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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greiner et al (US2020/0271837A1).
With regards to claim 1, Griener discloses an optical element including a contiguous multitude of recessed and non-recessed areal regions (i.e., an apparatus comprising a metastructure optical element), the optical element including a topmost layer 30 depicted as formed on a first series of wider projections formed by etching (i.e., a first grouping of meta-atoms having a first etch characteristic, the first grouping of meta-atoms being composed of a first etched stratum) and a second series of narrower projections formed by etching (i.e., a second grouping of meta-atoms having a second etch characteristic, the second grouping of meta-atoms being composed of a second etched stratum), the second series of narrower projections including an etch stop surface layer which has been etched (i.e., the optical element includes an etched optical etch-deceleration layer, wherein the second etch stratum is disposed on the etched optical etch-deceleration layer), the etch stop layer being located on a substrate layer 10 (i.e., the etch-deceleration layer being disposed on a substrate, note that the etch stop layer is not depicted by Griener) (Griener: abstract; para. [0005] and [0023]-[0027]; claim 1; and Fig. 1A). As best understood, the phrase “meta-atoms” is a term in the art referring to materials used to form metastructures (i.e., and therefore, the topmost layer 30 is considered to constitute groupings of meta-atoms, as the material of the topmost layer 30 is used to form metastructures). It is noted that, given the gradient of meta-atom diameters, and that their grouping may be arbitrary, it is possible to view the optical element of Griener as having, for example, three meta-atoms constituting a first plurality, such that the diameter of each meta-atom is less than that of a first grouping of two meta-atoms (which have a larger diameter) (Griener: Fig. 1A). In addition, it is noted that the etched stratum of Griner is disposed on an unetched optical etch-deceleration layer (i.e., “disposed on” does not necessarily imply that the first etched stratum is in contact with an unetched optical deceleration layer) (Griener: Fig. 1A).
With regards to claim 2, the optical element further includes an intermediate layer 20 (i.e., adhesion layer) disposed between the etch stop surface layer 15 and topmost layer 30 (i.e., the adhesion layer is disposed between the second stratum and the optical etch-deceleration layer) (Griener: para. [0043]; Fig. 1A). The intermediate layer 20 is considered an adhesion layer as it is depicted as joining the topmost layer 30 to the etch stop surface layer 15 (i.e., and further, the present specification does not further limit the meaning of the phrase “adhesion layer” beyond such an interpretation) (Griener: Fig. 1A).
With regards to claim 3, Griener notes a more specific embodiment including a bottom layer 40 which serves as an etch stop (i.e., optical etch-deceleration layer), wherein a reflector 50 is located between the bottom layer 40 and the substrate 10 (i.e., in this embodiment, the reflector 50, or adhesion layer, is located between an optical etch-deceleration layer and the substrate) (Griener: para. [0049] and [0059]-[0060]; Fig. 2C). The reflector 50 is considered an additional adhesion layer as it is depicted as joining the bottom layer 40 (i.e., optical etch-deceleration layer) to the substrate 10 (i.e., and further, the present specification does not further limit the meaning of the phrase “adhesion layer” beyond such an interpretation) (Griener: Fig. 2C).
With regards to claim 10, it is noted that the phrase “shortest operating wavelength for which the metastructure optical element is configured to interact with” is rather broad, in that the claim does not specify the claimed configuration. Technically, any arbitrary configuration (or use, or interaction) can be selected, such that only one wavelength exists during the process of operation, that singular wavelength being considered a shortest operating wavelength.
With regards to claim 11, it is noted that the phrase “shortest operating wavelength for which the metastructure optical element is configured to interact with” is rather broad, in that the claim does not specify the claimed configuration. Technically, any arbitrary configuration (or use, or interaction) can be selected, such that only one wavelength exists during the process of operation, that singular wavelength being considered a shortest operating wavelength.
With regards to claim 12, the intermediate layer 20 (i.e., adhesion layer) may be made of silicon dioxide (i.e., silica) (Griener: para. [0075]).
With regards to claim 13, the etch stop layer may be made of alumina (Griener: para. [0075]).
With regards to claim 14, the first grouping of meta-atoms includes three meta-atoms of differing diameter (i.e., includes a third diameter different from a first diameter) (Griener: Fig. 1A).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunnet-Jepsen et al (US 2019/0041736 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Griener discloses an apparatus comprising a metastructure optical element as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Griener discloses the use of its metastructure optical element in a device such as a structured light generator (i.e., functionally disposed in a device which includes a component configured to emit light, which, as best understood, is a type of active optoelectronic component). However, Griener does not appear to specifically disclose its apparatus as including a housing, such that the claimed metastructure optical element is integrated into the housing (Griener: para. [0079]).
Grunnet-Jepsen is directed to a mobile handset device comprising a housing and a light pattern projector 125 depicted as integrated into the housing (i.e., an apparatus including an optical device integrated into a housing), wherein the light pattern projector is, more specifically, an LED pattern projector comprising a metastructure distributed over a lens 342 which is depicted as adjacent to an LED light source 130 (i.e., includes a metastructure optical element integrated into the housing, such that the metastructure optical element is functionally disposed relative to an active optoelectronic element configured to emit light) (Grunnet-Jepsen: para. [0048], [0053], and [0081]; Figs. 3A-3C; 10A). As best understood, the housing of Grunnet-Jepsen serves to integrate the light pattern projector 125 with other input/output devices, such as input keys, buttons, switches, microphones, speakers, and software, for the purpose of using the light pattern projector with a camera for photography (Grunnet-Jepsen: para. [0081]-[0082]). Grunnet-Jepsen and Griener are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of metastructure optical devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have integrated the housing taught by Grunnet-Jepsen in the claimed manner, in order to enable the metastructure optical element of Griener to interface with other input/output devices, enabling specific functions such as integration with a camera (Grunnet-Jepsen: para. [0081]-[0082]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 is noted as establishing antecedent basis, and therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Figure 2C of the present application depicts a number of meta-elements in region 212 which is greater than that of region 214, and further, a diameter of the pillars in region 212 are less than that of region 214. Applicant argues that, in contrast, Griener shows a central region where etching is slower and includes fewer pillars which are wider compared to an outer region in which etching is faster and includes pillars that are narrower. Applicant argues that Griener teaches the opposite trend of Applicant’s invention. These arguments are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims only require first and second groupings of meta-atoms (i.e., pluralities), such that the second grouping has a second diameter greater than a first diameter and a number of meta-atoms per unit area of the first plurality is greater than that that of the second. It is noted that only two or three meta-atoms are required to establish a given region. Note that due to the spacings of the meta-atoms, the density can be arbitrarily adjusted to meet the claimed features. An annotated version of Figure 1A of Griener is provided below for clarity.
PNG
media_image1.png
226
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
Note that the region including three pillars of a smaller diameter has a higher density than that of the three pillars including a larger diameter (i.e., the same number of pillars are present, but in the three pillars including a larger diameter, the area is greater, and therefore, the density per unit area is reduced). In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that the claimed invention is different from the structure of Griener, in that the structure of Griener has larger end-to-end distances for its pillars of smaller diameter than its pillars of larger diameter (i.e., the pillars from a center-to-center spacing appear roughly uniform, whereas Applicant’s invention has increased center-to-center spacing with the second grouping of meta-atoms having larger diameter).
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783