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 Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 11-22 are currently pending in the present application. Claims1-3, 6-8, 12-16 and 18 are currently amended; claims 4 and 17 are original; claims 5, 9, 11 and 19-20 are previously presented; claim 10 is canceled; and claims 21-22 are newly added. The amendment dated February 20, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
(1) The applicant argues that Byrnes does not teach “image-morphing operation” which allows the transformation of a particular shape of meta-atoms within one unit cell (e.g., inner unit cell 22A) into another particular shape of meta-atoms within a second unit cell (e.g., outer unit cell 22B) (Remarks, Pages 7-8), and Byrnes does not disclose that such interpolation used for unit cells in between the 1% increases in width include "image-morphed" versions of unit cell designs within a subset of unit cells in a first region. At most, Byrnes et al. explains that the unit cells are interpolated to determine "positions" and "dimensions" of nanostructures (Remarks, Pages 9-10), and Byrnes teaches changing the shape within subregions but not altering the shape of nanostructures within those subregions (Remarks, Pages 10).
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons: the examiner considers Byrnes teaches (1) the shape of nanostructures within one or more subregions have different shapes (Paragraph [0152] “the nanostructures within one or more subregions may take on different shapes”) and (2) the positions and dimensions of the nanostructures were determined using interpolation for unit cells, while a unit cell is the smallest unit in the metalenses (Figure 8 below, annotated by the examiner and Paragraph [0165]). Note that to change the shape of nanostructures within one subregion and within more than one subregions as taught by Byrnes, altering the shape of nanostructures within those subregions is necessary, i.e., Byrnes teaches altering the shape of nanostructures within one subregion and within those subregions.
(2) Regarding claim 2, the applicant further argues that Byrnes does not teach the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the first and second endpoint unit cells, i.e., performing image-morphing based on a subset that only includes first and second endpoint unit cells (Remarks, Page 11).
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 2 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive, because one can choose only two endpoint unit cells as a subset, each endpoint unit cell having different shapes of nanostructures.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15 line 2, “the units cells” should be “the unit cells”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes (US 2017/0082263), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Byrnes discloses an apparatus (Figures 5, 8, 11, 14-15; Paragraphs [0017], [0023], [0026]-[0027]) comprising:
a device (1100) including an optical metastructure (Paragraph [0105]) composed of unit cells (see unit cells 1501, 1503, 1505 in Figures 15a-15c), each of which has a respective unit cell design defined by a shape and area of meta-atoms for that unit cell, and by an arrangement of the meta-atoms within that unit cell (see the shape, area and arrangements of nanopillars in Figures 15a-15c; Paragraphs [0146], [0151]-[0152]),
wherein a first region (1103, 1105, 1107) of the optical metastructure comprises a plurality of adjacent unit cells that includes a subset of unit cells (see Figure 8 below, annotated by the examiner; Paragraphs [0112], [0150]),
wherein the respective unit cell design for each of one or more of the plurality of adjacent unit cells that is in the first region, but that is not in the subset, is a respective interpolated unit cell design that is based on the respective unit cell designs of the unit cells in the subset (see Paragraphs [0158], [0160] and [0165] teaching a unit cell design method by determining the width (W) of each unit cell using formular VII, determining subsequent cell dimensions by iteratively increasing W by 1% increments, and performing the optimization calculations at approximately every 1% increase in W within a respective annular subregion),
wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells in the first region includes a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell, and one or more intermediate unit cells disposed between the first and second endpoint unit cells, and wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region comprises of the first and second endpoint unit cells (see at least Figure 8, in which a subset of unit cells includes a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell, and one or more intermediate unit cells disposed therebetween; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
wherein the respective interpolated unit cell design for each of the one or more of the plurality of adjacent unit cells that is in the first region, but that is not in the subset, is a respective image-morphed version based on the respective unit cell designs of the unit cells in the subset (see Paragraph [0152] “the nanostructures within one or more subregions may take on different shapes” teaching a respective image-morphing by altering the shape of nanostructures within those subregions).
<Figure 8 of Byrnes, annotated by the examiner>
PNG
media_image1.png
490
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the first and second endpoint unit cells (see at least Figure 8, in which a subset of unit cells includes a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell, and one or more intermediate unit cells disposed therebetween; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 3, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first and second endpoint unit cells have a same topology as one another (see Figure 8 above, in which a first endpoint unit cell and a second endpoint unit cell are disposed in the first topography; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 4, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 3 above, and further discloses wherein each of the intermediate unit cells in the first region has the same topology as the first and second endpoint unit cells (see Figure 8 above, in which one or more intermediate unit cells are disposed between the inner and outer cells in the same first topography; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 5, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more intermediate unit cells includes multiple intermediate unit cells (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells in the first region includes an inner unit cell, an outer unit cell, and one or more intermediate unit cells disposed between the inner unit cell and the outer unit cell, wherein the inner unit cell is further from a periphery of the optical metastructure than is the outer unit cell (Figure 8), and wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the inner unit cell and the outer unit cell (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the inner unit cell and the outer unit cell have a same topology as one another (Figure 8 and Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 8, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 7 above, and further discloses wherein each of the intermediate unit cells in the first region has the same topology as the inner unit cell and the outer unit cell (see the first topography Figure 8; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 9, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more intermediate unit cells includes multiple intermediate unit cells (Figure 8; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 11, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the subset of unit cells consists of two unit cells (see Figure 8; choose a subset of unit cells consisting of two unit cells).
Regarding claim 12, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells are in a same angular region of the optical metastructure (see adjacent unit cells in Figure 8 and Paragraphs [0158], [0168]).
Regarding claim 13, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein a lateral dimension of each unit cell in an angular direction is less than an operational wavelength λ for the optical metastructure (Paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 14, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells is a first plurality of adjacent unit cells, wherein a second region (1109, 1111, 1113) of the optical metastructure comprises a second plurality of adjacent unit cells that includes a second subset of unit cells (see Figure 8 above, annotated by the examiner, and choose another plurality of adjacent unit cells that includes a subset of unit cells in 1109, 1111 or 1113; Paragraphs [0112], [0150]),
wherein the respective unit cell design for each of one or more of the second plurality of adjacent unit cells that is in the second region, but that is not in the second subset, is a respective interpolated unit cell design that is based on the respective unit cell designs of the unit cells in the second subset (see Paragraphs [0158], [0160] and [0165] teaching a unit cell design method by determining the width (W) of each unit cell using formular VII, determining subsequent cell dimensions by iteratively increasing W by 1% increments, and performing the optimization calculations at approximately every 1% increase in W within a respective annular subregion).
Regarding claim 15, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein the unit cells in the first plurality of adjacent unit cells have a first topography, wherein the unit cells in the second plurality of adjacent unit cells have a second topography, and wherein the second topography differs from the first topography (see “a first topography” and “a second topography” in Figure 8 above, annotated by the examiner).
Regarding claim 16, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a module (Figure 5) comprising:
a light emitting component (502) operable to emit incident light at an operational wavelength (Paragraph [0087]); and
an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting component is mounted to direct the incident light to the optical metastructure (Figure 5 and Paragraph [0093] teaching a physical light device in which 502 has to be mounted to direct the light toward 501).
Regarding claim 17, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the light emitting component includes at least one of a light-emitting diode, a laser diode, or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 19, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 16 above, and further discloses wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells in the first region includes a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell, and one or more intermediate unit cells disposed between the first and second endpoint unit cells (Figure 8), and wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the first and second endpoint unit cells, wherein the first and second endpoint unit cells have a same topology as one another, and wherein each of the intermediate unit cells in the first region has the same topology as the first and second endpoint unit cells (Figure 8 above and choose a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell and an intermediate unit cell disposed in a first topography; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Heck (US 2019/0044003), of record.
Regarding claim 18, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byrnes does not necessarily disclose a module comprising:
a light-sensitive component operable to detect light; and
an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light-sensitive component is mounted to detect light passing through the optical metastructure into the module.
However, Heck teaches a module (Figure 1) comprising: a light-sensitive component (120; Paragraph [0045]) operable to detect light; and an apparatus (110, 130), wherein the light-sensitive component is mounted to detect light passing through a metastructure into the module (see Figure 1 wherein 120 is mounted on 130 to detect light passing through 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module as disclosed by Byrnes with the teachings of Heck, to have a module comprising: a light-sensitive component operable to detect light; and an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light-sensitive component is mounted to detect light passing through the optical metastructure into the module, for the purpose of converting a light signal into an electrical signal for an optoelectronic apparatus (Heck: Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 20, Byrnes as modified by Heck discloses the limitations of claim 18 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells in the first region includes a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell, and one or more intermediate unit cells disposed between the first and second endpoint unit cells (Figure 8), and wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the first and second endpoint unit cells, wherein the first and second endpoint unit cells have a same topology as one another, and wherein each of the intermediate unit cells in the first region has the same topology as the first and second endpoint unit cells (see Figure 8 above, in which a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell and an intermediate unit cell are disposed in the first topography; Paragraphs [0158]-[0165]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Liu et al. (US 20150229032, hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 21, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the respective image-morphed version for each of the one or more of the plurality of adjacent unit cells that is in the first region, but that is not in the subset, comprises an interpolation (Paragraphs [0158], [0160] and [0165]).
Byrnes does not disclose an affine transformation, a rigid-as-possible shape interpolation, or a spline-based interpolation.
However, Liu teaches an interpolation for an optical metastructure includes a spline interpolation method (Paragraph [0245]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module as disclosed by Byrnes with the teachings of Liu, to have an affine transformation, a rigid-as-possible shape interpolation, or a spline-based interpolation, for the purpose of using a known interpolating method to generate a phase shift (Liu: Paragraphs [0245], [0247]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Czaplewski et al. (US 20190025464, hereinafter “Czaplewski”).
Regarding claim 22, Byrnes discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Byrnes does not disclose a design of each unit cell in the subset of unit cells approximates a phase-wrapped phase function.
However, Czaplewski teaches a design of each unit cell approximates a phase-wrapped phase function (Paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module as disclosed by Byrnes with the teachings of Czaplewski, wherein a design of each unit cell in the subset of unit cells approximates a phase-wrapped phase function, for the purpose of obtaining a desired phase profile (Czaplewski: Paragraph [0031]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871