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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species A (figure 1A), including claims 1-3 and 6, in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not sufficiently established that examination of the generic claim scope would impose a serious search or examination burden, or that the identified species require restriction of claims that are generic to the disclosed solid crystal based SLM architecture. This is not found persuasive because claims 4-5 and 7-20 and figures 1A-5 are directed to multiple species (such as the different arrangements of the elements in the solid crystal based spatial light modulators). Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 2023/0194912).
Regarding claim 1, Rao et al (figure 10) discloses a device, comprising:
an organic solid crystal (1010; see at least paragraphs 0031-0032);
a pixel electrode layer and a common electrode layer coupled with the organic solid crystal, the pixel electrode layer including an array of pixel electrodes (upper and lower electrodes 1080; see at least paragraph 0078); and
a controller configured to individually configure voltages applied to the pixel electrodes to individually configure local refractive indices of the organic solid crystal (Disclosed are organic solid crystals having an actively tunable refractive index and birefringence; see at least paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 2, Jacobs (figure 4d) discloses an array of pixels configured to provide spatially varying modulations of one or more degree of freedom of an input light beam, wherein a pixel in the array of the pixels includes a corresponding portion of the organic solid crystal, a corresponding portion of the pixel electrode layer, and a corresponding portion of the common electrode layer (under an applied electric field (E), a pattern may be induced in the electrically conductive liquid layer 1070, which may create a reciprocal pattern in the organic crystal material layer 1010. In turn, crystallization of the organic crystal material layer 1010 may be carried out by thermally-induced nucleation and growth, for example, optionally in conjunction with a seed crystal (not shown) to form an organic solid crystal thin film having periodic surface features or structures, such as an array of raised elements).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobs (figure 4d) discloses wherein the organic solid crystal is a contiguous organic solid crystal.
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rao et al. (US 2023/0194912) in view of Jacobs (US 2009/0168136).
Regarding claim 3, Rao et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Rao et al. is silent regarding wherein the common electrode layer and the pixel electrode layer are in direct contact with the organic solid crystal. Jacobs (figure 4d-5b) teaches wherein the common electrode layer and the pixel electrode layer are in direct contact with the organic solid crystal ( (118 and 120; see at least paragraphs 0055-0056). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes as taught by Jacobs in order to achieve spatial light modulators that are preferably robust, reliable, fast, high resolution, and lower power-consumption.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jacobs (US 2009/0168136) in view of Malhortra (CN 114002762).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobs (figure 4d-5b) discloses a device, comprising:
an organic solid crystal (see at least claim 17);
a pixel electrode layer and a common electrode layer coupled with the organic solid crystal, the pixel electrode layer including an array of pixel electrodes (118 and 120; see at least paragraphs 0055-0056).
Jacobs discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Jacobs is silent regarding a controller configured to individually configure voltages applied to the pixel electrodes to individually configure local refractive indices of the organic solid crystal. Malhortra (figure 1A-1B) teaches a controller configured to individually configure voltages applied to the pixel electrodes to individually configure local refractive indices of the organic solid crystal (see at least abstract and page 37, the last two paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes as taught by Malhortra in order to improve performance of the optical element.
Regarding claim 2, Jacobs (figure 4d) discloses an array of pixels configured to provide spatially varying modulations of one or more degree of freedom of an input light beam, wherein a pixel in the array of the pixels includes a corresponding portion of the organic solid crystal, a corresponding portion of the pixel electrode layer, and a corresponding portion of the common electrode layer (Each SSEO modulator is an individually addressable pixel of the spatial light modulator. Operational states of the pixels (SSEO modulators) are controlled by the individual electrical fields applied to the solid-state chiral materials. In order to individually control the SSEO modulators, each SSEO modulator can have a separate transmissive electrode (i.e. electrode 102 in FIG. 1); and the reflective electrodes (i.e. electrode 106 in FIG. 1) of the SSEO modulators may or may not be connected together; see at least pages 0047-0052).
Regarding claim 3, Jacobs (figure 4d) discloses wherein the common electrode layer and the pixel electrode layer are in direct contact with the organic solid crystal (118 and 120; see at least paragraphs 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobs (figure 4d) discloses wherein the organic solid crystal is a contiguous organic solid crystal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights