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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed August 4, 2026. Claim 3 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2 and 4-21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 4-6 and 10-20 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the arguments are not persuasive.
Namely, applicant argues that previously cited reference to Han et al. fails to disclose the limitation, “wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ” and notes that the Han et al. reference refers to “subwavelength structures.” However, as set forth below, new reference to Ji et al. discloses wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ (see e.g. page 3, second full paragraph of the English translation where a range of 1-5 λ is given, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range). It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It is further noted that the limitation, “wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ” appears to be intended use because the claim is drawn to a diffractive optical pattern generator configured for steering input light and does not include an element emitting the target wavelength.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 21 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 1, 2, 7-9, and 21 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.
In regard to independent claim 1, the limitation “wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is not clear what the “target wavelength λ” is referring to since there is not an element emitting a target wavelength. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the target wavelength is related to the input light being steered by the device.
Claims 2, 7-9 and 21 depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2019/0049235 A1) in view of Ji et al. (CN 114740687, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Han et al. discloses a diffractive optical pattern generator, comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
a diffractive optical element (DOE) layer dl (denoted “deflecting layer”, see e.g. paragraph [0045]); and
a nanostructure layer ml (denoted “meta-pattern layer”, see e.g. paragraph [0045]) configured for beam steering an input light (i.e. from light source ls, see e.g. paragraph [0045]) applied to the diffractive optical pattern generator to at least one of a predetermined polar beam-steering angle that is measured in a plane that is substantially normal to a direction of the input light and a predetermined azimuth beam-steering angle measured with respect to the direction of the input light (see e.g. Figure 1a and paragraphs [0047]-[0049] and note SF is a spatial frequency domain for the light deflected by the layer structure).
Han et al. fails to disclose
wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ.
However, Ji et al. discloses
wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ (see e.g. page 3, second full paragraph of the English translation where a range of 1-5 λ is given, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range). It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Further, the limitation, “wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ” appears to be an intended use limitation. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Han et al., in view of Ji et al., is capable of performing “wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ" and thus meets the limitations of the claim.
Given the teachings of Ji et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Han et al. with wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a predetermined periodicity ranging from λ to 3 λ of a target wavelength λ.
Selecting the periodicity to match an integer multiple of the target wavelength range would allow for constructive interference and resonant coupling to occur as well as reduce the occurrence of destructive interference which can reduce efficiency.
In regard to claim 2, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the nanostructure layer ml comprises pillar-shaped nanostructures ns1 (denoted “nano-posts, see e.g. paragraph [0050]) formed on a surface of a substrate layer SUB (see e.g. paragraph [0052]), holes formed in the substrate layer, or a combination thereof (see e.g. Figure 4 and note the nanostructure layer comprises pillar-shaped nanostructures).
In regard to claim 7, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the nanostructure layer ml is configured to beam steer light input to the DOE layer or beam steer light output from the DOE layer dl (see e.g. Figures 1-4).
In regard to claim 8, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the DOE layer dl generates a nxn diffraction pattern in which n comprises an integer greater than 0 (see e.g. Figure 11 and note that dl layer may be divided into a nxn layer producing and nxn diffraction pattern corresponding to the light pattern with spatial frequency domain SF), and
wherein the nanostructure layer ml comprises a nxn arrangement of cell regions (see e.g. Figure 11 and note that dl layer may be divided into a nxn layer corresponding to the light pattern with spatial frequency domain SF), each cell region comprising at least one of a corresponding polar beam-steering angle and a corresponding azimuth beam-steering angle (see e.g. Figure 11 for the spatial frequency domain where individual domains correspond to polar and azimuthal angles).
In regard to claim 9, Han et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and
wherein n = 3, and wherein the 3x3 arrangement of cell regions comprise a center cell region, four corner cell regions, and four edge cell regions, each edge cell region being located between a corner edge region (see e.g. Figure 11 and note the arrangement of cell regions correspond to the illustrated regions in SF).
Han et al. fails to explicitly disclose
each edge cell region comprising an azimuth beam-steering angle equal to one c = 1/3 (field of view of the DOE layer), and each corner cell region comprising an azimuth beam- steering angle equal to √2 c.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using each edge cell region comprising an azimuth beam-steering angle equal to one c = 1/3 (field of view of the DOE layer), and each corner cell region comprising an azimuth beam- steering angle equal to √2 c, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Han et al. with each edge cell region comprising an azimuth beam-steering angle equal to one c = 1/3 (field of view of the DOE layer), and each corner cell region comprising an azimuth beam- steering angle equal to √2 c.
Selecting the distribution of the cells and thus the angle would result in a predictable distribution of light that may be selected for the particular application.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2019/0049235 A1) in view of Ji et al. (CN 114740687) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0208256 A1).
In regard to claim 21, Han et al., in view of Ji et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a lattice constant inversely proportional to the field of view of the diffractive optical pattern generator.
However, Kim et al. discloses that for a nanostructure array, the field of view may be controlled by shape, size and spacing of the nanostructures (see e.g. paragraph [0066]). Since the lattice constant is related to the spacing of the nanostructures, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the field of view of would be dependent upon the lattice constant.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a lattice constant inversely proportional to the field of view of the diffractive optical pattern generator, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Han et al., in view of Ji et al., with wherein the nanostructure layer comprises nanostructures having a lattice constant inversely proportional to the field of view of the diffractive optical pattern generator.
Selecting the spacing/lattice size of the array would allow the field of view to be determined and would have predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights