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 10/22/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior 101 rejections, 112(b) rejections, and 112(f) interpretations previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed 07/23/2025. Claims 6, 8-14, and 20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments about the prior art rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Park discloses the metalens element 1120a is to designed to correct geometric and chromatic distortion, whereas the classical element 1160 is used to prevent distortion, and therefore that the metalens element 1120a does not affect distortion. However, geometric aberration includes (synonymous with) distortion. Therefore, since Park discloses the metalens element 1120a is designed to correct geometric aberration, Park does disclose the metalens element 1120a corrects distortion (¶0096). Applicant argues that Park does not disclose that the presence of the metalens element results in a ±5% difference in resolution function compared to the optical system with the metalens absent. However, Park discloses the same system as the claimed invention – at least one classical optical element and a metalens element, wherein the metalens element is for distortion control – thus, the ±5% difference in resolution function would be a characteristic/physical property that would necessarily flow from the substantially identical structure, i.e. be inherent, 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.
Applicant argues that because the sixth lens element 1160 of Park is provided to prevent distortion and that “Park utilizes its metalens element for an entirely different purpose”, a rejection modifying the primary reference to install an advantage already found in the primary reference is improper. However, the examiner notes again that geometric aberration includes distortion, therefore the metalens element is not used for an entirely different purpose. Since the metalens element is used for distortion, it would be obvious for one to modify the amount of distortion correction the metalens performs to find a workable range. Further, the examiner notes that although the sixth lens 1160 is provided to prevent distortion as well, the metalens element can still provide a ±5% difference in resolution function.
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 19 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the modified resolution function" and "the modified total field of view" in the first and last lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes “the reference resolution function” and “the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
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.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park et al. (US 20210132256 A1), hereinafter Park1.
Regarding independent claim 15, 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 an 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.
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses the optical system of claim 15, 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 17, Park discloses the optical system of claim 15, 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 19, Park discloses the optical system of claim 15, as set forth above. Park further discloses the difference between the reference resolution function and the 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 reference resolution function and the 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 reference resolution function and the 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 reference resolution function and the 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 21, Park discloses the optical system of claim 15, 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 7, the method of building the optical system of claims 15-17, 19, and 21 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; how to build the optical system would clearly follow from the description of the optical system in Park.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 are 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 18, Park discloses the optical system of claim 15, 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.
Regarding claim 4, the method of building the optical system of claim 18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; how to build the optical system would clearly follow from the description of the optical system in Park.
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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 December 22nd, 2025
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Where applicant claims an apparatus in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the apparatus of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the property or characteristic is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112 III.