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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/06/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to the national stage application PCT/US21/31423. The certified copy of the national stage priority application PCT/US21/31423 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024,10/10/2024 and 10/18/2025 were filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 11/07/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the metasurface configured to both “reflect a second portion of the light as an output beam at an angle that is nonzero relative to a direction of the feedback beam” as recited in claim 1 and
“focus the feedback beam at a first point for a first operating wavelength, a second point for a second operating wavelength, and a third point for a third operating wavelength; wherein the first point, the second point, and the third point are located on a straight line” as described in claim 8 which depends on claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Examiner notes that Fig. 3 of the claimed application discloses a metasurface focusing a feedback beam at a first, second and third point in relation to a first operating wavelength, a second operating wavelength, and a third operating wavelength (respectively) located on a straight line. Fig. 3 does not show a metasurface configured to reflect a second portion of light as an output beam that is nonzero relative to a direction of the feedback beam, as disclosed in claim 1. Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and therefore all limitations of claim 1 are also included in the limitations of claim 8.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 8 is not shown as a figure including both of
first, second and third points corresponding to first, second and third operating wavelengths (respectively) as described above in relation to claim 8 as well as
the metasurface reflecting a second portion of light as described above in relation to claim 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 2 read “wherein spatially translating the metasurface with respect to the gain medium modifies a wavelength of the feedback beam.” Examiner notes that the limitation is ambiguous on if the purpose of the limitation is a functional limitation as described in MPEP § 2114 or an intended use limitation described in MPEP § 2144(ii) and 2144.07.
If the limitation is understood to be functional language, there is no clear structure claimed in claims 1 or 2 that discloses how the metasurface is being spatially translated with respect to the gain medium.
If the limitation is understood to be an intended use limitation, the claims do not describe how the metasurfaces of the claimed application are modifying a wavelength of the feedback beam and therefore do not allow clear bounds of what a prior art metasurface structure must be in order to anticipate the limitations the claim.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the limitations of claim 2 are understood to be functional language limitations, where the device includes a structure performing the function of spatially translating a metasurface and thereby modifying an output wavelength as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 2 below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia et al. (hereinafter Xia) (WO 2020019573 A1) in view of Oh et al. (hereinafter Oh) (US 20060029119 A1). (Examiner notes an attached machine translation of Xia will be used for the claim mapping of Xia for the remainder of the instant application. See PTO-892 form of 09/26/2025)
Regarding claim 1, Xia discloses in Fig. 1
A laser device [Fig. 1] (Para. [52]) comprising:
a gain medium [1] (Para. [53]) comprising a facet [facets a and b] (Para. [56]); and
a metasurface [3] (Para. [53]) comprising a plurality of supercells [See Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)] (Para. [59]), the metasurface disposed on a substrate [9] (See Fig. 7(d)) (Para. [43]) and configured to:
reflect a first portion of light from the facet [facet b] back to the gain medium [1] as a feedback beam (Para. [56])
Xia fails to disclose,
The metasurface configured to:
reflect and focus a first portion of light from the facet back to the gain medium as a feedback beam; and
reflect a second portion of the light as an output beam at an angle that is nonzero relative to a direction of the feedback beam.
Oh discloses in Fig. 3,
a diffractive element [120] (Para. [0047]) configured to:
reflect and focus a first portion of light from a facet [right facet of 111 Fig. 3] back to a gain medium [112] (Para. [0042]) as a feedback beam (Para. [0047]); and
reflect a second portion of the light as an output beam [140a,140b] (Para. [0047]) at an angle that is nonzero relative to a direction of the feedback beam (Para. [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the focusing and output reflecting of the diffractive element of Oh with the diffractive metasurface element of Xia for the purpose of removing the need for a lens back to the gain medium and for reflecting beams of specific wavelength values away from the diffractive element. (Oh Para. [0047])
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 5491714 A).
Regarding claim 2, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein spatially translating the metasurface with respect to the gain medium modifies a wavelength of the feedback beam.
Kitamura discloses in Fig. 1,
A translational stage [7] used to vary the oscillation wavelength of a semiconductor laser [1] (Col. 1, lines 43-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the translational stage of Kitamura with the metasurface of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of varying the distance between the gain medium and diffractive element and carrying the oscillation wavelength. (Kitamura Col. 1, lines 43-50)
Regarding claim 13, Xia in view of Oh and Kitamura as applied to claim 2 above further discloses,
further comprising:
a translation stage [Kitamura 7 Fig. 1] (Col. 1, lines 48 and 49) configured to spatially translate the metasurface [Xia 3 Fig. 1] with respect to the gain medium [Xia 1 Fig. 1].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lefevre et al. (hereinafter Lefevre) (US 6560249 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein:
the metasurface is configured to reflect the output beam at an angle orthogonal to a plane of the substrate; and
the output beam is a collimated beam.
Lefevre discloses in Figure 4C,
a diffractive element [5] (Col. 5, lines 44-47) configured to reflect a beam [151, 152] (Col. 6, lines 1-8) at an angle orthogonal to a plane of the base of the diffractive element [5] (Col. 5, lines 44-47) and
the beam [151,152] is a collimated beam (Col. 6, lines 1-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the collimated orthogonal output of the diffractive element of Lefevre with the metasurface of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of having a parallel collimated output in a specified direction away from the metasurface.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Ultra-High-Efficiency Anomalous Refraction with Dielectric Metasurfaces” (hereinafter Sell).
Regarding claim 4, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the plurality of supercells is arranged in a curvilinear lattice.
Sell discloses,
Metasurface elements arranged in a curvilinear manner (Page 2406, left column, Paragraphs 2 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the curvilinear structure of the metasurface elements of Sell into the metasurface of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of utilizing strong near-field coupling between neighboring structures. (Sell Page 2406, left column, Paragraph 2)
Regarding claim 5, Xia in view of Oh and Sell as applied to claim 4 above further discloses,
wherein:
each supercell of the plurality of supercells comprise one or more elements [Xia Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)] (Xia Para. [59]); and
an angle and intensity of the feedback beam and an angle and intensity of the output beam are defined according to at least one of a position of the one or more elements, a dimension of the one or more elements, a geometry of the one or more elements, or an orientation of the one or more elements (See note below).
Figs. 3(b) and 3(c) show varying outgoing angles and efficiency percentages based on the variation of the widths of the dimensions of the metasurface elements. (See Sell Page 2403, right column paragraph 2 and Page 2404, left column first paragraph)
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 5 for the purposes of examination in the instant application is understood to be “an angle and intensity of the feedback beam and an angle and intensity of the output beam are defined according to at least a dimension of the one or more elements” as disclosed in Sell.
Claim 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mosallaei et al. (hereinafter Mosallaei) (US 20140085693 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Xia,
wherein:
each supercell of the plurality of supercells comprise one or more elements [Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)] (Para. [59]);
Xia in view of Oh fails to disclose,
a polarization and shape of the output beam is defined according to at least one of a position of the one or more elements, a dimension of the one or more elements, a geometry of the one or more elements, or an orientation of the one or more elements.
Mosallaei discloses,
a metasurface (Para. [comprising a plurality of supercells [“nanoantennas”] (Para. [0086]) that change the amplitude, phase, polarization, direction, concentration (Paras. [0086,0087]) and/or shape (Para. [0088]) of light depending on aspects of the metasurface structure, such as shape of the supercells [“nanoantennas”] (Para. [0087])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the variable metasurface nanoantenna structure of Mosallaei into the metasurface structure of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of selectively varying aspects of the light incident on the metasurface. (Mosallaei Para. [0086])
Regarding claim 11, Xia in view of Oh and Mosallaei as applied to claim 6 above further discloses in Mosallaei,
wherein:
each supercell of the plurality of supercells comprises one or more elements [“nanoantennas”] (Para. [0086]); and
a phase and shape (Paras. [0086,0088]) of the output beam are defined according to at least one of a position of the one or more elements, a dimension of the one or more elements, a geometry of the one or more elements, or an orientation of the one or more elements (Paras. [0086-0088]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunter et al. (hereinafter Hunter) (US 20070160106 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising:
a thermoelectric cooling element; and
a mirror disposed on at least one of the thermoelectric cooling element or a substrate of the gain medium, the mirror configured to receive the output beam from the metasurface and to reflect the output beam away from the at least one of the thermoelectric cooling element or the substrate of the gain medium.
Hunter discloses in Fig. 1,
a thermoelectric cooling element [108] (Para. [0053]); and
a mirror [106] (Para. [0053]) disposed on the thermoelectric cooling element [108], the mirror [106] configured to receive an output beam [120] and to reflect the output beam [120] away from the thermoelectric cooling element [108] (Para. [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the thermoelectric cooling element with integrated mirror as shown in Hunter to reflect the output beam of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of adjusting and tuning a specific wavelength to be reflected in the device. (Hunter Paras. [0052,0053])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (hereinafter Han) (US 10514296 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses
wherein:
the metasurface [Xia 3 Fig. 1] (Para. [53]) is configured to focus the feedback beam at a first point for a first operating wavelength [Oh feedback to 113 Fig. 3] (Para. [0047]),
Xia in view of Oh fails to disclose,
a second point for a second operating wavelength, and a third point for a third operating wavelength;
wherein the first point, the second point, and the third point are located on a straight line.
Han discloses in Fig. 12,
A metasurface [511] (Col. 12, line 30) configured to focus a beam into a first point for a first wavelength [λ1], a second point for a second wavelength [λ2] and a third point for a third wavelength [λ3] (Col. 12, lines 35-37)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the split metasurface reflection based on wavelength as disclosed in Han with the device of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of selectively choosing locations of desired wavelengths. (Han Col. 12, lines 32-37)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vukovic-Cvijin et al. (hereinafter Vukovic) (US 20120206725 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a spatial light modulator disposed between the gain medium and the metasurface, the spatial light modulator configured to tune a wavelength of the output beam.
Vukovic discloses in Figure 7,
a spatial light modulator (SLM) [120] (Paras. [0039 and 0053] disposed between a gain medium [122] (Para. [0053]) and a diffractive element [118] (Para. [0053]), the spatial light modulator [120] (Para. [0053]) configured to tune a wavelength of the output beam (Paras. [0010,0021])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the SLM of Vukovic between the gain medium and metasurface of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of determining and tuning a specific output wavelength of the laser. (Vukovic Para. [0021])
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia in view of Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tong et al. (hereinafter Tong) (US 20190157830 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Xia in view of Oh discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Xia Fig. 1,
wherein the facet [b] is a first facet comprising an anti-reflective coating (Para. [53], the laser device further comprising a second facet [a] comprising a reflective coating (Para. [56]).
Examiner notes paragraph [53] of Xia discloses a typographical error stating coating on the end face a is set to an antireflective coating. As seen in paragraph [56] of Xia where it is stated “adjusting the end face [a] of the gain chip [1] to increase the reflectance of the reflective film…”.
Xia in view of Oh fails to disclose,
wherein the gain medium is a laser diode
Tong discloses in Fig. 1,
a gain element [10] comprising a laser diode with a semiconductor gain media (Paras. [0056,0058])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the laser diode of Tong as the gain element of Xia in view of Oh for the purpose of having sufficient gain to overcome optical losses at a desired lasing wavelength. (Tong Para. [0056])
Regarding claim 12, Xia in view of Oh and Tong as applied to claim 10 above further discloses in Tong Fig. 1,
wherein the gain medium [10] (Para. [0056]) is at least one of a solid-state laser medium, a semiconductor laser medium (Para. [0058]), a crystal laser medium, a doped glass laser medium, a gas laser medium, a dye, or a quantum confinement effect laser medium.
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 12 for the purposes of examination in the instant application is “wherein the gain medium is a semiconductor laser medium”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights