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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitation of, “the third region corresponding to the second focal length, the fourth region corresponding to the first focal length”, is not obvious in view of Mun. The Examiner disagrees because the difference between the prior art and the claim limitation is simply the matching of the focal length of the first region and fourth region and the focal length of the second region and the third region, and Mun already explicitly teaches the fine control of the focal length, and phase of these regions as admitted by applicant (See Page 12 of Applicant’s Arguments and Fig. 2 of Mun) [Par 65-75]. Thus, simply matching the focal length of these regions would be well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art, and would of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so, in order to control the collection and dispersion of light [Par 65-67].
Therefore Mun does render all the claimed limitations of Claim 1 and 10 obvious, and the prior rejections are sustained and made final.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun (US 20220082731 A1).
Re Claim 1, Mun discloses, on Fig. 1-10, an alignment key comprising: a first multi-focal meta-lens (metalens 120) that comprises a plurality of first nanostructures (Fig. 5), the plurality of first nanostructures having a first shape distribution that forms two different focal lengths with respect to a first set of regions (Fig 2 and 5: negative refractive power in the chief portion, See annotated Fig. 5 below for first and second region, and a positive power in marginal portion in the first multi-focal meta-lens, AA2 or 120M) [Par 67 and 72]; and a second multi-focal meta-lens (lens 130) that comprises a plurality of second nanostructures (nanostructures in Fig. 6), the plurality of second nanostructures having a second shape distribution that forms the two different focal lengths with respect to a second set of regions in the second multi-focal meta-lens (Third and fourth regions in annotated Fig. 6, with positive power in the chief portion and negative power in the marginal portion) [Par 67], wherein the first set of regions comprises a first region with a first focal length and a second region with a second focal length (Fig 2 and 5: negative refractive power in the chief portion, See annotated Fig. 5 below for first and second region, and a positive power in marginal portion in the first multi-focal meta-lens, AA2 or 120M) [Par 67 and 72].
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, the third region corresponding to the first focal length, the fourth region corresponding to the second focal length.
However, Mun teaches the explicit control of refractive power (or focal length) as a function of the radius of the lens [Par 65 and 67], in relation to an inflection point between the chief portion and peripheral portion of the lens [Par 67]. Thus Mun teaches the ability to generally control the focal length of both the first and second region (control of focal length of chief and main portion of metalens 120) and the third and fourth region (control of focal length of chief and main portion of metalens 130). It would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply duplicate the focal length of the first region in the third region, and the focal length of the second region in the fourth region (See annotated 5 and 6 below, where Mun is already teaching where regions one and four are similar and regions two and three are similar). Further, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to, further modulate phase, polarization, and/or amplitude of the wavelength of incident light [Par 66].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mun, by duplicating the first focal length in the third region, and the second focal length in the fourth region, in order to further modulate phase, polarization, and/or amplitude of the wavelength of incident light [Par 66].
PNG
media_image1.png
652
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure 5 of Mun
PNG
media_image2.png
614
830
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig. 6 of Mun
Re Claim 2, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 1, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 1 and 5, wherein, the first region having a distance equal to or greater than d1(see annotated Fig. 5 above) and equal to or less than d2 from a center of the first multi-focal meta-lens (See Fig. 5), wherein, the second region having a distance equal to or greater than d3 and equal to or less than d4 from the center of the first multi-focal meta-lens (See Annotated Fig. 5 above), wherein the second focal length is different than the first focal length, wherein d1<d2<d3<d4 (see annotated Fig. 5 above).
While Mun does discloses lens 130 having a regions AA3 and AA4 (See Fig. 6), Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second multi-focal meta-lens is configured to exhibit a same focal length performance as the first multi-focal meta-lens.
Optimizing focal length performance is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches focal length performance as a variable which achieves a recognized result, to disperse or converge light at a certain distance [Par 65]. Further, Mun would be motivated to duplicate the focal distance of the first meta-lens in order to control the modulation of phase, polarization, or amplitude of certain wavelengths of incident light [Mun: Par 66].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting focal performance or distance and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize focal performance of the second metalens since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re claim 3, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 2, and further discloses on Fig. 2 and 5, wherein the second focal length is greater than the first focal length (Focal length of AA1 is negative and AA2 is positive) [Par 67].
Re Claim 4, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 2, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 3 and 5, “The zone Z may change in width when a phase of the nano structures NP changes to 2 πn (n is an integer)”, in relation to the angle of view of the meta lens assembly 100 being 40 to 80 degrees [Par 70].
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein each wherein each of the first region and the second region has a same numerical aperture.
Optimizing numerical aperture or f-number, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches F-number of a meta lens system as a variable which achieves a recognized result, brightness (exposure) control [Par 78]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting f-number and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the numerical aperture of the first and second regions such that they are the same, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 5, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 2, and Mun further discloses, on Fig. 5-6, wherein the second region has positive refractive power (all of region AA2 or 120m is positive) [Par 67]
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first region has positive power.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mun teaches, on Fig. 6, that it is desirable in meta lenses for a first region of a meta-lens to have a positive power (Region AA3 of lens 130 is positive) [Par 67 and 73]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply arranging both regions AA1 and AA2 to have positive focal power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mun, such that both the first and second regions of the first metalens are positive, in order to collect incident light as taught by Mun [Par 65].
Re Claim 6, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 2, and Mun discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the first region has negative refractive power (all of region AA1 is negative) [Par 67 and 72], and wherein the second region has positive refractive power (all of region AA2 is positive) [Par 67 and 72].
Re Claim 7, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 2, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 1 and 6, wherein the second shape distribution is configured so that the second multi-focal meta-lens (lens 130) has an optical performance of deflecting and emitting incident light (a meta lens with a focal power inherently both deflects and emits incident light) [Par 65, 67, and 73].
Re Claim 8, Mun discloses on Fig. 1, and 5-6, the alignment key of claim 1, wherein the first region has negative refractive power (See above Annotate Fig. 5: First region, AA1 has negative refractive power) [Par 67 and 72], the first region having a circular shape with a first diameter (annotated Fig. 5: first region has a circular shape with a diameter relative to inflection point) [Par 70];
Wherein the second region (See annotated Fig. 5: second region) is spaced apart from the first region in a first direction (Second region is apart from first region in a radial direction), the second region having positive refractive power (Annotated Fig. 5: second region is in AA2 or 120m which has positive refractive power) [Par 67 and 72], the second region having a circular shape with a second diameter (Second region has a circular shape with a diameter relative to inflection point) [Par 70],
wherein the third region (See annotated Fig. 6, with a third region in the same place as the first region in annotated Fig. 5) spaced apart from and faces the first region in a second direction that is perpendicular the first direction (Third region in annotated Fig. 6 is in the same location as the first region in annotated Fig. 5, thus overlapping in an optical axis direction), the third region having positive refractive power (AA3 has a positive refractive power) [Par 67 and 73], the third region having the circular shape with the second diameter (third region in annotated Fig. 6, is circular, and width of zone Z increases or decreases with respect to a position of the inflection point, and thus the width would be the same as the second region in Fig. 5) [Par 70];
wherein the fourth region (fourth region in annotated Fig. 6 is in the same location as the second region in annotated Fig. 5) is spaced apart from and faces the second region in the second direction (fourth region in annotated Fig. 6 overlaps with second region in an optical axis direction), the fourth region having negative refractive power (AA4 has negative refractive power) [Par 67 and 73], the fourth region having the circular shape with the first diameter (fourth region has a circular shape with a diameter relative to inflection point, thus giving it the same width as the first region in Fig. 5 ) [Par 70]
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, the third region corresponding to the second focal length, the fourth region corresponding to the first focal length.
Optimizing focal length is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches refractive power (or focal length) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, collecting or dispersing light [Par 65 and 67]. Further, Fig 6, has nanostructure regions AA3 and AA4 that have a change in size that is inverse to the regions of AA1 and AA2 [Par 72-73], which would further control the focal length of the region.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting focal length (or refractive power) and identifies said metrics as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the focal length of the regions such that, the third region corresponds to the second focal length, and the fourth region corresponding to the first focal length, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 9, Mun discloses, the alignment key of claim 8.
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the first region, the second region, the third region, and the fourth region has a same numerical aperture.
