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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are under consideration
Claim 10 is withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “dividing the third wafer obtain at least two sub-wafers” should be “dividing the third wafer to obtain at least two sub-wafers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the at least two identical sub-images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “arranging the one or more masks according to the metasurface lens image to obtain an arranged image mask”. For example, are the one or more masks physically arranged to align with the metasurface lens image to form a single mask, or are the sub-images of the one or more masks arranged on a single mask to form the metasurface lens image?
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogusu (US6221541B1, published 2001) in view of Kamali (US 20180292644 A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 1-3,
Ogusu teaches a photolithographic method for forming an optical element (such as a lens) wherein the method includes preparing masks having segment patterns corresponding to fan-shaped regions, respectively, of the pattern which fan-shaped regions can be defined by dividing the pattern by at least one circle concentric with the pattern to provide plural zones and then by dividing each zone equiangularly, and exposing regions of a substrate corresponding to the plural zones, respectively, by using the masks corresponding to the zones, respectively, while rotating the substrate by regular angles [abstract, figure 1, claims 1-2], which reads on the instant steps of obtaining an image of an optical element (lens), dividing the image to obtain at least two sub-images and one or more masks each corresponding to one or more of the at least two sub-images, and performing image transfer on a first wafer through the at least two sub-images and the one or more masks to obtain a second wafer with the metasurface lens image, reading on instant claims 2-3.
Ogusu teaches a further processing step after completion of patterning, the outside peripheral edge region AA where alignment marks are formed may be removed by cutting [col 4 lines 60-63], reading on the instant lens fabrication processing.
Ogusu fails to explicitly teach their optical element is a metasurface lens.
Kamali, analogous art, teaches metasurface lenses may be manufactured through known techniques of lithography for example using masks and photoresists [0017].
As both Ogusu and Kamali teach manufacturing optical elements using photolithographic processes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the method of Ogusu may be similarly used to manufacture a metasurface lens as disclosed by Kamali, reading on instant claim 1.
That is, the substitution of the metasurface lens of Kamali for the optical element of Ogusu, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an optical element. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and further includes steps of dividing a third wafer formed by developing, etching, cleaning, and coating the second wafer into two or more sub-wafers, then splicing the two or more sub-wafers to obtain a metasurface lens.
The examiner interprets the dividing and splicing of sub-wafers to necessarily include physically dividing (cutting, dicing, etc) the third wafer into separate sub-wafers, which are then physically spliced together to form a metasurface lens with the instant metasurface lens image.
A search did not find the claimed invention.
The closest prior art Ogusu et al. teaches a similar method as shown above.
However, Ogusu fails to teach dividing and splicing sub-wafers to form the metasurface lens.
Neither Ogusu nor the prior art in general provide sufficient motivation to make it obvious to modify their method to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 depend on objected claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20220308460A1 teaches a similar method of fabricating large scale flat optics lenses comprising of a plurality of exposure portions. US20140178803A1 teaches a multiple-patterning lithographic process where after exposure, additional processing steps may be performed such as development, dry etching, wet etching, deposition (coating), and stripping the remaining photoresist (cleaning).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights