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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/6/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress (US 11874476) hereafter Kress.
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7 Kress discloses a meta-surface optical element (fig. 3A, 4A, 305 or 400 as the claimed “meta-surface optical element”) comprising: a substrate (350 or 403); and pillars (330 or 407) made of hydrogenated amorphous silicon (col. 5, lines 38-40) arranged on a surface of the substrate (see fig. 3A and 4A); wherein the pillars (330 and 407) on the surface of the substrate (see fig. 3A) are away from each other at a distance in a range of 300 to 450 nm between centers thereof (fig. 3A, col. 8, lines 1-5, lines 28-30; col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 3, note: that the pillars are approximately 380nm, that corresponds to the on-center spacing of the array of pillars; 380nm falls within the range of 300-450nm), the pillars have height (col. 10, line 5 states that the height is 600 nm which is slightly outside of the claimed range), and the pillars have diameters in a range of 100 to 250 nm (col. 10, lines 10-11, note the pillars 407 have a diameter range of 100 nanometers to 320 nm, fully covering the claimed range of 100-250) but does not specifically disclose the pillar height to be between 300-580.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to have the pillars height range from 300-580 for the purpose of improving the optical performance of the meta lens, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Kress discloses the meta-surface optical element according to claim 1, wherein the pillars have a uniform height (col. 5, line 43 and col. 8, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 3, Kress discloses the meta-surface optical element according to claim 1, wherein the pillars have a circular, elliptical, or polygonal cross-sectional shape (3B and 4A, clearly depict the pillars have a circular cross-section).
Regarding claim 4, Kress discloses the pillars have diameters in a range of 100 to 200 nm (col. 10, lines 10-11, note the pillars 407 have a diameter range of 100 nanometers to 320 nm, fully covering the claimed range of 100-250) but does not specifically disclose wherein the pillars on the surface of the substrate are away from each other at a distance of 300 nm between the centers thereof, the pillars have heights in a range of 300 to 400 nm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to have the pillars on the surface of the substrate away from each other at a distance of 300 nm between the centers thereof and to have the pillars height range from 300-400 for the purpose of improving the optical performance of the meta lens, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Park (20210103075) is being cited herein to show a reference that discloses some features similar to that of the claimed invention. Specifically, Park discloses a meta lens with pillars.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1278. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/JAMES C. JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights