 B2 to Abram L. Falk, et al. (hereafter Falk).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Feinleib discloses a data storage system (Disclosing a data storage system: Feinleib, col.1:3-4), comprising:
a high power laser able to form a laser beam (A high powered laser source: Feinleib, col.2:3) at a first wavelength (The first laser having a wavelength of 1,000Å: Feinleib, col.3:20-21);
a second laser (A second laser: Feinleib, col.3:7-11) able to form a write laser beam at a second wavelength (The second laser operating at 6,000Å: Feinleib, col.3:17);
a 2D patternable light valve
having a phase change material (The laser operating on a phase change material: Feinleib, col.3:1-4)
responsive to the write laser beam at the second wavelength (The phase change material being responsive to the first wavelength: Feinleib, col.3:13-15), and
non-responsive at the first wavelength (Teaching using a third pulse to erase the data storage, suggesting the data storage is unaffected by, and therefore non-responsive to, the reading pulse: Feinleib, col.2:18-20).
Feinleib discloses a data storage medium consisting of an amorphous film, not a 2D patternable light valve. Falk, however, discloses a spatial light modulator comprising a phase change material embedded within an optical resonator, describing a patternable light valve (Falk, col.3:4-6). Falk teaches using optical valves including a phase change material can be scaled down to true nanoscale while providing additional benefits such as nonvolatility and the ability to produce reflective displays that don’t consume energy (Falk, col.3:7-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the modern with optical valve of Falk with the long established optical data storage system of Feinleib, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Feinleib discloses a method of storing data (Disclosing a data storage system: Feinleib, col.1:3-4), comprising:
generating a laser beam at a first wavelength (The first laser having a wavelength of 1,000Å: Feinleib, col.3:20-21);
using a second laser (A second laser: Feinleib, col.3:7-11) able to form a write laser beam at a second wavelength (The second laser operating at 6,000Å: Feinleib, col.3:17); and
writing on a phase change material (The laser operating on a phase change material: Feinleib, col.3:1-4)
responsive to a write beam at a second wavelength (The phase change material being responsive to the first wavelength: Feinleib, col.3:13-15), and
non-responsive at the first wavelength (Teaching using a third pulse to erase the data storage, suggesting the data storage is unaffected by, and therefore non-responsive to, the reading pulse: Feinleib, col.2:18-20).
Feinleib discloses a data storage medium consisting of an amorphous film, not writing to a 2D patternable light valve. Falk, however, discloses a spatial light modulator comprising a phase change material embedded within an optical resonator, describing a patternable light valve (Falk, col.3:4-6). Falk teaches using optical valves including a phase change material can be scaled down to true nanoscale while providing additional benefits such as nonvolatility and the ability to produce reflective displays that don’t consume energy (Falk, col.3:7-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the modern with optical valve of Falk with the long established optical data storage system of Feinleib, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,636,526 to Julius Feinleib (hereafter Feinleib) and US 11,187,889 B2 to Abram L. Falk, et al. (hereafter Falk), in view of US 10,908,437 B2 to Byunghoon Na, et al. (hereafter Na).
Regarding Claim 2 and the substantially similar limitations of Claims 3, 9, and 10, Feinleib discloses the data storage system of claim 1, but fails to disclose the phase change material supporting a volumetric phase change. Na, however, discloses an optical modulator as in Claim 1, wherein
the phase change material supports volumetric phase change (The phase change being between an amorphous phase and a crystalline phase: Na, col.10:46-52).
Na teaches using a volumetric phase change material allows for a device with high optical modulation properties and low voltage driving requirements (Na, col.7:17-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the crystalline/amorphous OALV of Na with the optical data storage of Feinleib and Falk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,636,526 to Julius Feinleib (hereafter Feinleib) and US 11,187,889 B2 to Abram L. Falk, et al. (hereafter Falk), in view of US 11,022,826 B2 to Christopher Louis Panuski, et al. (hereafter Panuski).
Regarding Claim 4 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 11, Feinleib discloses the data storage system of claim 1 but fails to disclose the phase change material being a quantum dot phase change material. Panuski, however, discloses an optical modulator as in Claim 1, wherein
the phase change material is a quantum dot phase change material (Disclosing a 2D array of optically controlled semiconductor nanocavities: Panuski, col.6:62-65).
Panuski teaches using an array of optically controlled semiconductor nanocavities allows for a device leverages advanced manufacturing to produce an ultra-dense energy efficient modulator array (Panuski, col.6:44-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the crystalline/amorphous OALV of Na with the optical data storage of Feinleib and Falk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,636,526 to Julius Feinleib (hereafter Feinleib) and US 11,187,889 B2 to Abram L. Falk, et al. (hereafter Falk), in view of US 7,599,593 B2 to James S. Harris, Jr., et al. (hereafter Harris).
Regarding Claim 5 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 12, Feinleib discloses the data storage system of claim 1 but fails to disclose the phase change material being a pixel strained phase change material. Harris, however, discloses an optical modulator as in Claim 1, wherein
the phase change material is a pixel strained phase change material (Disclosing a pixel strained material: Harris, col.5:27-32).
Harris teaches such material helps construct a material suitable for further growth with a low defect density (Harris, col.5:33-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the pixel strain phase change material of Harris with the optical data storage of Feinleib and Falk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Regarding Claim 6 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 13, Feinleib discloses the data storage system of claim 1 but fails to disclose the phase change material being a structured material. Harris, however, discloses an optical modulator as in Claim 1, wherein
the phase change material is a structured material (Disclosing a structured material: Harris, col.5:1-3).
Harris teaches using structured material allows the construction of a device with tailored energy band compositions (Harris, col.4:3-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the structured material of Harris with the optical data storage of Feinleib and Falk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,636,526 to Julius Feinleib (hereafter Feinleib) and US 11,187,889 B2 to Abram L. Falk, et al. (hereafter Falk), in view of US 11,320,647 B2 to Jeffrey Chou, et al. (hereafter Chou).
Regarding Claim 7 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 14, Feinleib discloses the data storage system of claim 1 but fails to disclose the phase change material being a non-linear phase change material. Chou, however, discloses an optical modulator as in Claim 1, wherein
the phase change material is a non-linear material phase change material (Disclosing an optical array comprising a nonlinear phase change material: Chou, col.16:15-19).
Chou teaches using a nonlinear phase change material allows for a device capable of reconstructing an input spectrum (Chou, col.16:17-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the nonlinear phase change material of Chou with the optical data storage of Feinleib and Falk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known in the field of optical data storage and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,030,250 B2 to Francis L. Leard: Patent issued with same assignee and similar limitations.
US 2017/0232515 A1 to James A. DeMuth: Additive manufacturing method using a two-laser system wherein the substrate is reactive to one laser but non-reactive to the other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER LANE REECE whose telephone number is (571)272-0288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Richard Elms can be reached at (571) 272-1869. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER LANE REECE/Examiner, Art Unit 2824
/PHO M LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
02/04/2026.