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 Amendment filed July 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 24 has been amended.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's traversal of the election by original presentation in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims were improperly withdrawn because the requirement mischaracterizes the original claims, the generic claims were constructively elected and twice examined on the merits, and the requirement is inconsistent with the examined claims. This is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the requirement mischaracterizes the original claims. Specifically, applicant argues that the original independent claims 1, 8, and 15 were silent as to wavelength, therefore generic as to the chromatic content of the light on which the optical system operates, i.e., reading on both monochromatic and multichromatic operation, that the monochromatic/narrow-band limitation only appeared in original dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, and that original dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the optical system is configured to operate on light in at least part of the visible or the infrared spectrum. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 3, 10, and 17 were generic and are not an indicator that a multichromatic embodiment had been chosen or examined. By having a dependent claim for each independent claim that was directed to the monochromatic embodiment (claims 4, 11, 18), and no claim limitations directed to a multichromatic embodiment, a claim set was presented that chose a particular species. Presenting the claims in this way constructively elected the species of a monochromatic embodiment.
Applicant argues the generic claims were constructively elected and twice examined on the merits. Specifically, applicant argues that claims 1-3, 5, 7, 15-17, 19, and 21 were directed to a generic invention which did not contain a monochromatic/narrow-band limitation, therefore amended claims 1 and 15 fall within the constructively elected invention. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 4, 11, and 18 had contained the monochromatic/narrow-band limitation, therefore the constructively elected invention is the monochromatic embodiment. Therefore, the constructively elected species of the monochromatic/narrow-band embodiment was examined twice. Amended claims 1 and 15 are directed towards a multichromatic embodiment, which is a different invention than the constructively elected invention.
Applicant argues the requirement is inconsistent with the examined claims. Specifically, applicant argues that dependent claim 27 “is configured to operate on light either at a monochromatic wavelength or in a narrow wave band around a monochromatic wavelength,” therefore the claims that were examined (claims 24-29) have no limitation as to wavelength, bandwidth, or chromaticity and reads on operation using multichromatic light as well as monochromatic light. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Light exists in a spectrum. There is no such thing as a single wavelength. As commonly understood, monochromatic light exists as a small spectrum quantified by a full width at half maximum, not a single line. This is further evidenced by ¶0039 of applicant’s specification (emphasis added by examiner):
In some other embodiments, the method according to the present invention can be used to design monochromatic optical systems instead of polychromatic. In these systems, the design is optimized for either a single wavelength and a filter is then generally used to only let this particular wavelength or a narrow band around a central wavelength to pass through the optical system. In some embodiment, this narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum is smaller than 10 nanometers, the limits of the narrow waveband being defined as the wavelengths where the transmission of the system due to its filter is 50%. In other embodiments, this narrow band can be smaller than 25 nanometers. In some other embodiments, this narrow band can be smaller than 50 nanometers. In some other embodiments, this narrow band can be smaller than 100 nanometers. The optical systems designed according to embodiments of methods to the present invention can thus be configured to operate on light either at a monochromatic wavelength or in a narrow wave band around a monochromatic wavelength.
One of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a narrow waveband around a desired wavelength to achieve monochromatic light with basic knowledge.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 24 have been considered and are appreciated. Applicant argues that neither Park nor Devlin disclose its metalens element separates polarization of light incoming to the system. However, a new reference is used to teach this limitation; see rejection below.
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.
Claims 24-29 are 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 independent claim 24, the limitations of the entire claim raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear how changing the polarization affects distortion. The metalens is only claimed to “separate polarization of light incoming to the optical system,” however is still stated to be “for distortion control” and produce a resolution function different from a reference resolution function. It is unclear if the polarization function of the metalens is what causes the distortion control or if there is some other unclaimed function being performed by the metalens for distortion control. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes that the metalens element must be doing some other unclaimed function that results in distortion control.
It is also unclear what a “resolution function” is. It is unclear if it is a function being performed by the device or if it is a mathematical function. Based on the specification, it is assumed to be a mathematical function, however this must be defined in the claim.
It is unclear what is considered a “classical optical element”. For example, spherical lenses, aspherical lenses, dichroic elements, doublets, achromatic lenses, polarizers, etc. It is unclear if a classical optical element is any type of optical element that is not a metalens element or if only a subset of everything besides metalens elements can count as a classical optical element. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes that a classical optical element is any type of optical element that is not a metalens element.
It is unclear if “without the at least one metalens element present in the optical system, the at least one classical optical element creates a reference optical image in a reference image plane, the reference optical image having a reference total field of view in which is defined a reference resolution function, and wherein a value of the resolution function is at least ±5% from a corresponding value of the reference resolution function for at least one common field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view” is claiming benefits of a metalens system over a classical system or if both a metalens system and a classical system are being claimed and compared. It is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if there is some unknown system the metalens system is being compared to. Each element that is claimed needs to be present in the system and described structurally or functionally. Furthermore, the resolution function being at least ±5% from the reference resolution function appears to be a benefit. It has been held “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see MPEP 2173.05(g). For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes this limitation is met by a metalens that can correct distortion.
