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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1, B1, C1, D1 & E1 in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species B1/B2, D1/D2/D3 and E1/E2 do not represent a significant search burden. This is not found persuasive because:
Species B1 and C1 are drawn to a distributed Bragg grating and Species B2 and C2 are drawn to a metal mirror layer – these are distinct types of reflectors that use different operating principles;
Species D1, D2 & D3 are mutually exclusive structures; and
Species E1 & E2 are distinct molecules with different compositions and physical properties.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant has kindly identified claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15 of Group I as being generic to or directed to the elected species. However, upon review claim 5 requires “wherein the at least one second material layer comprises an upper second material layer and a lower second material layer, wherein the lower second material layer is between the first material layer and the lower reflective layer, and wherein the upper second material layer is between the first material layer and the upper reflective layer” is clearly directed to withdrawn Species A2, drawn to a second material layer that is a two distinct layers. Thus, claim 5 is also considered withdrawn.
For clarity claims 3, 5, 14 and 16-25 are considered withdrawn and claims 1-2, 4, 6-13 and 15 are examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 17, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical error. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “second thermo-optic coefficient”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, which requires a single second material layer “wherein the one second material layer is on the first material layer” particularly “on” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if in direct contact is meant or if an order is meant. In the figures 2 and 7-8 showing a single second material layer (222) is “on” an electrode (242) that is “on” the first material layer (221) leading the examiner to conclude that an order (e.g. over or above) is meant. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “wherein the one second material layer is [[on]] above the first material layer.”
Regarding claim 15 the sole limitation of “wherein the light that is incident has a wavelength of in a range of 900 nm to 1,000 nm” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if a specific use of the modulator is being claimed (see MPEP 2173.05) or if a capability is being claimed or if the limitation fails to further limit the modulator. Given the claim construction the sole limitation limits an element not part of the modulator, per se. For purposes of examination the examiner the examiner interprets that the any wavelength of light can be incident on a modulator. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling this claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As set forth above, insofar as it is understood, claim 15 fails to further limit the device of claim 1, since a particular wavelength of light incident on a modulator does not further limit the device in any structural or functional way. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0170160.
Regarding claim 1 Park discloses a spatial light modulator (title e.g. figure 13 optical image shutter 203) comprising: an upper reflective layer (e.g. first reflective layer 21) on which light is incident (e.g. see arrow on left in figure 13); a lower reflective layer below the upper reflective layer (e.g. second reflective layer 16); and a cavity layer between the upper reflective layer and the lower reflective layer (e.g. combination of transparent buffer layer 13 & transparent electro-optical thin film layer 14), the cavity layer having a refractive index configured to change based on an electrical signal (inter alia paragraph [0050] “14 may be formed of a material having an electro-optical effect in which the refractive index of the electro-optical thin film layer 14 varies according to an intensity of an applied electric field”), wherein the cavity layer comprises: a first material layer (e.g. 14) having a first refractive index (inherent physical property e.g. paragraph [0051] notes 14 may be Si & nSi=3.9766); and at least one second material layer (e.g. 13) having a second refractive index (inherent physical property e.g. paragraphs [0018-19] notes 13 may be ITO & nITO=1.8270) that is less than the first refractive index (nSi=3.9766 > nITO=1.8270).
Regarding claim 2 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the at least one second material layer (e.g. 13) consists of one second material layer (e.g. 13), and wherein the one second material layer is above the first material layer (e.g. see figure 13).
Regarding claim 4 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the first material layer has a first thermo-optic coefficient (e.g. dn/dTSi≈1.8x10-4) that is greater than a second thermo-optic coefficient of the at least one second material layer (e.g. dn/dTITO≈1.9x10-5).
Regarding claim 6 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the first material layer comprises silicon (e.g. paragraph [0051] notes 14 may be Si).
Regarding claim 7 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 6, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein a thickness of the first material layer is in a range of 370 nm to 470 nm (paragraph [0061] “14 may have a thickness of, for example, 5 mm or less”).
Regarding claim 11 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the upper reflective layer has a lower reflectance than the lower reflective layer (paragraph [0069] 21 … has a relatively low reflectivity of about 50% … 16 may have a relatively high reflectivity of bout 97%).
Regarding claim 12 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the lower reflective layer comprises a metal mirror layer or a distributed Bragg reflector (e.g. paragraph [0049] notes reflective layers may be formed by “alternately stacking two types of transparent dielectric thin films having different refractive indices” i.e. a DBR).
Regarding claim 13 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Park further discloses wherein the upper reflective layer comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (e.g. paragraph [0049] notes reflective layers may be formed by “alternately stacking two types of transparent dielectric thin films having different refractive indices” i.e. a DBR).
Regarding claim 15 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 1, as set forth above. Regarding wherein the light that is incident has a wavelength of in a range of 900 nm to 1,000 nm – as set forth in the 112 section above any wavelength of light can be incident on a modulator and since it does not further limit the structure or function of the spatial light modulator no patentable weight is given1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0170160 in view of Barrios et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0142877.
Regarding claims 8-9 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 6, as set forth above. Park does not disclose wherein the first material layer has a P-I-N structure, a P-I-P structure, or an N-I-N structure, as recited in claim 8; or wherein the at least one second material layer comprises silicon oxide (SiO2) , as recited in claim 9.
Barrios teaches a similar spatial light modulator (title e.g. figure 2 modulator 100) including a cavity with reflectors on either side of the cavity (inter alia abstract “microcavity has reflectors on each side” where the cavity has multiple layers including a silicon layer that has its refractive index electrically switched (inter alia abstract “optical field in the modulator is confined by using an electrically modulated microcavity … Si/SiO2 … refractive index of the microcavity is varied”); and further teaches it has a P-I-N structure and the second material layer comprises silicon oxide (inter alia abstract ” … SiO2 … p-i-n …) for the purpose of varying the refractive index of the cavity material by using the free-carrier dispersion effect produced by a p-i-n diode structure and materials (inter alia paragraph [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for spatial light modulator as disclosed by Park to have the first material layer has a P-I-N structure, a P-I-P structure, or an N-I-N structure and wherein the at least one second material layer comprises silicon oxide (SiO2) as taught by Barrios for the purpose of varying the refractive index of the cavity material by using the free-carrier dispersion effect produced by a p-i-n diode structure and materials.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0170160.
Regarding claim 10 Park discloses the spatial light modulator of claim 6, as set forth above. Park does not disclose wherein a thickness of the at least one second material layer is in a range of 40 nm to 350 nm. However, 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Park has anticipated the device of claim 6, as set forth above, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to second material layer have a thickness range of 40 nm to 350 nm for the purpose of achieving appropriate optical interaction with a desired wavelength, as evidenced by paragraph [0058] that notes adjusting thin film thicknesses to interact with particular wavelengths would be known to one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for spatial light modulator as disclosed by Park to have second material layer have a thickness range of 40 nm to 350 nm for the purpose of achieving appropriate optical interaction with a desired wavelength as is known to one skilled in the art and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Na et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0046056; in regards to a similar modulator, e.g. see figure 11, including reflective layers (RL10 & RL20) with multiple layers (PL10, PL20, E10, E20 & ML10) therebetween that electrically changes the refractive index (e.g. paragraph [0102]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 14, 2026
1 Further, so applicant is aware, paragraph [0058] notes 850nm light and further discloses “Light of 850 nm is exemplary, and other wavelength are possible and within the scope of exemplary embodiments, as would be known to one skilled in the art. A transmittance wavelength may be adjusted according to the refractive index and thickness of the transparent electro-optical thin film layer 14 and the design of the first and second reflective layers …”
Prosecution Insights