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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 3/11/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 20, 22-26 as being cancelled, claims 8, 11-13, 16, 18, 21 as being withdrawn, claims 1-7, 9-10, 14-15, 17 as being original, and claim 19 as being previously presented. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-19, 21 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 11-13, 16, 18, 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 10/10/2024 was considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 7/7/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed-through information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, NPL references A6, A8, A9, A14, A16, A17, A19, A20, A22, A24, A26, A30 and A31, are all deficient for only including an abstract and/or description while citing further pages of the cited document, and/or are illegible, and/or are missing cited pages, and/or appear to cite the entire document but only include an abstract, brief description or preface.
Applicant is reminded of section 2004, paragraph 13, of the MPEP.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff 'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because many of the figures are barely legible, or are illegible, and the lines/reference numbers are not sufficiently dense and dark so as to have satisfactory reproduction characteristics, and therefore do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(I) and/or 1.84(p). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because at least figures 1B, 3A, 3B, 8C, 9B-9C, 10B-10D, 11-13 and 15-16 include illegible characters of insufficient line quality. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15, 17, 19 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 15, the phrase "can include" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9-10, 14-15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbabi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0077261 A1, of record (hereafter Arbabi).
Regarding claim 1, Arbabi discloses an optical component (see at least the title and abstract), comprising:
a substrate (see at least para. [0047], fused-silica substrate); and
a metasurface disposed on the substrate (see at least paras. [0045]-[0049], amorphous silicon elliptical posts), the metasurface comprising one or more linearly birefringent elements (see at least paras. [0045]-[0049], wherein the metasurface is composed of elliptical amorphous silicon posts with the same height, but different diameters and orientations);
wherein a spatially-varying Jones matrix and a far-field of the metasurface define a transfer function of the metasurface configured to generate a controlled response in the far-field according to polarization of light incident on the metasurface (see at least figures 5 and 10, the abstract, paras. [0034]-[0039], [0045]-[0049], [0053]-[0054], [0057], wherein for a light operating at a wavelength of 915 nm, it can be seen in figures 8-10 that the controlled response at the far-field is determined by the transfer function of the metasurface and the polarization state of the incident light; and wherein a Jones matrix for any desired spatially varying polarization and phase profile, that is defined by a transfer function, the metasurface is generated by sampling the incident wavefront with a subwavelength lattice and placing elliptical posts with proper dimensions and rotation angles at lattice sites, the metasurface configured to impart the required phase and polarization change on the transmitted light, wherein the change is measured via a hologram in the far-field at least 200µm from the metasurface, as shown in figure 10, with respect to an operating wavelength of 915 nm).
Additionally, it is emphasized that "[w]hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features, apart from a substrate and one or more linearly birefringent elements, which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the metasurface is configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a plurality of polarization states at a plurality of points in the far-field (see at least figures 5, 10, paras. [0044], [0057], wherein the metasurface is configured as a polarization-switchable phase hologram that generates two distinct patterns for x and y-polarized light at far-field points at 200µm).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a plurality of polarization states at a plurality of points in the far-field”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a plurality of polarization states at a plurality of points in the far-field”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a plurality of polarization states at a plurality of points in the far-field”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a plurality of polarization states at a plurality of points in the far-field”.
M.P.E.P. 2114:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the light has a first polarization state when incident on the metasurface, and has a second polarization state after processing by the metasurface (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]).
Additionally, it is emphasized that "[w]hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features, apart from a substrate and one or more linearly birefringent elements, which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 4, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the light has a first polarization state and the metasurface is configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a point in the far-field (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]-[0045], [0056]).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a point in the far-field”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a point in the far-field”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a point in the far-field”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to process the light and direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a point in the far-field”.
Regarding claim 5, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the light has a first polarization state and the metasurface is configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field and direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]-[0045], [0053], [0056]-[0057], wherein a first polarization and phase of a normally incident optical wave with electric field Ein is modified at each pixel 515 of a metasurface according to each specific pixel design, each pixel 515 having at least second and third different respective designs, wherein the output light Eout has at least second and third polarizations towards a plurality of far-field points).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field and direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field and direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field and direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field and direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field”.
Regarding claim 6, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the light has a first polarization state and the metasurface is configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field, direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field, and direct the processed light with a fourth polarization state at a third point in the far-field (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]-[0045], [0053], [0056]-[0057], wherein a first polarization and phase of a normally incident optical wave with electric field Ein is modified at each pixel 515 of a metasurface according to each specific pixel design, each pixel 515 having at least second, third and fourth different respective designs, wherein the output light Eout has at least second, third and fourth polarizations towards a plurality of far-field points).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field, direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field, and direct the processed light with a fourth polarization state at a third point in the far-field”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field, direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field, and direct the processed light with a fourth polarization state at a third point in the far-field”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field, direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field, and direct the processed light with a fourth polarization state at a third point in the far-field”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to process the light, direct the processed light with a second polarization state at a first point in the far-field, direct the processed light with a third polarization state at a second point in the far-field, and direct the processed light with a fourth polarization state at a third point in the far-field”.
Regarding claim 7, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the far-field is located at a position greater than 10λ from a plane containing the metasurface, wherein λ represents a wavelength of the light incident on the metasurface (see at least paras. [0053]-[0054], [0057], wherein a hologram is shown at least 200µm from the metasurface, and thus the far-field is greater than 10λ for an operating wavelength of 915 nm).
Regarding claim 9, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the one or more linearly birefringent elements are configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for the light of a target polarization (see at least paras. [0029], [0031], [0053], wherein birefringent optical scatterers in an array are configured for arbitrary simultaneous polarization and wavefront control when each of the scatterers performs the desired polarization conversion and induces the desired phase shift to the light incident at its position).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for the light of a target polarization”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for the light of a target polarization”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for the light of a target polarization”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for the light of a target polarization”.
Regarding claim 10, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein a hologram generated by the metasurface is uniformly bright (see at least figure 16, paras. [0044], [0076], wherein figure 16 shows diffraction limited focusing by the metasurface and in panel c, the measured intensity along the dashed ling 1605 is uniformly bright according to the normal distribution with negligible side lobes).
Regarding claim 14, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, and wherein the controlled response comprises a target polarization property (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]-[0045], [0053]-[0057], wherein “a target polarization property” has not been defined and therefore any output response is considered “a target polarization property”).
Regarding claim 15, Arbabi discloses an optical component, comprising:
a substrate (see at least para. [0047], fused-silica substrate); and
a metasurface disposed on the substrate (see at least paras. [0045]-[0049], amorphous silicon elliptical posts), the metasurface comprising one or more linearly birefringent elements (see at least paras. [0045]-[0049], wherein the metasurface is composed of elliptical amorphous silicon posts with the same height, but different diameters and orientations);
wherein the metasurface is configured to implement a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]-[0045], [0053]-[0057], wherein “a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface” has not been defined and therefore any output response is considered “a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface”);
wherein a far-field of the metasurface can include a target polarization response corresponding to the target polarization transformation (see at least figures 5-6, 8-10, para. [0044]-[0045], [0053]-[0057], e.g. figure 10 includes a hologram shown at least 200µm from the metasurface, and thus the far-field is greater than 10λ for an operating wavelength of 915 nm; further, “a target polarization response corresponding to the target polarization transformation” has not been defined and therefore any output response is considered “a target polarization response corresponding to the target polarization transformation”).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to implement a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to implement a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to implement a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to implement a target polarization transformation on light incident on the metasurface”.
Regarding claim 17, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 15, and wherein the far-field is located at a position greater than 10λ from a plane containing the metasurface, wherein λ represents a wavelength of the light incident on the metasurface (see at least paras. [0053]-[0054], [0057], wherein a hologram is shown at least 200µm from the metasurface, and thus the far-field is greater than 10λ for an operating wavelength of 915 nm).
Regarding claim 19, Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 15, and wherein the one or more linearly birefringent elements are configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for light of a target polarization (see at least paras. [0029], [0031], [0053], wherein birefringent optical scatterers in an array are configured for arbitrary simultaneous polarization and wavefront control when each of the scatterers performs the desired polarization conversion and induces the desired phase shift to the light incident at its position; further, “a target polarization” has not been defined and therefore any output response is considered “a target polarization”), or wherein a hologram generated by the metasurface is uniformly bright (see at least figure 16, paras. [0044], [0076], wherein figure 16 shows diffraction limited focusing by the metasurface and in panel c, the measured intensity along the dashed ling 1605 is uniformly bright according to the normal distribution with negligible side lobes).
It is noted that the optical component being “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for light of a target polarization”, is considered to be functional language describing a result achieved rather than the specific structure that would achieve such a result. For example, the specific structure of the shape, size, orientation and/or material of the metasurface components, which would make an optical component be considered “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for light of a target polarization”, are absent from the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ 1647 (1987). Therefore, with respect to the apparatus being “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for light of a target polarization”, the claim is interpreted to be anticipated since the claim has not defined the claim over the prior art with specific structure. Absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the optical component of Arbabi from the claimed invention, the optical component of Arbabi is considered capable of achieving the claimed characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to implement a parallel polarization analysis for a plurality of polarization orders for light of a target polarization”.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Rubin et al., US 12,078,834 B2, claims a very similar optical component (see at least claims 1, 6-7, 9, 15);
Rubin et al., US 12,135,433 B2, claims a very similar optical component (see at least claims 1, 4-5, 8, 13);
Rubin et al., US 11,604,364 B2, claims a very similar optical component (see at least claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10); and
Rubin et al., US 2025/0028182 A1, claims a very similar optical component (see at least claims 1, 5, 8-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/22/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights