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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0075868 “Kress”) in view of Xia et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0252761 “Xia”) and Lai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0375747 “Lai”).
Regarding claim 1, Kress embodiment of Figure 11 discloses an optical lens (including elements 1150/1151/1152) comprising:
a plurality of phase delay structures (“metalens” each of elements 1150/1151/1152, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069] discuss phase delay within the metalens) disposed in an array (1150/1151/1152 form an array).
Kress embodiment of Figure 11 fails to disclose the structure of the phase delay structures as proposed. The embodiments of Figures 14 and 16, however, teach phase delay structures as circular (Figure 14D) and comprises a center (center of Figure 14D) and a plurality of microstructures (Paragraph [0128] e.g. concentric rings), wherein distances D between two adjacent microstructures of each of the phase delay structures in a radial direction of the center are the same (Paragraph [0132], Figure 16A shows evenly spaced P between adjacent microstructures), and distances D of at least two of the phase delay structures among the phase delay structures are different (Paragraph [0135], on-center spacings P are adjusted according to the focused wavelength) wherein the phase delay structures comprise a first phase delay structure (1150 Red), a second phase delay structure (1151 Green), and a third phase delay structure (1152 Blue), and have the different distances D respectively (per the change of 16A element P for different wavelengths of light [0135]-[0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the phase delay structures as proposed. One would have been motivated to form the phase delay structures as circular to accommodate a given beam shape in the imaging system of Figure 11. One would have been further motivated to form adjacent microstructures to have same distances D between microstructures to act on specific wavelengths in each of the metalenses according to the function described in Paragraphs [0136]-[0138]. Further, one would have been motivated to form at least two of the phase delay structures to have different distances D to accommodate different colors of light to be focused (Paragraph [0137] describes a distance of 180 nm for blue light and Paragraph [0138] describes a distance of 230 nm for red light).
Kress further fails to disclose a substrate in which the plurality of phase delay structures are disposed on the substrate. Kress does disclose the phase delay structures 1150, 1151, 1152 as coplanar. Xia teaches coplanar phase delay structures (metalens units) as formed on a common substrate (Xia: Figure 6b; Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plurality of phase delay structures on a common substrate. One would have been motivated to form the phase delay structures on a substrate as proposed for purposes of proper orientation/alignment among the phase delay structures relative to one another and to benefit from manufacturing expediencies of having the structures on a common substrate.
Kress further fails to disclose D within the specific range compared to λ, but teaches examples close to the claimed range of ~ λ/3 (Paragraphs [0137]-[0138]) and also teaches adjustability of D to meet target specifications for deflection (Paragraph [0132], pitch P parameter). Also, Lai teaches a similar phase delay structure and a range overlapping with the claimed range for D (Lai: Paragraph [0034], nano-structure pitch being 500nm for a 940nm central wavelength which is in the middle of the claimed range λ/2.5 < D < λ/1.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the distances D to meet the conditional formula. One would have been motivated to adjust the distance between microstructures to meet a desired specification of deflection for the lens, for example, to meet a particular deflection/collimation angle or focal length (Kress: Paragraph [0132]).
Kress further fails to disclose the height of each of the microstructures as within the range of 900 nm to 1100 nm. Lai, however, teaches the height of the microstructure as selected based on the center wavelength including matching the height to the center wavelength (Paragraph [0035]; λC /10) ≥ H ≥ λC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the height within a range of 900 nm to 1100 nm to accommodate a longer wavelength of light such as at 940 nm or higher.
Regarding claim 2, Kress discloses each of the phase delay structures as a convergent lens (Figure 11, beam path of 1155/1156/1157; Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Kress embodiment of Figure 11 as modified by the embodiment of Figure 14D discloses the microstructures as a plurality of rings (Paragraph [0128).
Regarding claim 4, Kress embodiment of Figure 11 fails to explicitly disclose the microstructures as a plurality of cylinders as proposed. Kress embodiments of Figures 15 and 17, however, disclose the microstructures as implemented as cylinders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the microstructures as cylinders having a same width in the radial direction for cylinders a same distance from the center. One would have been motivated to form the microstructures as cylinders to benefit from a shape known to perform the deflection of a specific wavelength of light (Paragraph [0147]). One would have been further motivated to form the microstructures to have a same width in the radial direction for cylinders a same distance from the center to form the metalens so as to have radial symmetry as is common for a conventional lens.
Regarding claim 5, Kress Figure 11 as modified by Kress embodiments of Figures 14D and 16A discloses the phase delay structures as comprising a first phase delay structure (1150 Red), a second phase delay structure (1151 Green), and a third phase delay structure (1152 Blue), and have the different distances D respectively (per the change of 16A element P for different wavelengths of light [0135]-[0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Kress discloses the first phase delay structure, the second phase delay structure, and the third phase delay structure as configured to generate phase delay for a red color light, a green color light, and a blue color light, respectively (Paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 10, Kress discloses the effective focal lengths of the first phase delay structure, the second phase delay structure, and the third phase delay structure as the same (Kress: Figure 11 shows identical focal lengths to the respective sensors, also see Paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 11, Kress Figure 11 embodiment as modified by the embodiments of Figures 14D and 16A discloses the ratio of a wavelength of color to a width of the microstructures as falling within the proposed range (See parameter “D” as described with relation to the Red, Green, and Blue colors per Paragraphs [0135]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 12, Kress Figure 11 embodiment as modified by the embodiments of Figures 14D and 16A discloses the ratio of height to width as falling within the proposed range (Paragraphs [0135]-[0139]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress in view of Xia and Lai and in further view of Czaplewski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0025464 “Czaplewski”).
Regarding claim 8, Kress discloses the first phase delay structure and the third phase delay structure as configured to generate phase delay for a red color light and a blue color light, respectively (Paragraph [0119]). Kress fails to disclose the second phase delay structure as configured to generate phase delay for a yellow color light. Czaplewski, however, teaches analogous metalenses focusing yellow visible light (Czaplewski: Paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second phase delay structure to generate phase delay for yellow color light. One would have been motivated to form the second phase delay structure as proposed to accommodate a greater number of wavelengths to include a yellow wavelength, or to substitute yellow for green (Czaplewski: Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress in view of Xia and Lai and in further view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0229207 “Li”).
Regarding claim 13, Kress fails to disclose the refractivity of the microstructures as proposed. Li, however, teaches refractivity of the microstructures within the proposed range (Paragraph [0042] antennas: 2.49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the microstructures to have the proposed refractivity. One would have been motivated to form the microstructures as proposed to produce a desired deflection angle and focal length of the lens (Li: Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H CALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871