Claims 25-29 are dependent on claim 24 and therefore inherit the same issues.
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.
Claim(s) 24-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210132256 A1), hereinafter Park, in view of Arbabi et al. (US 20190113885 A1), hereinafter Arbabi.
Regarding independent claim 24, Park discloses an optical system using at least one metalens element for distortion control (¶0096), the optical system comprising:
at least one classical optical element (1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1150, 1160, 1170; Fig. 1; ¶0091) arranged along an optical axis (Fig. 1); and
at least one metalens element (1120a; Fig. 1; ¶0096) arranged along the optical axis (Fig. 1),
the optical system creating an optical image in the image plane (Fig. 1), the optical image having a total field of view in which is defined a resolution function (inherent for the optical image to have a field of view and a resolution function),
wherein, without the at least one metalens element (1120a) present in the optical system, the at least one classical optical element (1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1150, 1160, 1170) creates a reference optical image in a reference image plane, the reference optical image having a reference total field of view in which is defined a reference resolution function (inherent for the same system with one element removed to have a different optical image, image plane, field of view, and resolution function), and
wherein a value of the resolution function is at least ±5% from a corresponding value of the reference resolution function for at least one common field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view (inherent – the system has the same structure of at least one classical optical element and metalens element, wherein the metalens element is used for distortion control, and performs the same function; see MPEP 2112).
In the alternative, if Park’s invention does not inherently have a value of the resolution function is at least ±5% from a corresponding value of the reference resolution function for at least one common field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Park has all of the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make a value of the resolution function is at least ±5% from a corresponding value of the reference resolution function for at least one common field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view for the purpose of using a metalens to image with high resolution and controlling distortion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a value of the resolution function to be at least ±5% from a corresponding value of the reference resolution function for at least one common field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view for the purpose of using a metalens to image with high resolution and controlling distortion.
Park discloses the metalens is configured to modulate polarization of incident light (¶0096), however Park does not explicitly state that the metalens is configured to separate polarization of light incoming to the optical system.
However, Arbabi discloses an optical system comprising at least one classical optical element (220; Fig. 2; ¶0025) and at least one metalens element (205; Fig. 2; ¶0025), wherein the metalens element (205) is configured to separate polarization of light incoming to the optical system (¶0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the metalens being configured to separate polarization of light incoming to the optical system as taught by Arbabi for the purpose of imaging only one polarization of light.
Regarding claim 25, Park in view of Arbabi discloses the optical system of claim 24, as set forth above. Park further discloses the at least one metalens element (1120a) is made of either titanium dioxide or amorphous silicon (¶0149).
Regarding claim 26, Park in view of Arbabi discloses the optical system of claim 24, as set forth above. Park further discloses the optical system is configured to operate on light in at least a part of the visible (¶0010) or the infrared spectrum.
Regarding claim 28, Park in view of Arbabi discloses the optical system of claim 24, as set forth above. Park further discloses the difference between the resolution function and the reference resolution function creates at least a difference of ±5% in either an f*theta or an f*tan(theta) distortion for at least one field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view (inherent – the system has the same structure of at least one classical optical element and metalens element, wherein the metalens element is used for distortion control, and performs the same function; see MPEP 2112).
In the alternative, if Park’s invention does not inherently have the difference between the resolution function and the reference resolution function creates at least a difference of ±5% in either an f*theta or an f*tan(theta) distortion for at least one field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Park has all of the claimed elements of an optical system, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the difference between the resolution function and the reference resolution function be at least a difference of ±5% in either an f*theta or an f*tan(theta) distortion for at least one field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view for the purpose of using a metalens to image with high resolution and controlling distortion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the difference between the resolution function and the reference resolution function be at least a difference of ±5% in either an f*theta or an f*tan(theta) distortion for at least one field angle inside the reference total field of view and the total field of view for the purpose of using a metalens to image with high resolution and controlling distortion.
Regarding claim 29, Park in view of Arbabi discloses the optical system of claim 24, as set forth above. Park further discloses the image plane is different from an image plane of a classical-only optical system (¶0121), and/or the field of view is different from a field of view of a classical-only optical system.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20210132256 A1) in view of Devlin et al. (US 20210028215 A1), hereinafter Devlin.
Regarding claim 27, Park in view of Arbabi discloses the optical system of claim 24, as set forth above. Park does not disclose the optical system is configured to operate on light either at a monochromatic wavelength or in a narrow wave band around a monochromatic wavelength.
However, Devlin teaches a similar optical system for imaging using metasurfaces (Fig. 1; ¶0093), wherein the optical system is configured to operate on light either at a monochromatic wavelength or in a narrow wave band around a monochromatic wavelength (¶0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical system of Park to operate in a narrow wave band as taught by Devlin for the purpose of enhancing details of specific wavelengths of light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Engleberg et al. (Engelberg, J., Levy, U. The advantages of metalenses over diffractive lenses. Nat Commun 11, 1991 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15972-9) discloses polarization sensitivity in metalenses.
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 October 2nd, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