Optimizing numerical aperture or f-number, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches F-number of a meta lens system as a variable which achieves a recognized result, brightness (exposure) control [Par 78]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting f-number and identifies said metric as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the F-number wherein each of the first region, the second region, the third region, and the fourth region has a same numerical aperture, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 10, Mun discloses on Fig. 1-10, and 16, an alignment apparatus comprising: a light source (light is emitted from an object that is an image capturing target, which can be provided by flash 2320) [Par 105]; a first structure that comprises a first multi-focal meta-lens (metalens 120), the first multi-focal meta-lens comprising a plurality of first nanostructures (See nanostructures in Fig. 5), the plurality of first nanostructures having a first shape distribution that forms two different focal lengths with respect to a first set of regions in the first multi-focal meta-lens (Fig 2 and 5: negative refractive power in the chief portion, See annotated Fig. 5 below for first and second regions, and a positive power in marginal portion in the first multi-focal meta-lens, AA2 or 120M) [Par 67 and 72]; a second structure that comprises a second multi-focal meta-lens (lens 130), the second multi-focal meta-lens comprising a plurality of second nanostructures (see nanostructures in Fig. 6), the plurality of second nanostructures having a second shape distribution that forms the two different focal lengths with respect to a second set of regions in the second multi-focal meta-lens (positive power in the chief portion and negative power in the marginal portion) [Par 67]; an imaging device (Fig. 1: Imaging sensor 150 or device at imaging plane) [Par 62] configured to measure a beam pattern that is formed after light irradiated from the light source passes through the first multi-focal meta-lens and the second multi-focal meta-lens [Par 116]; a processor (processor 2360) configured to analyze an alignment state between the first structure and the second structure from a measurement result of the imaging device (Fig. 15-16:processor 2220 which includes auxiliary processor 2223, and image signal processor 2360 performs the analysis of depth map generation, 3D modeling, panorama generation, feature point extraction, noise reduction, etc., which would reveal poor alignment in the meta lenses 120 and 130) [Par 93 and 116]; and a driver (image stabilizer 2340) configured to drive at least one of the first structure or the second structure to change a relative positional relationship between the first structure and the second structure (image stabilizer 2340 can move the plurality of lenses in the lens assembly 2310) [Par 114], the processor being further configured to control the driver (image stabilizer is able to sense movement of the electronic device 2201 and move the plurality of lenses accordingly, which would inherently involve processor 2220 in electronic device 2201) [Par 114], wherein the first set of regions comprises a first region with a first focal length and a second region with a second focal length (Fig 2 and 5: negative refractive power in the chief portion, See annotated Fig. 5 below for first and second region, and a positive power in marginal portion in the first multi-focal meta-lens, AA2 or 120M) [Par 67 and 72].
Re Claim 11, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 10, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 1 and 5, wherein, the first region has a distance equal to or greater than d1(see annotated Fig. 5 above) and equal to or less than d2 from a center of the first multi-focal meta-lens (See Fig. 5), wherein the second region having a distance equal to or greater than d3 and equal to or less than d4 from the center of the first multi-focal meta-lens (See Annotated Fig. 5 above), wherein the second focal length is different than the first focal length, wherein d1<d2<d3<d4 (see annotated Fig. 5 above).
While Mun does discloses lens 130 having a regions AA3 and AA4 (See Fig. 6), Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second multi-focal meta-lens is configured to exhibit a same focal length performance as the first multi-focal meta-lens.
Optimizing focal length performance is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches focal length performance as a variable which achieves a recognized result, to disperse or converge light at a certain distance [Par 65]. Further, Mun would be motivated to duplicate the focal distance of the first meta-lens in order to control the modulation of phase, polarization, or amplitude of certain wavelengths of incident light [Mun: Par 66].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting focal performance or distance and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize focal performance of the second metalens since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 12, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 11, wherein the second focal length is greater than the first focal length (Focal length of AA1 is negative and AA2 is positive) [Par 67].
Re Claim 13, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 11, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 3 and 5, “The zone Z may change in width when a phase of the nano structures NP changes to 2 πn (n is an integer)”, in relation to the angle of view of the meta lens assembly 100 being 40 to 80 degrees [Par 70].
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein each wherein each of the first region and the second region has a same numerical aperture.
Optimizing numerical aperture or f-number, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches F-number of a meta lens system as a variable which achieves a recognized result, brightness (exposure) control [Par 78]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting f-number and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the numerical aperture of the first and second regions such that they are the same, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 14, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of Claim 11, Mun further discloses, on Fig. 5-6, wherein the second region has positive refractive power (all of region AA2 or 120m is positive) [Par 67]
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first region has positive power.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mun teaches, on Fig. 6, that it is desirable in meta lenses for a first region of a meta-lens to have a positive power (Region AA3 of lens 130 is positive) [Par 67 and 73]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply arranging both regions AA1 and AA2 to have positive focal power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mun, such that both the first and second regions of the first metalens are positive, in order to collect incident light as taught by Mun [Par 65].
Re Claim 15, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 14, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 15-16, wherein the processor is further configured to analyze a misalignment state between the first structure and the second structure in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis (Fig. 15-16:processor 2220 which includes auxiliary processor 2223, and image signal processor 2360 performs the analysis of depth map generation, 3D modeling, panorama generation, feature point extraction, noise reduction, etc., which would reveal poor alignment in the meta lenses 120 and 130) [Par 93 and 116].
But Mun does not explicitly, a position where the first structure and the second structure are positioned so that a distance between the first multi-focal meta-lens and the second multi-focal meta-lens is a sum of the first focal length and the second focal length.
Optimizing focal length and lens spacing is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result, to disperse or converge light at a certain distance, or image control distortion [Par 65 and 78], and lens spacing achieves the recognized result of effecting total track length [Par 69]
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting focal performance or distance and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize focal length and lens spacing of the second metalens since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 16, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 11, and Mun discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the first region has negative refractive power (all of region AA1 is negative) [Par 67 and 72], and wherein the second region has positive refractive power (all of region AA2 is positive) [Par 67 and 72].
Re Claim 17, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 18, and Mun further discloses on Fig. 15-16, wherein the processor is further configured to analyze a misalignment state between the first structure and the second structure in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis (Fig. 15-16:processor 2220 which includes auxiliary processor 2223, and image signal processor 2360 performs the analysis of depth map generation, 3D modeling, panorama generation, feature point extraction, noise reduction, etc., which would reveal poor alignment in the meta lenses 120 and 130) [Par 93 and 116].
But Mun does not explicitly, a position where the first structure and the second structure are positioned so that a distance between the first multi-focal meta-lens and the second multi-focal meta-lens is a sum of the first focal length and a second focal length.
Optimizing focal length and lens spacing is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result, to disperse or converge light at a certain distance, or image control distortion [Par 65 and 78], and lens spacing achieves the recognized result of effecting total track length [Par 69]
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting focal performance or distance and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize focal length and lens spacing of the second metalens since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 18, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 10, and Mun further discloses wherein the first region has negative refractive power (See above Annotate Fig. 5: First region, AA1 has negative refractive power) [Par 67 and 72] the first region having a circular shape with a first diameter (annotated Fig. 5: first region has a circular shape with a diameter relative to inflection point) [Par 70];
wherein the second region (See annotated Fig. 5: second region) is spaced apart from the first region in a first direction (Second region is apart from first region in a radial direction), the second region having positive refractive power (Annotated Fig. 5: second region is in AA2 or 120m which has positive refractive power) [Par 67 and 72, the second region having a circular shape with a second diameter (Second region has a circular shape with a diameter relative to inflection point) [Par 70],
wherein the third region (See annotated Fig. 6, with a third region in the same place as the first region in annotated Fig. 5) is spaced apart from and faces the first region in a second direction that is perpendicular the first direction (Third region in annotated Fig. 6 is in the same location as the first region in annotated Fig. 5, thus overlapping in an optical axis direction), the third region having positive refractive power (AA3 has a positive refractive power) [Par 67 and 73], the third region having the circular shape with the second diameter (third region in annotated Fig. 6, is circular, and width of zone Z increases or decreases with respect to a position of the inflection point, and thus the width would be the same as the second region in Fig. 5) [Par 70];
wherein the fourth region (fourth region in annotated Fig. 6 is in the same location as the second region in annotated Fig. 5) is spaced apart from and facing the second region in the second direction (fourth region in annotated Fig. 6 overlaps with second region in an optical axis direction), the fourth region having negative refractive power (AA4 has negative refractive power) [Par 67 and 73], the fourth region having the circular shape with the first diameter (fourth region has a circular shape with a diameter relative to inflection point, thus giving it the same width as the first region in Fig. 5 ) [Par 70].
Re Claim 19, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 18.
But Mun does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the first region, the second region, the third region, and the fourth region has a same numerical aperture.
Optimizing numerical aperture or f-number, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Mun teaches F-number of a meta lens system as a variable which achieves a recognized result, brightness (exposure) control [Par 78]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting f-number and identifies said metric as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the F-number wherein each of the first region, the second region, the third region, and the fourth region has a same numerical aperture, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 20, Mun discloses, the alignment apparatus of claim 10.
Bur Mun does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to analyze a distance between the first structure and the second structure in an optical axis direction from the measurement result of the imaging device.
However, Mun does explicitly disclose, wherein image signal processor 2360 performs depth map generation, 3D modeling, panorama generation, feature point extraction, image synthesizing, exposure time control, resolution adjustment [Par 116]. The distance between the first structure and the second structure, would be the lens spacing or image side distance of the first lens structure, which would affect focal length, image depth, resolution, etc. Mun teaches that various kinds of signal processing are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform signal processing to analyze the distance between the first and second structure. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, in order to provide exposure time control, resolution adjustment, brightness adjustment, 3d modeling, or depth map generation [Par 116].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify Mun, such that the processor is further configured to analyze a distance between the first structure and the second structure in an optical axis direction from the measurement result of the imaging device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siddique (US 20210337140 A1) teaches an optical device with two nano structure layers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872