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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 2010/0195028).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota discloses a device (see figures 1A-1C, for instance) comprising: a first rail (233a) extending longitudinally on a substrate (200) and having a first rail surface (side of 233a facing 233b); a second rail (233b) extending longitudinally on the substrate (200) and having a second rail surface (side of 233b facing 233a) that faces the first rail surface, wherein the first rail surface (side of 233a facing 233b), the second rail surface (side of 233b facing 233a), and a top-surface region of the substrate (200) between the first rail and the second rail define a slot (see figure 1B, where 232b is located); and a ferroelectric nematic (FN) liquid crystal material in the slot ([0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1, each of the first rail (233a) and the second rail (233b) being directly on the substrate and having a same material composition as the substrate ([0104]: “Furthermore, the structure body may be a portion which projects into the liquid crystal layer from a surface of the substrate on a liquid crystal layer side... Accordingly, the structure body may be formed using a continuous film in which a plurality of projections is projected.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1, in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the surface, a director of the FN liquid crystal material ([0019]) being substantially perpendicular to each of the first rail surface (side of 233a facing 233b) and the second rail surface (side of 233b facing 233a).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1, each of the first rail (233a) and the second rail (233b) being in a cavity defined by a top surface of the substrate (200), the top surface including the top-surface region; the FN liquid crystal material ([0019]) being within the cavity and covering respective top surfaces of the first rail and the second rail.
Regarding claim 13, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the FN liquid crystal material is aligned with aid of a direct current (DC) bias ([0068]) applied between the first rail (233a) and the second rail (233b).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wessel et al. (US 2003/0231279).
Regarding claim 14, Wessel discloses a device (see figure 1(b), for instance) comprising: a substrate (2) having (i) a first rail (7, left side) protruding from, extending longitudinally on a top surface of the substrate (2), and having a first rail surface (facing 3), (ii) a second rail (7, right side) protruding from, extending longitudinally on the top surface of the substrate (2), and having a second rail surface (facing 3) that faces the first rail surface; a slot (wherein 3 lies) defined by the first rail surface, the second rail surface, and an intra-rail region of the top surface between the first rail and the second rail; a strip waveguide (3) in the slot; and a ferroelectric nematic (FN) liquid crystal material (6, [0027]) disposed over the strip waveguide (3).
Regarding claim 15, Wessel discloses the device of claim 14, a material composition of the strip waveguide (3) including one of silicon, silicon nitride, and tantalum pentoxide ([0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Wessel discloses the device of claim 14, wherein the strip waveguide (3) is located on top of the substrate (2) and surrounded by the substrate (2) on both sides.
Regarding claim 18, Wessel discloses the device of claim 17, further comprising: a first electrode (44a) and a second electrode (44b) on the top surface; the first rail (7 left) being between the first electrode (44a) and the strip waveguide (3); and the second rail (7 right) being between the second electrode (44b) and the strip waveguide (3).
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) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Banister et al. (US 2004/0141123).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1. However, Kubota does not expressly disclose wherein in a direction perpendicular to each of the first rail surface and the second rail surface, a width of each of the first rail and the second rail being between 30 nanometers and 800 nanometers.
Banister discloses a device (see figures 1-3, for instance), wherein in a direction perpendicular to each of the first rail surface ([0028]) and the second rail surface ([0028]), a width of each of the first rail and the second rail being between 30 nanometers and 800 nanometers ([0028], “typically having protrusions and or recesses of about 500-700 nm in width and 60 nm height/depth”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the width dimensions as Banister in the device of Wessel. The motivation for doing so would have been to give a uniform liquid crystal layer thickness and hence uniform appearance at each pixel, as taught by Kitson ([0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1. However, Kubota does not expressly disclose wherein in a direction perpendicular to each of the first rail surface and the second rail surface, a width of the slot being between 20 nanometers and 500 nanometers.
Banister discloses a device (see figures 1-3, for instance), wherein in a direction perpendicular to each of the first rail surface and the second rail surface ([0028]), a width of the slot being between 20 nanometers and 500 nanometers ([0028], “typically having protrusions and or recesses of about 500-700 nm in width and 60 nm height/depth”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the width dimensions as Banister in the device of Wessel. The motivation for doing so would have been to give a uniform liquid crystal layer thickness and hence uniform appearance at each pixel, as taught by Kitson ([0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1. However, Kubota does not expressly disclose wherein in a direction perpendicular to each of the first rail surface and the second rail surface, a width of each of the first rail and the second rail being between 30 nanometers and 800 nanometers; and a width of the slot being between 20 nanometers and 500 nanometers.
Banister discloses a device (see figures 1-3, for instance), wherein in a direction perpendicular to each of the first rail surface and the second rail surface ([0028]), a width of each of the first rail and the second rail being between 30 nanometers and 800 nanometers ([0028], “typically having protrusions and or recesses of about 500-700 nm in width and 60 nm height/depth”); and a width of the slot being between 20 nanometers and 500 nanometers ([0028], “typically having protrusions and or recesses of about 500-700 nm in width and 60 nm height/depth”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the width dimensions as Banister in the device of Wessel. The motivation for doing so would have been to give a uniform liquid crystal layer thickness and hence uniform appearance at each pixel, as taught by Kitson ([0066]).
Claim(s) 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota in view of Komitov (US 2008/0204612).
Regarding claim 8, Kubota discloses the device of claim 1. However, Kubota does not expressly disclose the device further comprising an alignment layer that at least partially aligns the FN liquid crystal material.
Komitov discloses a device (see figure 1, for instance), comprising an alignment layer ([0018]) that at least partially aligns the FN liquid crystal material ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the alignment layer as Komitov in the device of Kubota. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a liquid crystal device having the capability of generating high contrast and wide viewing angle images and exhibiting a fast in-plane switching, more particularly to shorten the fall time of the electro-optic response, and hence to reduce the total switching time enabling a satisfactory display of moving images, as taught by Komitov ([0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Kubota in view of Komitov discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the alignment layer comprises a first alignment layer (Komitov [0018]) between the FN liquid crystal material (Komitov [0012]) and the top-surface region.
Regarding claim 10, Kubota in view of Komitov discloses the device of claim 9, wherein the alignment layer comprises a second alignment layer (Komitov [0018]) covering the FN liquid crystal material (Komitov [0012]), the FN liquid crystal material (Komitov [0012]) being between the first alignment layer and the second alignment layer (Komitov [0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota in view of Komitov discloses the device of claim 10, a second anisotropy direction of the second alignment layer being parallel to a first anisotropy direction of the first alignment layer (Komitov [0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota in view of Komitov discloses the device of claim 10, a second anisotropy direction of the second alignment layer being perpendicular to a first anisotropy direction of the first alignment layer (Komitov [0018]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel in view of Kitson (US 2002/0196403).
Regarding claim 16, Wessel discloses the device of claim 14. However, Wessel does not expressly disclose wherein along a dimension parallel to a top surface of the substrate, a width of the strip waveguide being less than two micrometers.
Kitson discloses a device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein along a dimension parallel to a top surface of the substrate (2), a width of the strip waveguide (8) being less than two micrometers ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the width dimensions as Kitson in the device of Wessel. The motivation for doing so would have been to make the device very tolerant of mechanical deformation, as taught by Kitson ([0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, 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 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights