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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 15 are currently amended; claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are previously presented; claims 4 and 17 are original; and claims 10 and 21-22 are canceled. The amendment dated June 11, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the newly amended claim 1, the examiner considers that the claim recites “an apparatus”, not a method. The product formed by an affine transformation, a rigid-as-possible shape interpolation or a spline-based interpolation does not change the product made. For example, imagine an optical metastructure composed of unit cells wherein each meta-atom therein is identical. One might claim one of the meta-atoms is designed using a different design method. However, the different design method won’t change the shape of the identical meta-atom. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.)
Accordingly, the examiner recommends that the applicant recite a structural difference of the invention. The structural difference may include parameters such as a period of the unit cell or meta-atoms, a height of meta-atoms, the duty cycle, etc., so as to distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
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, in view of Liu (US 20150229032), of record, and in further view of Czaplewski (US 20190025464), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Byrnes discloses an apparatus (Figs. 5, 8, 11, 14-15; Paras. [0017], [0023], [0026]-[0027]) comprising:
a device (1100) including an optical metastructure (Para. [0105]) composed of unit cells (see unit cells 1501, 1503, 1505 in Figs. 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 Figs. 15a-15c; Paras. [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 Fig. 8 below, annotated by the examiner; Paras. [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 Paras. [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 Fig. 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; Paras. [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 Para. [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),
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 (Paras. [0158], [0160] and [0165]).
<Fig. 8 of Byrnes, annotated by the examiner>
PNG
media_image1.png
490
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Byrnes does not explicitly disclose an affine transformation, a rigid-as-possible shape interpolation, or a spline-based interpolation.
However, Liu teaches a known interpolation unit cell design includes a spline interpolation method (Para. [0245]) (see also MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims).
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: Paras. [0245], [0247])
Byrnes further fails to 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 (Para. [0031]) (see also MPEP 2113 regarding product-by-process claims).
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: Para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the first and second endpoint unit cells (see at least Fig. 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; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 3, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the first and second endpoint unit cells have a same topology as one another (see Fig. 8 above, in which a first endpoint unit cell and a second endpoint unit cell are disposed in the first topography; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 4, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 3 above, and Byrnes 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 Fig. 8 above, in which one or more intermediate unit cells are disposed between the inner and outer cells in the same first topography; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 5, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the one or more intermediate unit cells includes multiple intermediate unit cells (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Byrnes 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 (Fig. 8), and wherein the subset of unit cells in the first region consists of the inner unit cell and the outer unit cell (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the inner unit cell and the outer unit cell have a same topology as one another (Fig. 8 and Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 8, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 7 above, and Byrnes 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 Fig. 8; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 9, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the one or more intermediate unit cells includes multiple intermediate unit cells (Fig. 8; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 11, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 6 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the subset of unit cells consists of two unit cells (see Fig. 8; choose a subset of unit cells consisting of two unit cells).
Regarding claim 12, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Byrnes further discloses wherein the plurality of adjacent unit cells are in a same angular region of the optical metastructure (see adjacent unit cells in Fig. 8 and Paras. [0158], [0168]).
Regarding claim 13, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and Byrnes 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 (Para. [0111]).
Regarding claim 14, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Byrnes 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 Fig. 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; Paras. [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 Paras. [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 as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 14 above, and Byrnes 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 Fig. 8 above, annotated by the examiner).
Regarding claim 16, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Byrnes further discloses a module (Fig. 5) comprising:
a light emitting component (502) operable to emit incident light at an operational wavelength (Para. [0087]); and
an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light emitting component is mounted to direct the incident light to the optical metastructure (Fig. 5 and Para. [0093] teaching a physical light device in which 502 has to be mounted to direct the light toward 501).
Regarding claim 17, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 16 above, and Byrnes 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 (Para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 19, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski discloses the limitations of claim 16 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 (Fig. 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 (Fig. 8 above and choose a first endpoint unit cell, a second endpoint unit cell and an intermediate unit cell disposed in a first topography; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Liu and Czaplewski, and in further view of Heck (US 2019/0044003), of record.
Regarding claim 18, Byrnes as modified by Liu and Czaplewski 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 (Fig. 1) comprising: a light-sensitive component (120; Para. [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 Fig. 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: Para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 20, Byrnes as modified by Liu, Czaplewski and 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 (Fig. 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 Fig. 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; Paras. [0158]-[0165]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights