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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 31 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on03/27/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application as a continuation of application 17/923,886 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024,10/10/2024, 10/18/2025 and 02/37/2026 were filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 06/01/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 21-30 and 32-40 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 claim 21, lines 6 and 7 of claim 21 read “wherein each supercell of the plurality of supercells includes a lateral dimension which is greater than a wavelength”. The specific wavelength value is not defined by the claim and therefore there is no definite value to which wavelength the lateral dimension of the supercell must be.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “a wavelength” as stated in line 7 of claim 21, is understood to mean “a wavelength in an operating band of the device” as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 21 below.
Claims 22-30 and 32-40 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 21.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21,35,36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali et al. (hereinafter Kamali) (US 20200025975 A1) in view of Shaltout et al. (hereinafter Shaltout) (US 20170003169 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kamali discloses in Fig. 3,
An optical device [Fig. 3] (Para. [0027]) comprising:
a metasurface [330] (Para. [0027]) comprising a plurality of supercells [305] (para. [0027]), the metasurface [330] (Para. [0027]) disposed on a substrate [315] (Para. [0027]) and are configured to reflect or transmit a portion of light as an output beam (Para. [0027]),
wherein the plurality of supercells [305] are groupings of sub-wavelength optical elements [310] (Paras. [0027,0028]) (see Fig. 4) which exert arbitrary phase (Paras.[0027,0034]) and/or amplitude control over a set of diffraction orders (Paras. [0027,0034]),
Kamali fails to disclose,
wherein each supercell of the plurality of supercells includes a lateral dimension which is greater than a wavelength, and
wherein the plurality of supercells include two or more different supercells at different positions to exert different phase and/or amplitude control at the different positions.
Shaltout discloses in Figs. 3A and 3B,
an array [311] (Para. [0026]) with supercells [period P of antennas 312] (Para. [0026]) wherein each supercell of the plurality of supercells [period P of antennas 312] (Para. [0026]) includes a lateral dimension which is greater than a wavelength (Para. [0027]), and
wherein the plurality of supercells [periods P of antennas 312] (Para. [0026]) include two or more different supercells at different positions to exert different phase and/or amplitude control at the different positions (Para. [0027]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of the optional limitation of claim 1 above is understood to be “wherein the plurality of supercells include two or more different supercells at different positions to exert different phase control at the different positions.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the supercell structure of Shaltout as the metasurface supercell structure of Kamali for the purpose of forming a phase distribution across each period of the metasurface. (Shaltout Para. [0027])
Regarding claim 35, Kamali in view of Shaltout disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Shaltout Fig. 3B,
wherein the supercells [period P of antennas 312] (Para. [0026]) are arranged such that all the supercells have the same size along the y-axis and are distributed in regular rows [rows of 312 Fig. 3B] (Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 36, Kamali in view of Shaltout disclose the device outlined in the rejection of claim 35 above and further discloses in Shaltout Fig. 3B,
wherein the supercells [period P of antennas 312] (Para. [0026]) are further arranged such that the supercells have variable position and size along the x-axis (Paras. [0026,0027]) to implement a phase profile (Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 39, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Shaltout Fig. 3B,
wherein the plurality of supercells [periods P of antenna 312] (Para. [0026]) include two or more different supercells at different lattice positions (see Fig. 3B) (Para. [0027]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali in view of Shaltout as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lefevre et al. (hereinafter Lefevre) (US 6560249 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is configured to reflect the output beam at an angle orthogonal to a plane of the substrate; and
the output beam is a collimated beam.
Lefevre discloses in Figure 4C,
a diffractive element [5] (Col. 5, lines 44-47) configured to reflect a beam [151, 152] (Col. 6, lines 1-8) at an angle orthogonal to a plane of the base of the diffractive element [5] (Col. 5, lines 44-47) and
the beam [151,152] is a collimated beam (Col. 6, lines 1-8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the collimated orthogonal output of the diffractive element of Lefevre with the metasurface of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of having a parallel collimated output in a specified direction away from the metasurface.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali in view of Shaltout as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of “Ultra-High-Efficiency Anomalous Refraction with Dielectric Metasurfaces” (hereinafter Sell).
Regarding claim 23, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose
wherein the plurality of supercells is arranged in a curvilinear lattice.
Sell discloses,
Metasurface elements arranged in a curvilinear manner (Page 2406, left column, Paragraphs 2 and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the curvilinear structure of the metasurface elements of Sell into the metasurface of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of utilizing strong near-field coupling between neighboring structures. (Sell Page 2406, left column, Paragraph 2)
Claims 24,29,30,37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali in view of Shaltout as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Hunter et al. (hereinafter Hunter) (US 20070223554 A1) and further in view of Arbabi et al. (hereinafter Arbabi) (US 20170212285 A1)
Regarding claim 24, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Kamali Fig. 3,
reflecting a portion of the light as the output beam [see 335 Fig. 3] (Para. 0027]) at an angle that is nonzero relative to a direction of an input beam (Para. [0027]).
Kamali in view of Shaltout fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is configured to:
reflect and focus a first portion of light as a feedback beam
Hunter discloses in Fig. 1,
a diffractive reflective element [108] (Para. [0050]) configured to reflect a first portion of light as a feedback beam [towards 102] (Para. [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the partial feedback reflectivity shown in Hunter in the modified device of Kamali for the pur9osep of having wavelength tunability of the device. (Hunter Para. [0050])
Kamali in view of Shaltout and Hunter fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is configured to:
reflect and focus a first portion of light as a feedback beam
Arbabi discloses in Fig. 22,
a metasurface [“device” Fid. 22a] (Para. [0078]) is configured to:
reflect and focus a first portion of light (Para. [0078])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the focusing aspect of the metasurface of Arbabi in the feedback reflection of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of reducing beam divergence. (Arbabi Para. [0078])
Regarding claim 25, Kamali in view of Shaltout, Hunter and Arbabi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 24 above and further discloses,
wherein:
each supercell of the plurality of supercells comprise one or more elements [Shaltout 312 Fig. 3B] (Shaltout Para. [0026]); and
an angle (Shaltout Para. [0027]) and intensity (Shaltout Para. [0032]) of the feedback beam (see Hunter Fig. 1) and an angle (Shaltout Para. [0027]) and intensity (Shaltout Para. [0031]) of the output beam [Shaltout Fig. 3] (Shaltout Paras. [0027,0032]) are defined according to at least one of a position of the one or more elements, a dimension of the one or more elements (Shaltout Paras. [0027,0032]), a geometry of the one or more elements, or an orientation of the one or more elements (Shaltout Paras. [0027,0032]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 25 is understood to be “… an angle and intensity of the output beam are defined according to at least a dimension of the one or more element and an orientation of the one or more elements.”
Regarding claim 29, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is further configured to reflect and focus a first portion of light as a feedback beam.
Hunter discloses in Fig. 1,
a diffractive reflective element [108] (Para. [0050]) configured to reflect a first portion of light as a feedback beam [towards 102] (Para. [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the partial feedback reflectivity shown in Hunter in the modified device of Kamali for the pur9osep of having wavelength tunability of the device. (Hunter Para. [0050])
Kamali in view of Shaltout and Hunter fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is further configured reflect and focus a first portion of light as a feedback beam
Arbabi discloses in Fig. 22,
a metasurface [“device” Fid. 22a] (Para. [0078]) configured to reflect and focus a first portion of light (Para. [0078])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the focusing aspect of the metasurface of Arbabi in the feedback reflection of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of reducing beam divergence. (Arbabi Para. [0078])
Regarding claim 30, Kamali in view of Shaltout, Hunter and Arbabi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 29 above and further discloses in Kamali Fig. 3,
reflecting a portion of the light as the output beam [see 335 Fig. 3] (Para. [0027]) is reflected at an angle that is nonzero relative to a direction of the feedback beam Para. [0027]) (also see Hunter Fig. 2) (Hunter Para. [.0054])
Regarding claim 37, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Kamali Fig. 3,
reflect a second portion of light as the output beam [see 335 Fig. 3] (Para. [0027]).
Kamali in view of Shaltout fails to disclose,
further comprising a gain medium comprising a facet, wherein the metasurface is further configured to reflect and focus a first portion of light from the facet back to the gain medium as a feedback beam
Hunter discloses in Fig. 1,
a gain medium [102] comprising a facet [114] (Para. [0047]), wherein a diffractive reflective element [108] (Para. [0050]) configured to reflect a first portion of light from the facet [114] back to the gain medium as a feedback beam [towards 102] (Para. [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the partial feedback reflectivity towards a gain medium as shown in Hunter in the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of using a semiconductor device capable of producing a coherent light beam and having wavelength tunability of the device. (Hunter Paras. [0047,0050])
Kamali in view of Shaltout and Hunter fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is further configured reflect and focus a first portion of light as a feedback beam
Arbabi discloses in Fig. 22,
a metasurface [“device” Fid. 22a] (Para. [0078]) configured to reflect and focus a first portion of light (Para. [0078])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the focusing aspect of the metasurface of Arbabi in the feedback reflection of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of reducing beam divergence. (Arbabi Para. [0078])
Regarding claim 38, Kamali in view of Shaltout, Hunter and Arbabi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 27 above and further discloses in Hunter,
wherein spatially translating the metasurface with respect to the gain medium [102 Fig. 1] modifies a wavelength of the feedback beam [120 Fig. 1] (Paras. [0050,0064]).
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali in view of Shaltout as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mosallaei et al. (hereinafter Mosallaei) (US 20140085693 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a polarization and shape of the output beam are defined according to at least one of a position of the sub-wavelength optical elements, a dimension of the sub-wavelength optical elements, a geometry of the sub- wavelength optical elements, or an orientation of the sub-wavelength optical elements.
Mosallaei discloses,
a metasurface (Para. [0086]) comprising a plurality of supercells [“nanoantennas”] (Para. [0086]) that change the amplitude, phase, polarization, direction, concentration (Paras. [0086,0087]) and/or shape (Para. [0088]) of light depending on aspects of the metasurface structure, such as shape of the supercells [“nanoantennas”] (Para. [0087])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to implement the variable metasurface nanoantenna
structure of Mosallaei into the metasurface structure of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of selectively varying aspects of the light incident on the metasurface. (Mosallaei Para. [0086])
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 26 is understood to be “… defined according to a dimension and geometry of the sub-wavelength optical elements.”
Regarding claim 28, Kamali in view of Shaltout and Mosallaei as applied to claim 26 above further discloses in Mosallaei,
a phase and shape (Paras. [0086,0088]) of the output beam are defined
according to at least one of a position of the sub-wavelength optical elements, a dimension of the sub-wavelength optical elements, a geometry of the sub-wavelength optical elements, or an orientation of the sub-wavelength optical elements (Paras. [0086-0088])
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 28 is understood to be “… defined according to a dimension and geometry of the sub-wavelength optical elements.”
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali in view of Shaltout as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Han et al. (hereinafter Han) (US 20200072668 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above and further discloses in Shaltout Fig. 3A,
wherein the metasurface [311] (Para. [0026]) is configured to reflect a feedback beam [RCP,LCP] (Para. [0027]) at a first point for a first operating wavelength [λ1], a second point for a second operating wavelength [λ2], and
a third point for a third operating wavelength [λ3] (Para. [0027]);
Kamali in view of Shaltout fails to disclose,
wherein the metasurface is configured to focus a feedback beam at a first point for a first operating wavelength, a second point for a second operating wavelength, and
a third point for a third operating wavelength;
wherein the first point, the second point, and the third point are located on a straight line.
Han discloses in Fig. 1,
a metasurface [111] (Para. [0057]) focusing a beam at respective points based on wavelength values (Para. [0068]),
wherein the respective points are located on a straight line (Para. [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the focusing of the respective wavelength beams of the modified device of Kamali as shown in Han for the purpose of directly controlling the location of the respective wavelengths of light. Han Paras. [0068,0077]
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali in view of Shaltout as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Vukovic-Cvijin et al. (hereinafter Vukovic) (US 20120206725 A1)
Regarding claim 40, Kamali in view of Shaltout discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 21 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising:
a gain medium; and
a spatial light modulator disposed between the gain medium and the metasurface, the gain spatial light modulator configured to tune a wavelength of the output beam.
Vukovic discloses in Figure 7,
A gain medium [122] (Para. [0053]) and spatial light modulator (SLM) [120] (Paras. [0039 and 0053] disposed between the gain medium [122] (Para. [0053]) and a diffractive element [118] (Para. [0053]), the spatial light modulator [120] (Para. [0053]) configured to tune a wavelength of the output beam (Paras. [0010,0021])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the SLM of Vukovic between a gain medium and the metasurface of the modified device of Kamali for the purpose of determining and tuning a specific output wavelength of the laser. (Vukovic Para. [0021])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 32 reads:
wherein the supercells provide a complex amplitude profile in reflection for a reflection or diffraction order defined by:
RNa,Nb(x,y)=|CNa,Nb (na,nb)>exp(2πiNaa(x, y) + 2πiNbb(x, y))
where the coordinate system is defined by two continuous functions a(x,y) and b(x,y) defined in such a way that lattice points correspond to values of x and y such that a and b are integer numbers, where the supercells are indexed with integers (na,nb) such that na=a(x,y) and nb=b(x,y),and where Na, N are the indexes of the reflection or diffraction order, na and nb are the indexes of the supercell found at position (x,y), and |CNa,Nb (na,nb)> is the reflection coefficient of the supercell for the reflection or diffraction order.
(US 20140085693 A1) discloses the process of independently tailoring the amplitude and phase profiled of metasurfaces and define said profiles in paragraph [0123] but fail to define the complex amplitude profile as listed in the limitations of claim 32.
(US 20190086683 A1) defines phase functions of separate focused points from a metasurface dependent on wavelength in relation to a location of specific unit cell geometries as disclosed in Paras. [0060-0062] and shown in equations (2) and (3) of US 20190086683 A1. Paragraph [0091] also relates an amplitude profile to specific diffraction orders of the metasurface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 20220179193 A1) which discloses a variably controlled reflective metasurface.
Further, (US 20200348176 A1) discloses the use of a reflective metasurface and a focusing metasurface which focuses three separate wavelengths of light in a straight line.
(US 20130208332 A1) discloses a metasurface capable of both transmission and reflection and the control of amplitude, phase and polarization of the incident light. (See PTO-892 form.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights