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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 07/06/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 3 and 15.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims provided in the amendment of 07/06/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 8-11, have been fully considered and yielded the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application thus the pending claims are still claims 1-15 in which claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14-15 are examined in the present office action, and claims 4, 8 and 11-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Inventions II and III.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 4, 8 and 11-13 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as set forth in the office action of 03/06/2026, the amendments to the claim as provided in the amendment of 07/06/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 8, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaub (US Patent No. 6,040,943) In view of Magnusson (US Publication No. 2014/0270638) and Yamagata et al (US Patent No. 6,349,000) and the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boku et al (Japanese reference No. 11-352397) in view of Magnusson (US Publication No. 2014/0270638) as set forth in the office action of 03/06/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 07/06/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 8-11, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings as filed on 02/04/2021 and 05/03/2024 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of a plurality of nanostructures provided on both surfaces of the thin lens as recited in the claims 1 and 3 (see claim 1 on lines 27-28 and claim 3 on lines 1-2) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Regarding applicant’s arguments related to the art provided by Magnusson that Magnusson discloses a reflecting element/device, see amendment in page 10, the examiner offers the following opinions.
In response to applicant's argument that the art provided by Magnusson is directed to a reflecting element/device which does not transmits light, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the art of Magnusson and the rejection of the claims as set forth in the office action of 03/06/2026, in which the art of Magnusson is used as a secondary reference which is in combination with the primary art provided by Schaub is for the purpose of showing that an optical element comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures is known to one skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a1) the feature thereof “the plurality of nanostructures” recited on line 17 makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear which plurality of nanostructures does the claim recite on line 17. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the claim on lines 4-5, 9-10 and 14-15 in which the claim recites three optical devices which each optical device has a substrate and a plurality of nanostructures on the substrate. Thus, which “plurality of nanostructures” does applicant mean by “the plurality of nanostructures” on line 17 of the claim?
a2) each of the features thereof “the plurality of nanostructures” recited on lines 19-20, line 20, line 21, lines 21-22, line 23, line 25 and line 27 makes the claim indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element a1) above.
a3) the feature thereof “the substrate” recited on line 19 makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear which substrate does the claim recite on line 19. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the claim on lines 4, 9 and 14 in which the claim recites three optical devices which each optical device has a substrate and a plurality of nanostructures on the substrate. Thus, which “substrate” does applicant mean by “the substrate” on line 19 of the claim? and
a4) each of the features thereof “the substrate” recited on line 24, line 26 and line 28 makes the claim indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element a3) above.
b) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element a1) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14-15, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaub (US Patent No. 6,040,943, of record) in view of Magnusson (US Publication No. 2014/0270638, of record) and Jang (US Patent No. 8,040,617).
Schaub discloses a lens system for use in an optical device such as a camera, see column 1.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 15, the lens system as described in columns 2-3 and shown in figs. 1-2 comprises the following features:
a1) a first optical device (12) configured to receive light from an object/screen and focus light transmitted through the first optical device (12) at a location/focal point which is dependent upon an angle at which the light incident on an object-side surface (12a) of the first optical device, see fig. 1;
a2) a second optical device (14) disposed on the downstream of and at a location with respect to a location of the first optical device (12) such that light transmitted through the first optical device (12) incident onto an object-side surface (14a) of the second optical device (14) and focuses at a location/focal length that is dependent on a position on the second optical device (14);
a3) a third optical device (16) disposed on the downstream of and at a location with respect to a location of the second optical device (14) such that light transmitted through the second optical device incident onto an object-side surface (16a) of the third optical device (16) and focus on an imaging plane (24) after passing through the third optical device (16);
a4) the first to third optical devices (12, 14, 16) constituted the lens system and each lens has a first lens surface and a second lens surface wherein at least one of the surfaces comprises a diffractive surface to correct axial and lateral aberrations that occur in the remaining optical devices, see column 2 and claims 1 and 3-5, for example;
a5) regarding to the feature of “thin lens” for the third optical device, it is noted that each of the optical devices (12, 14, 16) is considered as a “thin” lens. Applicant should note that while the claim recites that the third optical device is a thin lens; however, there is not any specific/limitation regarding to the so-called “thin” of the lens;
a6) Schaub teaches that the object side surface (16a) of the third optical device, i.e., the lens (16), is preferred to have a diffractive surface, see column 2, lines 50-53, thus the third optical device (16), which is a thin lens with a diffractive optical surface formed on its object-side surface, is configured to adjust a delay in phase distribution of the light transmitted through the optical devices based on its physical features such as shape, cross section areas, heights, intervals defined between two adjacent orbicular zones, see columns 2-3 and fig. 2 in which the dimension of the gratings, the heights, the shapes of the gratings on the object side surface (16a) of the third optical device (16) are different in a central potion and a peripheral portion. It is also noted that diffractive surface may be placed/formed on another surface such as an image side surface of the second lens, see column 2 on lines 53-55; and
a7) the lens system provided by Schaub is used in an optical device such as a camera having a detector (24) which is understood as an optical device for detecting/measuring light incident on an image plane of the detector.
There are two features missing from the lens system provided by Schaub as follow:
First, Schaub does not clearly disclose that the thin lens, i.e., the third lens, comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures, and each of the first and second optical devices comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate; and
Second, each of the three optical devices having a plurality of nanostructures formed on its image side surface facing an image plane.
Regarding to the first feature missing from the lens system provided by Schaub, it is noted that an optical element comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical element provided by Magnusson.
In particular, Magnusson discloses an optical element (100) having a substrate (110) and a diffractive layer (120) formed on one surface of the substrate. The diffractive layer (120) comprises a plurality of nanostructures separately arranged with an interval between two adjacent nanostructures, see paragraph [0039] and fig. 1. Regarding the refractive index, the refractive index of the diffractive layer (120) is larger than the refractive index of the substrate (110) and the refractive index of the medium, outside the plurality of nanostructures, see paragraph [0048] and example 1 described in paragraph [0067].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the third optical device (16) which has a diffractive profile on a surface thereof by using/making a diffractive surface having a plurality of nanostructures on a substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures as suggested by Magnusson to couple light incident on the nanostructures into at least one waveguide mode which resonate within the nanostructures.
While the combined product provided by Schaub and Magnusson does not disclose that each of the three optical devices having a plurality of nanostructures formed on its image side surface facing an image plane; however, an optical system having three optical devices wherein each optical device is in the form of a Fresnel lens having at least one surface with a diffractive pattern is known to one skilled in the art as disclosed by Jang.
In particular, Jang discloses an optical system having three Fresnel lenses wherein the object-side surface (facing to an object side ) and the image-side surface (facing to an image side) is a diffractive surface, see column 15 and fig. 15A, The diffractive surface of each Fresnel lens can be formed on an object side or an image side of each lens or formed on both surfaces of the lens, see fig. 14. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select/make the image side of each lens in the combined product provided by Schaub and Magnusson as a diffractive lens surface as suggested by Jang for the purpose of correcting chromatic and geometric aberrations of the optical system to meet a particular application.
b) Regarding to present claim 2, in the combined product provided by Schaub, Magnusson and Jang the diffractive element (100) having a substrate to which a plurality of diffractive elements/structure are formed on the substrate wherein the diffractive element is integrally formed with an adjacent optical device is provided by Magnusson, see example 2 in paragraph [0075] and fig. 7 which discloses that the diffractive element is integrally formed with a cover.
c) Regarding to present claim 3, the diffractive optical surface is formed on an object side surface (16a) of the third optical device (16) as provided by Schaub or on an image side of the combined product as suggested by Jang.
d) Regarding to present claim 5, the lens system of Schaub is used/operated in an operating wavelength of a band of wavelengths having at least visible band or infrared band or ultraviolet band, see column 2.
e) Regarding to present claims 6 and 7, any light distribution passing through an optical device, i.e., a lens as shown in optical devices (12, 14, 16) comprises a wavefront with a particular phase and an amplitude distribution which is either in a convergent or divergent form.
f) Regarding to present claim 9, the diffractive optical surface comprises a plurality of nanostructures which each has a rectangular parallelepiped shape, see Magnusson in fig. 1.
g) Regarding to present claim 10, the diffractive optical surface of the optical element as provided by Magnusson having grating period with dimensions is equal to or less than 3/4 of a light wavelength, see paragraphs [0044]-[0046].
h) Regarding to present claim 14, the first optical device (12) in the lens system of Schaub is a thin lens as that of the second and third optical devices, see Schaub in claim 1.
11. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14-15, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boku et al (Japanese reference No. 11-352397, of record) in view of Magnusson (US Publication No. 2014/0270638, of record) and Jang (US Patent No. 8,040,617).
Boku et al discloses a lens system for use in an image pickup device, see pages 1-2 of the English Machine translation attached with the present office action.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 15, the lens system as described in page 15 and shown in fig. 18 comprises the following features:
a1) a first optical device (1) configured to receive light from an object/screen and focus light transmitted through the first optical device (1) at a location/focal point which is dependent upon an angle at which the light incident on an object-side surface (r1) of the first optical device, see fig. 18;
a2) a second optical device (2) disposed on the downstream of and at a location with respect to a location of the first optical device (1) such that light transmitted through the first optical device (1) incident onto an object-side surface (r3) of the second optical device (2) and focuses at a location/focal length that is dependent on a position on the second optical device (2);
a3) a third optical device (3) disposed on the downstream of and at a location with respect to a location of the second optical device (2) such that light transmitted through the second optical device incident onto an object-side surface (r5) of the third optical device (3) and focus on an imaging plane (5) after passing through the third optical device (3);
a4) the first to third optical devices (1-3) constituted the lens system and each optical device is in the form of a lens having a first lens surface and a second lens surface wherein a diffractive surface is formed on the image side lens surface (60) of the third lens to correct axial and lateral aberrations that occurs in the remaining optical devices, see page 15 and fig. 18.
a5) regarding to the feature of “thin lens” for the third optical device, it is noted that each of the optical devices (1-3) is considered as a “thin” lens. Applicant should note that while the claim recites that the third optical device is a thin lens; however, there is not any specific/limitation regarding to the so-called “thin” of the lens;
a6) Boku et al teaches that the image side surface (60) of the third optical device, i.e., the lens (3), is a diffractive surface, thus the third optical device (3), which is a thin lens with a diffractive optical surface formed on its image-side surface, is configured to adjust a delay in phase distribution of the light transmitted through the optical devices based on its physical features such as shape, cross section areas, heights, intervals defined between two adjacent orbicular zones, see English Machine translation in pages 3-5 and fig. 21 in which the dimension of the gratings, the heights, the shapes of the gratings on the image side surface (60) of the third optical device (3) are different in a central potion and a peripheral portion; and
a7) the lens system provided by Boku et al is used in an image pickup device which inherently comprises a detector for detecting/measuring light incident on an image plane of the detector.
There are two features missing from the lens system provided by Boku as follow:
First, Boku does not clearly disclose that the thin lens comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures and each of the first and second optical devices comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate; and
Second, each of the three optical devices having a plurality of nanostructures formed on its image side surface facing an image plane.
Regarding to the first feature missing from the lens system provided by Boku, it is noted that an optical element comprises a substrate with a plurality of nanostructures/gratings being formed on the substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical element provided by Magnusson.
In particular, Magnusson discloses an optical element (100) having a substrate (110) and a diffractive layer (120) formed on one surface of the substrate. The diffractive layer (120) comprises a plurality of nanostructures separately arranged with an interval between two adjacent nanostructures, see paragraph [0039] and fig. 1. Regarding the refractive index, the refractive index of the diffractive layer (120) is larger than the refractive index of the substrate (110) and the refractive index of the medium, outside the plurality of nanostructures, see paragraph [0048] and example 1 described in paragraph [0067].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the third optical device (16) in the lens system provided by Boku which has a diffractive profile on a surface thereof by using/making a diffractive surface having a plurality of nanostructures on a substrate wherein the plurality of nanostructures are separated arranged with intervals and the refractive index of the nanostructures is larger than the refractive index of the substrate and that of the medium outside the plurality of nanostructures as suggested by Magnusson to couple light incident on the nanostructures into at least one waveguide mode which resonate within the nanostructures.
While the combined product provided by Boku and Magnusson does not disclose that each of the three optical devices having a plurality of nanostructures formed on its image side surface facing an image plane; however, an optical system having three optical devices wherein each optical device is in the form of a Fresnel lens having at least one surface with a diffractive pattern is known to one skilled in the art as disclosed by Jang.
In particular, Jang discloses an optical system having three Fresnel lenses wherein either the object-side surface (facign to an object side ) and the image-side surface (facing to an image side) is a diffractive surface, see column 15 and fig. 15A, The diffractive surface of each Fresnel lens can be formed on an object side or an image side of each lens, see fig. 15A, or formed on both surfaces of the lens, see fig. 14. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select/make the image side of each lens of the combined product provided by Boku and Magnusson as a diffractive lens surface as suggested by Jang for the purpose of correcting chromatic and geometric aberrations of the optical system to meet a particular application.
b) Regarding to present claim 2, in the combined product provided by Boku et al, Magnusson and Jang, the diffractive element (100) having a substrate to which a plurality of diffractive elements/structure are formed on the substrate wherein the diffractive element is integrally formed with an adjacent optical device is provided by Magnusson, see example 2 in paragraph [0075] and fig. 7 which discloses that the diffractive element is integrally formed with a cover.
c) Regarding to present claim 3, the diffractive optical surface is formed on an image side surface (60) of the third optical device (3) as provided by Boku et al.
d) Regarding to present claim 5, the lens system of Boku et al is used/operated in an operating wavelength of a band of wavelengths having at least visible band, see English Machine Translation in page 4.
e) Regarding to present claims 6 and 7, any light distribution passing through an optical device, i.e., a lens as shown in optical devices (1-3) comprises a wavefront with a particular phase and an amplitude distribution which is either in a convergent or divergent form.
f) Regarding to present claim 9, the diffractive optical surface comprises a plurality of nanostructures which each has a rectangular parallelepiped shape, see Magnusson in fig. 1.
g) Regarding to present claim 10, the diffractive optical surface of the optical element as provided by Magnusson having grating period with dimensions is equal to or less than 3/4 of a light wavelength, see paragraphs [0044]-[0046].
h) Regarding to present claim 14, the first optical device (1) in the lens system of Schaub is a thin lens as that of the second and third optical devices, see Boku et al.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached on (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights