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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 2, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. The Examiner notes that, in the IDS entries for U.S. Patent Application Publications, citation no. 2, U.S. Pub. No. 20191096068, is not an existing Patent or Patent Application Publication. The Examiner believes this entry to be referring to U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0196068 A1.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s request for an interview is acknowledged. However, after a full consideration of the Applicant’s reply, it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application, see MPEP § 713.01(IV), and the request is denied. An interview may be scheduled prior to a written response to this action either by using the USPTO’s Automated interview Request (AIR) Form available at www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice or by contacting the Examiner by telephone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed January 13, 2026, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite mental processes, as the claims do not contain limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind. Specifically, Applicant argues that computational simulations of complex physical optical elements and components makes the recited determinations impractical to carry out by hand, and the present disclosure describes a system that automatically determines the design of metalenses in an optical system.
Regarding this argument, the Examiner notes that the claims do not describe the optical system in a way that excludes simple models that may be designed practicably by a human user using pen and paper. Furthermore, the specification does not appear to expressly define the layout or design in any way that would also exclude simple models that may be drawn by a human using pen and paper, exemplified by figures 2 and 3A-C in the instant drawings.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to mathematical concepts, and the limitations are merely based on mathematical concepts. Regarding this argument, the Examiner agrees. However, the instant claims remain ineligible for being directed to mental processes, as explained above.
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mansouree does not teach the scale factor recited in the independent claims. Applicant further refers to paragraph [0059] in defining the scale factor. The Examiner notes that there is no express definition of a scale factor in the specification or the instant claims. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, a scale factor includes normalization, i.e., adjusting values on different scales to a common scale, and Mansouree does teach normalized field intensity profiles; “The optimization proceeds for 99 steps starting from an initial design in which all meta-atoms have equal width w =140 nm. The normalized intensity at the last step is shown in Fig. S10e” (e.g., page S5, paragraph 4; page S18, figure S10).
An updated rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1), necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes, as the claims cover the performance of the limitations of the human mind, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. A method for designing a metalens comprising:
receiving a description of an optical system, the description of the optical system indicating (i) characteristics of a first lens in the optical system, (ii) a meta-atom to be used in the first lens, and (iii) a first distance from the first lens;
receiving a description of optical signals, the description of the optical signals describing (i) an incident optical signal to the optical system and (ii) a target optical signal of the optical system;
determining, based at least in part on the characteristics of the first lens, the meta-atom, and the first distance, a first layout of a plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens;
determining a first output optical signal of the optical system based at least in part on the incident optical signal and the first layout of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens; and
setting a design of the first lens using the first layout based on whether a difference between the first output optical signal and the target optical signal meets a threshold, wherein the difference comprises a difference between an intensity profile of the first output optical signal and an intensity profile of the target optical signal scaled by a scale factor.
The limitations determining […] a first layout, determining a first output optical signal, and setting a design are abstract ideas because they are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. The limitations of determining a layout and determining an optical signal describe the mathematical equations disclosed in the instant specification. Furthermore, a user can perform the mental evaluations of determining a layout, determining an optical signal, and setting a design based on a threshold. A user may use pen and paper to draw the layout and design, and calculate the optical signal.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A method for designing a metalens (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
receiving a description of an optical system, the description of the optical system indicating (i) characteristics of a first lens in the optical system, (ii) a meta-atom to be used in the first lens, and (iii) a first distance from the first lens (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
receiving a description of optical signals, the description of the optical signals describing (i) an incident optical signal to the optical system and (ii) a target optical signal of the optical system (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activities of receiving a description of an optical system and receiving a description of optical signals are considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, further comprising: based on the difference between the first output optical signal and the target optical signal not meeting the threshold, determining, based at least in part on the characteristics of the first lens, the meta-atom, the first distance, and the first layout, a second layout of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical processes and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a second layout. A user may use pen and paper to perform the required calculations.
determining a second output optical signal of the optical system with the incident optical signal and with the second layout of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical processes and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a second output optical signal. A user may use pen and paper to perform the required calculations.
and setting the design of the first lens using the second layout based on whether a difference between the second output optical signal and the target optical signal meets the threshold; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical processes and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of setting a design. A user may use pen and paper to perform the required calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, wherein: the description of the optical system further indicates characteristics of a second lens in the optical system and a second distance from the second lens; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
the first distance is between the first lens and the second lens in the optical system; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and determining the first layout is further based on the characteristics of the second lens and the second distance; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a layout based on lens characteristics and a distance. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the first layout comprises determining a geometric design parameter for each of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining geometric design parameter. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, wherein the first layout is further based on different incident angles for each of the plurality of the meta-atom; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining geometric design parameter. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, wherein the first layout is further based on a polarization of the optical signal and a response for each of the plurality of the meta-atom to the polarization; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a layout based on a polarization of an optical signal and meta-atom response. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, wherein the first output optical signal is based at least in part on an absorbing boundary condition of a space within the first distance from the first lens; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining an optical signal based on a boundary condition. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The method of Claim 1, wherein the difference is further based on a phase of the first output optical signal and on a phase of the target optical signal; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mathematical concepts and/or mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a difference between phases. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 10-16 and 18, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-7 and 9, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “memory” and “processor” recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 1 and 2, respectively, and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “non-transitory computer readable medium,” “instructions,” and “processor” recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f), and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansouree et al. (Mansouree, Mahdad, Andrew McClung, Sarath Samudrala, and Amir Arbabi. "Large-scale parametrized metasurface design using adjoint optimization." Acs Photonics 8, no. 2 (2021): 455-463.), hereinafter Mansouree.
Regarding Claim 1, Mansouree teaches A method for designing a metalens (“Here, we describe an adjoint-optimization based design technique that uses parametrized meta-atoms.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
comprising: receiving a description of an optical system, the description of the optical system indicating (i) characteristics of a first lens in the optical system (“The design process involves finding a set of meta-atom parameters that generate the desired transformation efficiently. As shown in Figure 2a, to find the optimal design, we optimize the structure iteratively from a trivial initial design (e.g., a uniform array in which all meta-atoms are identical).” The initial design is interpreted as comprising characteristics of a first lens.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, last paragraph).
(ii) a meta-atom to be used in the first lens (“Each meta-atom’s shape is described by one or more parameters that are variables in the design process. Thus, a design can be expressed as a vector p containing all the design parameters.” Describing a meta-atom’s shape is analogous to describing a meta-atom to be used.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 1).
and (iii) a first distance from the first lens (“To demonstrate the parametrized adjoint method, we designed two metalenses with Nas of 0.78 and 0.94 (Figure 3a). The diameters of both metalenses are 50 μm, yielding focal lengths of 20 and 8.3 μm.” The focal length of a meta-lens is interpreted as a first distance.) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
receiving a description of optical signals (“The goal of metastructure design is to transform an incident electric field Ei into a desired transmitted or reflected field distribution Ed [...] In our proposed method, the design is cast as an optimization problem of maximizing the fraction of the output field in the desired field distribution. Specifically, an optimal design maximizes I = |F|2, where [F is given by equation (1)].” Ei and Ed are interpreted as descriptions of optical signals.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 1 and equation (1)).
the description of the optical signals describing (i) an incident optical signal to the optical system and (ii) a target optical signal of the optical system (“[In equation (1)], Ed is the desired field in the frequency domain on the plane S, Ef(p) is the field realized by a design defined by p in the forward simulation excited by Ei.” Ei is interpreted as describing an incident optical signal and Ed is interpreted as describing a target optical signal.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 2 and equation (1)).
determining, based at least in part on the characteristics of the first lens, the meta-atom, and the first distance, a first layout of a plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens (“Optimization starts from an initial design p(0) and is updated iteratively (p(1), p(2), ...) via gradient ascent [...] The gradient of the objective function necessary to determine the next design is given by ∇pI=2Re{F*∇pF}, where Re{.} represents the real part of a complex number [...] In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size.” p(1) is interpreted as a first layout of meta-atoms on a lens.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraphs 3 and 5; page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
determining a first output optical signal of the optical system based at least in part on the incident optical signal and the first layout of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens (“In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size,” wherein the updating is calculated using equation (1) describing F(p), further wherein “Ed is the desired field in the frequency domain on the plane S, Ef(p) is the field realized by a design defined by p in the forward simulation excited by Ei (Figure 2b).” Ef(p) is interpreted as a first output optical signal based on the layout p.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 2 and equation (1); page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
and setting a design of the first lens using the first layout based on whether a difference between the first output optical signal and the target optical signal meets a threshold (“The simulations were run until the results converged [...] In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size.” The gradient ascent converging is interpreted as analogous to an output signal and target signal meeting a threshold. Figure 3(b) further discloses a difference between a target efficiency and simulated efficiency of the simulated meta-lens.) (e.g., page 4, figure 3, column 2, paragraphs 1 and 2).
wherein the difference comprises a difference between an intensity profile of the first output optical signal and an intensity profile of the target optical signal scaled by a scale factor (Figure 3(b) discloses a difference between a target efficiency and simulated efficiency of the simulated meta-lens. Furthermore, figure S10(e) discloses “normalized field intensity profiles at each wavelength,” which may be used to calculate the difference.) (e.g., page 4, figure 3; page S18, figure S10).
Regarding Claim 2, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising: based on the difference between the first output optical signal and the target optical signal not meeting the threshold (“The simulations were run until the results converged.” In other words, if the first layout p(1) does not converge, the method steps of Mansouree are repeated to generate a second layout p(2).) (e.g., page 4, column 2, paragraph 1).
determining, based at least in part on the characteristics of the first lens, the meta-atom, the first distance, and the first layout, a second layout of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens (“Optimization starts from an initial design p(0) and is updated iteratively (p(1), p(2), ...) via gradient ascent [...] The gradient of the objective function necessary to determine the next design is given by ∇pI=2Re{F*∇pF}, where Re{.} represents the real part of a complex number [...] In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size.” p(2) is interpreted as a second layout of meta-atoms on a lens determined based on p(1) and the gradient.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraphs 3 and 5; page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
determining a second output optical signal of the optical system with the incident optical signal and with the second layout of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens (“In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size,” wherein the updating is calculated using equation (1) describing F(p), further wherein “Ed is the desired field in the frequency domain on the plane S, Ef(p) is the field realized by a design defined by p in the forward simulation excited by Ei (Figure 2b).” Ef(p) is interpreted as a first output optical signal based on the layout p.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 2 and equation (1); page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
and setting the design of the first lens using the second layout based on whether a difference between the second output optical signal and the target optical signal meets the threshold (“The simulations were run until the results converged [...] In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size.” The gradient ascent converging is interpreted as analogous to an output signal and target signal meeting a threshold. Figure 3(b) further discloses a difference between a target efficiency and simulated efficiency of the simulated meta-lens.) (e.g., page 4, figure 3, column 2, paragraphs 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the first layout comprises determining a geometric design parameter for each of the plurality of the meta-atom on the first lens (“The elements lie on a rectangular lattice with lattice constants of ax = 700 nm and ay = 1600 nm. The heights of the posts are chosen to be h = 800 nm.” The heights of the meta-atom posts are interpreted as a geometric design parameter.) (e.g., page S1, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1, wherein the first layout is further based on different incident angles for each of the plurality of the meta-atom (“The adjoint source generates a plane wave that arrives at the metasurface with incidence angle θ1,” wherein the source is used in the simulation that determines the next iteration of p.) (e.g., page S8, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1, wherein the first output optical signal is based at least in part on an absorbing boundary condition of a space within the first distance from the first lens (“Time-domain simulations were run until the fields converged (133 fs). The structure is terminated on all sides by a PML boundary condition,” wherein the PML boundary condition is an absorbing boundary condition. The boundary of the meta-lens structure is a space within the first distance of the first lens.) (e.g., page 7, column 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1, wherein the difference is further based on a phase of the first output optical signal and on a phase of the target optical signal (“Simulated transmittance and phase of the transmission coefficient for a periodic array of meta-atoms are shown in Figure S15a and were used to obtain the design map shown in Figure S15b.” Figure S15 discloses a phase based on a post width, wherein the post width determines the meta-lens intensity and efficiency difference.) (e.g., page 7, column 2, paragraph 5; page S23, figure S15).
Regarding Claim 10, Mansouree teaches A system for designing a metalens (“Here, we describe an adjoint-optimization based design technique that uses parametrized meta-atoms.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
comprising: a memory; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory (“Simulations were done using a workstation with an Intel E5−2680 CPU; 10 cores were used for each simulation.” The CPU is interpreted as being communicatively coupled to a memory. Furthermore, the CPU has an on-chip cache which may be interpreted as memory.) (page 7, column 1, paragraph 5).
The remaining limitations of claim 10 recite significantly similar limitations to claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 4 and 5, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 16 and 18, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 7 and 9, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19, Mansouree teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for designing a metalens (“Here, we describe an adjoint-optimization based design technique that uses parametrized meta-atoms […] Simulations were done using a workstation with an Intel E5−2680 CPU; 10 cores were used for each simulation.” The CPU is interpreted as being communicatively coupled to a memory. Furthermore, the CPU has an on-chip cache which may be interpreted as memory.) (e.g., page 1, abstract; page 7, column 1, paragraph 5).
The remaining limitations of claim 19 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
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.
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.
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(s) 3, 6, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansouree in view of Chen et al. (Chen, Mu Ku, Yongfeng Wu, Lei Feng, Qingbin Fan, Minghui Lu, Ting Xu, and Din Ping Tsai. "Principles, functions, and applications of optical meta‐lens." Advanced Optical Materials 9, no. 4 (2021): 2001414.), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 3, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1. Mansouree further teaches wherein: the description of the optical system further indicates characteristics of a second lens in the optical system and a second distance from the second lens (“The design process involves finding a set of meta-atom parameters that generate the desired transformation efficiently. As shown in Figure 2a, to find the optimal design, we optimize the structure iteratively from a trivial initial design (e.g., a uniform array in which all meta-atoms are identical) [...] Each meta-atom’s shape is described by one or more parameters that are variables in the design process. Thus, a design can be expressed as a vector p containing all the design parameters.” The design parameters may be provided for a second lens in the system in the same way as the first lens.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, last paragraph; column 2, paragraph 1).
and determining the first layout is further based on the characteristics of the second lens and the second distance (“Optimization starts from an initial design p(0) and is updated iteratively (p(1), p(2), ...) via gradient ascent [...] The gradient of the objective function necessary to determine the next design is given by ∇pI=2Re{F*∇pF}, where Re{.} represents the real part of a complex number [...] In each step of the optimization, the design vector was updated according to p(n+1) = p(n)+s∇p(n)I, where s is the step size.” Another matrix p(0) representing design parameters for a second lens may be provided to determine a first layout p(1) for said second lens in the same way as the first lens.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraphs 3 and 5; page 4, column 2, last paragraph).
However, Mansouree does not appear to specifically teach the first distance is between the first lens and the second lens in the optical system.
On the other hand, Chen, which relates to principles and applications of meta-lenses, does teach wherein the first distance is between the first lens and the second lens in the optical system (“Figure 13c displays a miniaturized quantitative phase microscope based on two dielectric metasurface layers and the classical differential interference contrast approach.” Figure 13c further discloses a distance between the two meta-surface layers of the microscope, which may be the meta lens focal length from Mansouree in order to focus the output of meta-surface layer 1 onto meta-surface layer 2.) (e.g., page 16, figure 13 and column 2, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Mansouree with Chen. Mansouree teaches a method for optimizing a meta-lens. However, Mansouree does not appear to specifically teach optimizing a system with two meta-lenses. On the other hand, Chen does teach a system with two meta-lenses and responses of meta atoms to polarization. As both Mansouree and Chen relate to the design of meta-lenses (e.g., Mansouree, page 1, abstract; Chen, page 1, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the method of Mansouree to simulate cascading meta-lenses. Furthermore, Mansouree envisions “that the adaptation of the parameterized adjoint optimization to design of large-scale metasurfaces will enable efficient cascading of multiple metasurfaces to implement compact, complex metasystems with high performance” (e.g., page 7, column 1, paragraph 2). Chen provides an example of such a system through a quantitative phase microscope (e.g., page 16, figure 13). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the principles of meta-surfaces as taught by Chen into the simulation method of Mansouree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to combine Mansouree with Chen in order to provide an improved meta-lens simulation method capable of simulating two cascading meta-lenses.
Regarding Claim 6, Mansouree teaches The method of Claim 1. However, Mansouree does not appear to specifically teach the method wherein the first layout is further based on a polarization of the optical signal and a response for each of the plurality of the meta-atom to the polarization.
On the other hand, Chen, which relates to principles and applications of meta-lenses, does teach wherein the first layout is further based on a polarization of the optical signal and a response for each of the plurality of the meta-atom to the polarization (“Polarization-responsive meta-lenses can be integrated with polarizers to realize the combined function of incident polarization modulation and focusing tunability within a single miniaturized device.” A polarization-responsive meta-lens may be used in the simulation of Mansouree to determine a layout based on a polarization of an optical signal and response to the polarization by the meta-lens.) (e.g., page 14, column 1, paragraph 4 to column 2, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Mansouree with Chen for the same reasons as in claim 3, above.
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claims 3 and 6, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189