DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on August 27, 2025. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 5, and 6 have been amended, while new claims 9-10 have been added.
Claims 1-10 remain pending and are finally rejected herein, with claim 1 as the sole independent. Dependent claim 9 is objected to as including allowable features over both combination prior art rejections found below.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. US 2017/0287151 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 10,489,924 B2), and further in view of Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,066,696 B2.
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, Han et al. US 2017/0287151 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 4, 5; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0049] – [0071]; Claims) a phase modulation element (Fig. 1, in view of features found in Figs. 4 and 5; the structured light generator of Han is configured and capable of “modulating” phase of an incident light) comprising: a substrate SU1 (as shown in Fig. 5) that is made of a uniform material (at least a dielectric, see paras [0060] – [0061]); and a plurality of first columnar portions MS1 (Fig. 5) constituting a first metasurface (MS, MS1 features as in 120 of Fig. 5; ABS “first metasurface including nanostructures”), wherein each of the first columnar portions includes a first surface that is closest to the substrate (bottom of MS1’s in Fig. 5), and a second surface that is farthest from the substrate (top of MS1’s in Fig. 5), an area of the second surface that may be different from the area of the first surface in plan view from the direction perpendicular to the substrate, and the phase modulation element (as in Fig. 1) is configured and capable of functioning so that light is incident (from LS, Fig. 1) on the second surface and passes through the first metasurface and the substrate, and the light emitted from the substrate has a phase that is determined by a physical configuration of the first columnar portions (note that the size / shape / formation of Han’s columns MS / MS1 with inherently “determine” such phase features; paras [0009] – [0013], [0065], Figs. 6-7).
Regarding independent claim 1, although Han US ‘151 paragraph [0059] teaches that the columnar portioned shaped of the columns may be “asymmetric”, there is no exact disclosure that the second surface being further from the substrate has a smaller area than the closest “first surface” to the substrate. This feature may be implied by “asymmetric” in para [0059] but it is not exactly found within the 4-corners of such document for an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,066,696 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 6, 10, 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 15A-15D; corresponding text, in particular column 18 lines 16-59; Claims) a phase modulation element (meta-optical device of Park can affect / control the phase) comprising: a substrate (base substrate SU shown in Figs.); and a plurality of first columnar portions constituting a first metasurface (using “metamaterials” in Park; Figs. 11-14 show multiple “column” examples on the “substrate”; in different layer(s)), wherein each of the plurality of first columnar portions includes a first surface (bottom, Figs. 15C-D) that is closest to the substrate, and a second surface (top, Figs. 15C-D) that is farthest from the substrate, and an area of the second surface is smaller than an area of the first surface in plan view from a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Figs. 15C and 15D give example of shapes usable for the columns or “columnar” forms), and Park and is capable of the broad “phase modulation” preamble functional language (Park column 18, lines 16-59).
Since Han ‘151 and Park ‘696 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Park ‘696 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Han ‘151.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Park, to use columnar shape features that form a metasurface with the example embodiment of the sizes / shapes of Figs. 15C or 15D, in which the “second surface” has a smaller area than the “first surface”, into the base design of a phase modulation element of Han, for the purpose of recognizing different sizes and shapes for those columnar portions to perform such “modulation” functions pertaining to phase. Notably, Han itself discusses “asymmetric” shapes of their columns, but not exactly with smaller surface area at the “top” portion thereof (away from the supporting substrate). Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of a first columnar portions having such design choices for those shapes because Han already discussed asymmetric shapes (para [0059]). See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Han and further in view of Park. Han and Park is henceforth “COMBO1” in this rejection.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the features of COMBO1 for the diameter is gradually increasing based on Park’s Figs. 15C and/or 15D, which meets all structure.
Regarding claim 3, based on Park’s columnar features, and also the columnar features of Han, in relation to the example “substrates” found in Han para [0060] – [0062], the refractive indexes of the columns are higher than the refractive index of at least some of the sample substrates SU1, which meets all structure (substrate being lower in refractive index than the columns).
Regarding claim 6, using a lens features (for collimation, focusing, etc.) after the light passes through the COMBO1 phase modulation element would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date of the current application. KSR. Using lenses is common in the art for light generation, such as Han, and in particular noting Figs. 16-17 of Park, as the camera module 2280 can include a lens, which is capable of use with the phase modulator of Park, because light can pass through the feature 100 / 101 / 102 / 103 / 104 of Park to a lens in an overall system (columns 19-22). For these reasons, claim 6 would have been obvious over COMBO1 with the inclusion of a “lens” after the phase modulation element. KSR.
Regarding claim 7, the phase modulation of Han (noting Fig. 1) Park is capable of being used with a larger system, to include a projector (Han see Fig. 1 features are “projected” onto SL; in Park within the display 2260 portion, see column 20, lines 10-19), therefore all claimed intended use for structure of claim 7 is met by COMBO1.
Regarding claim 8, the intended use of using such optics of COMBO1 with a larger system, such as a head-mounted-display (HMD) is an obvious choice of features, because of the phase modulation features of COMBO1, using such phase modulation to improve the viewing experience of a user in a HMD is an obvious use of the structure of claim 1. Therefore all claimed intended uses for structure of claim 8 is obvious over COMBO1, and would have been easily recognized and incorporated by POSITA. KSR.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada US 2020/0124950 A1, and further in view of Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,066,696 B2.
Regarding sole pending independent claim 1, Yamada US 2020/0124950 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 14-17 for usable embodiments; Entire Document; Claims) a phase modulation element (phase can be modulated, paras [0081] – [0082]) comprising: a substrate (221, base, etc.); and a plurality of first columnar portions constituting a first metasurface (using metamaterials or a metasurface 222 in Yamada; Figs. 14-17, etc. show multiple “column” examples on the glass substrate), wherein each of the plurality of first columnar portions includes a first surface (left, Figs. 14-15) that is closest to the substrate, and a second surface (right, Figs. 14-15) that is farthest from the substrate, and in which the phase modulation element is configured and capable of the function in which the light is incident (from left in Figs. 14-17) on the second surface and passes through the first metasurface and the substrate, and the light emitted from the substrate has a phase that is determined by a physical configuration of the first columnar portions (aberration but phase is affected). Of note pertaining to the amendment to independent claim 1 on August 27, 2025, Yamada teaches embodiments in which the columns are on the light emission side of the substrate 381, and travel through the columns first.
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamada ‘950 does not expressly and exactly teach that the plurality of columns have a first surface area near the substrate and a second surface area away from the substrate, in which the area of the second surface is smaller than the first surface.
Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,066,696 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 6, 10, 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 15A-15D; corresponding text, in particular column 18 lines 16-59; Claims) a phase modulation element (meta-optical device of Park can affect / control the phase) comprising: a substrate (base substrate SU shown in Figs.); and a plurality of first columnar portions constituting a first metasurface (using “metamaterials” in Park; Figs. 11-14 show multiple “column” examples on the “substrate”; in different layer(s)), wherein each of the plurality of first columnar portions includes a first surface (bottom, Figs. 15C-D) that is closest to the substrate, and a second surface (top, Figs. 15C-D) that is farthest from the substrate, and an area of the second surface is smaller than an area of the first surface in plan view from a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Figs. 15C and 15D give example of shapes usable for the columns or “columnar” forms).
Park column 18, lines 16-59 gives examples, benefits, and motivations in which the columnar shaped features can be usable in order to improve optical functionality and target phase profiles or features. Such gradually increasing columnar shapes would have been recognized as usable into the base system of Yamada ‘950 for the similar purposes of improving phase modulation and recognizing different column shapes are part of an obvious design choice of manufacturing the “element.”
Since Yamada ‘950 and Park are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Park would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Yamada ‘950.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Park, to use columnar features for metasurfaces / metamaterials, such that those columns have a narrower surface area away from a substrate (see Figs. 15C-15D of Park) in comparison to larger surface area at the contact point with the substrate/base, into the base design of the phase modulation element of Yamada ‘950 (as in Figs. 14-17), to allow features as embodied by Park’s shapes, to improve optical control and phase parameters, by the use of these columns. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of the columns of Figs. 15C-15D of Park into the art of Yamada. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Yamada and further in view of Park (henceforth “COMBO2”).
Regarding further dependent claims 2-8 and 10, these features are either expressly taught by the hypothetical combination in claim 1 of COMBO2, or would have been obvious design choices or intended uses of the base design. Noting claim 3, these refractive index features are shown by both Park and Yamada, for the refractive index of the substrate is lower than the metasurface columns. Additionally, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as refractive indexes, multiple columns on multiple sides of the substrate, reflective surfaces and lenses, or intended uses with display / projector and/or head mounts (note similar Figs. 14-17 in Yamada ‘950 for displays; also note that columns can be on both sides of a substrate/lens in some embodiments) because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Yamada / Park to perform equally well with such features and intended uses of the phase modulation because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve displays by controlling such phase features. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a phase modulation element such as in COMBO2, most particularly because similar uses are shown in Yamada ‘950 (same Inventor and Assignee). Further, the base structure of the independent claim is found obvious by Yamada/Park and Han/Park (note above). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to adapt or use COMBO2 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2-8 and 10. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 9, there is no express teach or reasonable suggestion from the combined devices of either COMBO1 or COMBO2 above to include function in which “the phase modulation element is further configured so that light incident on the first metasurface resonates in a first waveguide mode in a direction P perpendicular to a surface of the substrate where the first columnar portions protrude from the surface of the substrate in the direction P, and resonates in a second waveguide mode in an in-plane direction orthogonal to the direction P” (note amendment to add new dependent claim 9 on August 27, 2025). None of the current closest prior art either expressly teaches or makes reasonably obvious such features in a single combination (note applicant’s para [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 (pages 7-10) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended numerous features into sole pending independent claim 1 in the amendment on August 27, 2025, and such features have necessitated any current shifts in ground of rejection, or any new grounds of rejection. Noting Yamada ‘950, some embodiments show the light entering the columnar metasurfaces before the substrate (see Figs. 14-17). Accordingly, this action is made FINAL, to claims 1-8 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references B-C to Rho US ‘376 and Ellenbogen US ‘175, which pertain to the state of the art of phase modulation elements/device than particularly shaped metamaterials to impart phase or other optical modulation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any shifting ground(s), or any new ground(s) of rejection as 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 Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 October 21, 2025