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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March 21, 2025 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character 410 has been used to designate both “light beams” in Figure 1 and “nanostructures” in Figures 5-6C.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 420. The specification recites: “In some embodiments, the nanostructures 420 may have different sizes, as illustrated in Figure 1” on page 9, lines 21-22, but element 420 does not appear in Figure 1. The specification also refers to element 420 repeatedly in reference to Figures 6A-6C. Perhaps element 410 in Figures 6A-6C is intended to be labeled 420?
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 600. Element 600 in Figure 1 appears to refer to the coordinate system, but is not mentioned in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Element 410 is used to refer to both “light beams” in Figure 1 and “nanostructures” in Figures 5-6C.
Element 500 is referred to as both “optical grating” and “aperture array” in the specification. If these terms are being used interchangeably the examiner suggests clarification in page 7, lines 16-25, of the specification.
Element 420 is referred to in the specifications on page 9, lines 21-22, as a “nanostructure” referring to Figure 1 and on page 10, lines 9-23, as a “nanopost” referring to Figures 6a-6c. However, element 420 does not appear in any of the drawings.
The term “nanostructures” is used to refer to both element 410 and element 420 in the description of Figure 5 on page 9, lines 19-22.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 13-14, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Misnumbered claim 2 (second appearance) should be renumbered claim 11.
In claim 1, line 3 and claim 11, line 4, “wherein light beams are individually controllable” should read “wherein the light beams are individually controllable”.
In claim 2, line 2, claim 3, line 2, claim 13, line 1, and claim 14, line 1 “the plurality of nanostructures are…” should read “the plurality of nanostructures is…”.
In claim 7, line 2 and claim 18, line 2, “a phase of corresponding light beam” should read “a phase of a corresponding light beam”.
In claim 9, line 2, “the plurality of pixel controls control the plurality of pixels is based on” should read “the plurality of pixel controls controlling the plurality of pixels is based on”.
In claim 13, line 1, “The method of claim 11, the plurality” should read “The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality”.
In claim 20, line 2, “the phase of corresponding light beam comprises” should read “the phase of the corresponding light beam comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Inventorship
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1; the claim recites the limitation “wherein the third waveform is smaller than the third waveform” in the last line of claim 1. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the third waveform cannot be smaller than itself and it is unclear which of the previous waveforms the third waveform is smaller than. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the third waveform is smaller than the second waveform” as disclosed in page 7, lines 16-20, of the specification.
Regarding claims 2-10; dependent claims inherently contain the deficiencies of any base or intervening claims from which they depend.
Regarding claims 10 and 12; claims 10 and 12 recite the limitation “wherein the first waveform, the second waveform and the third waveform have a same resolution”. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 which is being interpreted to recite the limitation “the third waveform is smaller than the second waveform”. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 which recites the limitation “the third waveform is smaller than the second waveform”. Applicant’s disclosure recites (see Figure 1), “This is manifested as the wavefronts 505 on the aperture array 500 being more aggregated or denser than the corresponding wavefronts 405 on the meta-optic 400, while preserving the initial resolution of the image” (Specification, Page 7, lines 18-20). Claims 10 and 12 are indefinite because it is unclear how the third waveform can be smaller (denser) than the second waveform and also have a same “resolution”. The term “resolution” is defined as the number of pixels per unit area in the display art, as evidenced by the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (definition of resolution, accessed at URL: [http://barc.wi.mit.edu/graphics/scanning/resolution.php]). Therefore, as understood by the examiner (see Figure 1), the third waveform (505) must have a higher resolution than the second waveform (405) because the same number of pixels are in a smaller area. The way the term “resolution” is being used in claims 10 and 12 is not further defined in the specification and appears to be in disagreement with the definition known in the art. Clarification is required. The examiner suggests changing “a same resolution” to “a same number of pixels” to overcome this rejection. For examination purposes, this limitation is being interpreted to mean that the first waveform, the second waveform and the third waveform contain the same total number of pixels.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Palese et al. (US 20230344517 A1), hereafter Palese.
Regarding claims 1 and 11; Palese teaches a spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device (see Abstract and Figures 3A, 3B and 8A), comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (photonic integrated circuit based optical phased array; Paragraphs [0005-0006, and 0019]) configured for emitting a plurality of light beams as a first waveform by a plurality of pixels (see Figure 3B, “each unit cell 304 includes an antenna element 352, which is configured to physically transmit or receive one or more optical signals”; Paragraph [0033]), wherein light beams are individually controllable (“A modulator is provided for each antenna element 352 and is used to control the phases of optical signals transmitted”; Paragraph [0035]); a meta-optic (see Figure 8A, one of layers 802, 408a, or 804 may be a metamaterial as shown in Figure 8B; Paragraph [0054]) comprising a plurality of nanostructures (“engineered to have a repeating structure, namely pillars”…“pillars having a height of about 50 nm or less”; Paragraph [0054]) configured for receiving the first waveform and aggregating the plurality of light beams as a second waveform at a surface of the meta-optic (see Figure 8A, the first waveform is emitted from 304, which is then received by the metamaterial layer and converted between linear and circular polarizations; Paragraph [0054]); and an aperture array (Palese further teaches using the same spatial light modulator device to also receive optical signals (see Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph [0023]). In the receiving case the optical phased arrays 302 act as an aperture array (Paragraph [0057])) configured for converting the second waveform into a third waveform wherein the third waveform is smaller than the second waveform (See Figure 1), in this case the optical transmitter (106) outputs the second waveform (108) and the optical receiver (110) converts the second waveform into a third waveform. The antenna element 352 represents a nanophotonic antenna that is configured to transmit or receive at least one optical signal and one or more lenses or other optical devices configured to focus at least one optical signal (Paragraph [0033]). The examiner notes the use of the term focus implies that the output waveform is smaller than the input waveform. Therefore, when the device is used as an optical receiver (110) it will convert the second waveform (108) to a third waveform that is smaller than the second waveform).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14; Palese teaches the spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device in claims 1 and 11. Palese further teaches (see Figure 8A and 8B):
wherein the plurality of nanostructures is manufactured on a nanometer scale (“The pillars 806 can represent extremely small structures, such as pillars having a height of about 50 nm or less”; Paragraph [0054]).
wherein the plurality of nanostructures is distributed on a substrate (“one of the layers 802, 408a, 804 may be patterned to form a metamaterial”. The examiner notes any of those layers would form the substrate that the nanostructures are distributed on; Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12; Palese discloses all of the claimed structural features of the spatial light modulator device and method of generating an image using the device as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Claims 10 and 12 contain properties or functions that are presumed to be inherent to the structure of the spatial light modulator device. The “resolution” of a waveform is being interpreted by the examiner to mean the total number of pixels in the waveform, which is a property of the light, not the device, and the total number of pixels in the waveform is not being modified by the claimed spatial light modulator device once the initial first waveform is emitted. Therefore, the first, second, and third waveforms must have the same total number of pixels or “same resolution”. When a structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). The patentability of a product depends only on the claimed structural limitations of the product. Palese teaches a spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01).
The examiner notes that if the claimed structure does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of performing the claimed functions, then the claims would be incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections necessary to clearly and precisely define the invention, wherein the structure necessary to provide the claimed properties or perform the claimed functions is essential.
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 4-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palese in view of Na et al. (US 20130279844 A1), hereafter Na.
Regarding claims 4 and 15; Palese teaches the spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device in claims 1 and 11. Palese further teaches (see Figure 3B) wherein each pixel of the plurality of the pixels (each unit cell 304) comprises: an optical conductor configured for transmitting incoming light (signal pathway 354; Paragraph [0034]); a modulating ring configured for optically coupling with the optical conductor (356; Paragraph [0035]).
Palese does not teach a grating coupler configured for emitting a light beam out of the photonic integrated circuit (Palese teaches antenna elements 352; Paragraph [0033-0035]). However, in the same field of endeavor, Na teaches (see Abstract and Figure 2a) a grating coupler (265; Paragraph [0025-0026]) configured for emitting a light beam out of the photonic integrated circuit (“A reflector is disposed over the grating coupler to reflect light emitted from the grating coupler through the substrate to emit from the backside of the PIC chip”, abstract; Paragraph [0025-0026]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna elements taught by Palese with the grating coupler and reflectors taught by Na with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change because Na teaches, “With this vertical coupling architecture, very high efficiency (e.g., greater than 90%) can be achieved.” (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 5 and 16; Palese and Na teach the spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device in claims 4 and 15. Palese does not teach wherein the optical conductor, the modulating ring, and the grating coupler are configured at a top side of the photonic integrated circuit; wherein the grating coupler is configured for emitting the light beam out of the photonic integrated circuit through a bottom side of the photonic integrated circuit. However, Na further teaches (see Figure 2a) wherein the optical conductor (Optical device 115, e.g. monolithically integrated optical waveguide; Paragraph [0020]), the modulating ring (Optical device 115, e.g. ring resonator; Paragraph [0020]), and the grating coupler (265) are configured at a top side (106; Paragraph [0020]) of the photonic integrated circuit, and wherein the grating coupler is configured for emitting the light beam out of the photonic integrated circuit through a bottom side (107) of the photonic integrated circuit (Paragraph [0025-0026] describes this flip-chip bonding). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the flip-chip photonic integrated circuit bonding architecture taught by Na into the spatial light modulator device taught by Palese with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Na teaches, “With this vertical coupling architecture, very high efficiency (e.g., greater than 90%) can be achieved.” (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 6 and 17; Palese and Na teach the spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device in claims 4 and 15. Palese further teaches (see Figure 10) comprising an electrical integrated circuit (see Figure 13 element 1308; Paragraph [0070]) comprising a plurality of pixel controls (micro-ring resonator 1002; Paragraph [0060]) configured for controlling the plurality of light beams (Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 18-20; Palese and Na teach the spatial light modulator device and the method of generating an image using the device in claims 6 and 17; Palese further teaches (see Figure 10):
wherein each pixel control (micro-ring resonator 1002) is configured for controlling an amplitude and a phase of corresponding light beam of the plurality of light beams (the heater causes phase shifts in the modulator; Paragraph [0060]).
wherein each pixel control (micro-ring resonator 1002) comprises a pair of electrodes (1006) and an active element (heater 1004), and wherein the active element is configured proximate to the modulating ring (See Figure 10).
wherein the plurality of pixel controls (micro-ring resonator 1002) controlling the plurality of pixels (antenna element 352) is based on at least one of: electrical current passed through the electrodes and the active element; electromagnetic field produced by the electrodes and the active element; or microheating over the modulating ring (voltage is applied to the heater (1004) to vary the temperature of the micro-ring resonator (1002) and implement the desired phase shift of the optical signal; Paragraph [0060]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soltani et al. (US 20230142781 A1) teaches a spatial light modulator device (see Figure 4 and 7-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L KAULFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571)272-2397. 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.
/P.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights