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 .
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morton et al. (US 2019/0253146).
Morton discloses a system (illustrated in fig. 6) comprising: a photonic integrated circuit (fig. 6, MZI modulator 200; par. [0033] for the photonic integrated circuit aspect) configured to emit a first path of light in a first direction (the MZI modulator emits light towards OUT 1, in fig. 6, in horizontal direction, from the left to the right) and to emit a second path of light in a second direction opposite the first direction (the MZI modulator also emits light in the horizontal direction, from the right to the left due to the reflection of the phase control section 280, see par. [0037]); and a reflector configured to reflect the first path of light in the second direction with a phase dispersion that causes the first path of light reflected in the second direction to interfere destructively with the second path of light emitted in the second direction (fig. 6, engineered reflectors ERs 273, 274 and par. [0037]).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton et al. (US 2019/0253146) in view of Low et al. (US 2024/0072210).
As to claim 12, Morton discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1, but does not disclose a chirped distributed Bragg reflector having a spatially varying pitch. However, it was well known to use a distributed Bragg reflector to achieve destructive interference as evidenced by paragraph [0034] of Low. 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 Morton by providing a chirped distributed Bragg reflector having a spatially varying pitch in order to achieve destructive interference as evidenced by Low.
As to claim 13, Morton discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 12. Low further discloses in paragraphs [0034]-[0035], that the distributed Bragg reflector is configured to maintain destructive interference across a spectral bandwidth by tuning one or more effective optical path lengths for different wavelengths of light according to the equation: 2nfilmdcos(θ)=(m-1/2)λ.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a display device comprising the combination required by claim 1, wherein the first path of light reflected in the second direction is configured to interfere destructively with the second path of light when the liquid crystal is set to an off state. Claims 2-7 are allowed by virtue of their dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a method comprising the combination required by claim 14, including configuring the first path of light reflected in the second direction to interfere destructively with the second path of light when a liquid crystal is set to an off state. Claims 15-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a system comprising the combination required by claim 9, including a liquid crystal, wherein the phase dispersion causes the first path of light reflected in the second direction to interfere destructively with the second path of light emitted in the second direction when the liquid crystal is set to an off state.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a system comprising the combination required by claim 10, including cladding positioned between the photonic integrated circuit and a liquid crystal and having a thickness configured to cause the first path of light reflected in the second direction to interfere destructively with the second path of light when the liquid crystal is set to an off state.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a system comprising the combination required by claim 11, including a liquid crystal having an index configured to cause the first path of light reflected in the second direction to interfere destructively with the second path of light when the liquid crystal is set to an off state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights