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
Claims 1-10, 12, 15 and 18-28 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, 18 and 20-22 are currently amended; claims 2-7, 9, 19 and 24 are original; claims 10, 23 and 25 are previously presented; claims 11, 13-14 and 16-17 are canceled; and claims 26-28 are newly added. The amendment dated November 25, 2025 has been entered into the record.
The specification was previously objected to for a typographical error, claim 16 was previously objected to because of an informality and claims 16-17 and 20-22 were previously rejected under 112(b) rejections. The objections and rejections are now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 26 and 27, the applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that it is well known to those of ordinary skill in the relevant art that a diffraction grating follows the relationship … As can be seen from the equation, diffraction order is understood in the context of a particular wavelength of light, not different wavelengths. Therefore, although Han shows reflecting incident light into different angles based on wavelength, Han has not been shown to disclose or suggest separating incident light into "multiple diffractive orders."” (Remarks, Pages 11-12).
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 26 and 27 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons:
Figure 4 of Han was not necessarily cited to indicate the incident light should be diffracted to different wavelengths and different wavelengths mean multiple diffraction orders. Rather, the examiner considers Han identifies metasurface gratings which separate incident light(s), and are capable of having multiplex diffraction orders. It has been well-known that asymmetric meta-grating structures are gratings having multiple diffraction orders as evidenced by at least Lin et al. (US 2018/0231702 A1) (Paragraph [0197] “asymmetric metasurfaces can steer the diffracted light into one of a plurality of diffraction orders”). In this case, Han teaches asymmetric metasurfaces (see ns having different widths in Figure 1 of Han, and 1312 and 1316 in Figure 13A of Lin). The new rejections further recite Lin that explains the background.
The examiner further notes that the applicant fails to describe any structural difference between Han’s and the applicant’s. Without disclosing any structure of the metasurface, such as the dimensions and periodicity of nanostructures, but only arguing that the prior art cannot perform the function the applicant claims might indicate a lack of the best mode, because the applicant is acknowledging that the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US 2020/0256725), of record, as evidenced by Lin et al. (US 2018/0231702 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Han discloses an apparatus (Figures 1-4; see Paragraphs [0027]-[0030] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1-4) comprising:
a folded optical path (200) including a plurality of optically reflective surfaces (212, 213, 111) at least one of which includes an optical metasurface (Paragraph [0070]), wherein the optical metasurface is configured to separate incident light impinging on the metasurface into multiple diffractive orders (the structure in Figure 4),
wherein Lin further describes asymmetric metasurface gratings (see different ns in Figure 1 of Han, and 1312 and 1316 in Figure 13A of Lin) are capable of having multiple diffraction orders (Paragraph [0197]).
Regarding claim 27, Han discloses an apparatus (Figures 1-4; see Paragraphs [0027]-[0030] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1-4) comprising:
a folded optical path (200) including a plurality of optically reflective surfaces (212, 213, 111) at least one of which includes an optical metasurface (Paragraph [0070]), wherein the plurality of optically reflective surfaces includes a first reflective surface and a second reflective surface (212, 213),
wherein the optical metasurface is configured to separate incident light into different diffractive orders (the structure in Figure 4), wherein a first diffractive order of the different diffractive orders is directed toward the first optically reflective surface, and a second diffractive order of the different diffractive orders is directed toward the second optically reflective surface (the asymmetric structure identified in Figure 4 capable of steering the diffracted light into one of a plurality of diffraction orders, where reflective surfaces of Han are designed to receive and transmit diffracted lights),
wherein Lin further describes asymmetric metasurface gratings (see ns in Figure 1 of Han and 1312 and 1316 in Figure 13A of Lin) are capable of having different diffraction orders and steering the diffracted light into one of a plurality of diffraction orders (Paragraph [0197]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12, 15, 18-25 and 28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Han (US 2020/0256725), of record, discloses an apparatus (Figures 1-4; see Paragraphs [0027]-[0030] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1-4) comprising:
a folded optical path (200) including a plurality of optically reflective surfaces (212, 213, 111) at least one of which includes an optical metasurface (Paragraph [0070]),
wherein the plurality of optically reflective surfaces includes first and second optically reflective surfaces (212, 213), wherein: the first reflective surface is configured to reflect light, which has a first polarization and which is incident on the first reflective surface, toward the second reflective surface (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0071] teaching 212 configured to reflect and polarize the incoming light), wherein the light reflected from the first reflective surface is reflected at an angle different from an angle of the incident light (Figure 4), and at least one of the first or second reflective surfaces comprises an optical metasurface (Paragraph [0070]).
However, Han does not disclose, in light of the specification, “the second reflective surface is configured to change a polarization of the light that is incident on the second reflective surface from the first polarization to a second different polarization, and to reflect the light having the second polarization toward the first reflective surface, the first reflective surface is configured to reflect the light which has the second polarization and which is incident on the first reflective surface, at an angle that differs from an incident angle of the light that has the second polarization and that is incident on the first reflective surface”. The examiner further considered Wheelwright et al. (US 2021/0096453, hereinafter “Wheelwright”), Jeong et al. (US 2018/0059223, hereinafter “Jeong”) and Wong (US 2002/0036828). However, Han, Lin, Hansotte, Wheelwright, Jeong, and Wang, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12, 15 and 18-25 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, Han discloses an apparatus (Figures 1-4; see Paragraphs [0027]-[0030] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1-4) comprising:
a folded optical path (200) including a plurality of optically reflective surfaces (212, 213, 111) at least one of which includes an optical metasurface (Paragraph [0070]),
wherein the plurality of optically reflective surfaces includes a first optically reflective surface, a second optically reflective surface and a third optically reflective surface (212, 213, 111),
wherein the first optically reflective surface is configured to reflect light, which has a first polarization and which is incident on the first optically reflective surface, toward the second optically reflective surface (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0071] teaching 212 configured to reflect and polarize the incoming light), wherein the light reflected from the first optically reflective surface is reflected at an angle different from an angle of the incident light (Figure 4), and at least one of the first optically reflective surface, the second optically reflective surface or the third optically reflective surface comprises the optical metasurface (Paragraph [0070]).
However, Han does not disclose, in light of the specification, “the second optically reflective surface is configured to change a polarization of the light that has the first polarization, and that is incident on the second optically reflective surface, from the first polarization to a second different polarization, and to reflect the light having the second polarization toward the third optically reflective surface, the third optically reflective surface is configured to reflect the light that has the second polarization, and that is incident on the third optically reflective surface, toward the second optically reflective surface, the second optically reflective surface is further configured to change a polarization of the light that has the second polarization, and that is incident on the second optically reflective surface, from the second polarization to the first different polarization, and to reflect the light having the first polarization”. The examiner further considered Wheelwright, Jeong and Wong. However, Han, Lin, Hansotte, Wheelwright, Jeong, and Wang, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 28.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871