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 .
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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 11-20 recites a combination that identically requires the particulars of the subcombination of claims 1-10. Accordingly, the claims are examined at once and addressed together.
Examiner notes that subsequent deviation in claimed subject matter (e.g., by Applicant’s future amendment) between the combination and subcombination may result in a requirement for restriction in view of MPEP 806.05(c).
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2, the parent claim 1 requires partial overlapping while the instant claim requires non-overlapping, and thus contradicts the requirements of the parent. The requirements of the claim are not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For purposes of examination, the instant claim is considered to require additional features than what is recited, i.e. plural adjacent stacks, such that both can be satisfied despite the contradiction as drafted.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress ‘255 (US 20210405255 A1) in view of Lee (US 20210088694 A1), further in view of Han (US 20200174163 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Kress ‘255 teaches a display device (Figs. 1A – 20B) comprising:
a micro display configured to emit lights (¶46, “electronic displays, such as RGB LED displays, include variations of the metalenses described herein”);
at least one metalens array (330; see also detail as 941, 942, 943) spaced apart from the micro display, the at least one metalens array configured to transmit the lights emitted by the micro display (¶62, Fig. 3C, 5B, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B), the at least one metalens array comprising:
at least one optical transparent substrate (350);
a plurality of nanostructures (330, 620, 1005, 1105, 1205, 1305, 1405, 1407, 1409 …) arranged on the at least one optical transparent substrate (e.g. Fig. 3C), the plurality of nanostructures defining one or more metalenses (¶98 and ¶100, Figs. 3A, 3C), the one or more metalenses arranged in a predetermined arrangement (sequitur).
Kress ‘255 does not explicitly show a thin film coating over the plurality of nanostructures, or wherein one or more metalenses are arranged in a partial overlapping configuration.
Lee explicitly shows an analogous metasurface device (e.g. Title, ¶3) having an optical thin film (210, see ¶89) for a metasurface (Fig. 5, detailed ¶85-91) having a plurality of nanostructures (NSA), as well that the one or more metalenses are arranged in an overlapping configuration (Figs. 9 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have deposited the thin film of Lee overlapping the plurality of nanostructures of Kress ‘255 for the purpose of protecting the nanostructures from degradation and maintaining high quality operation and/or adding optical functionality, such as lenses of different geometries or resonant filter (Lee, ¶30-31, ¶89, ¶102-107, ¶117-120).
Lee does not remedy Kress ‘255’s silence regarding wherein one or more metalenses are arranged in a partial overlapping configuration.
Han similarly drawn to meta-lens stacks explicitly shows one or more metalenses arranged in a partial overlapping configuration (Fig. 12, where the NS features of 131 and 133 partially overlap, see ¶121-127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the partial overlapping configuration taught by Han to reduce deterioration of performance that may occur when attempting to achieve a target phase (Han, ¶126).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the one or more metalenses are arranged in non-overlapping configuration (Fig. 9, an array of adjacent metalenses).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the thin film has a uniform thickness or inconsistent thicknesses that coating over the plurality of nanostructures (Lee, e.g. Fig. 8, showing thickness t).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of nanostructures is in an isotropic, an anisotropic, or a combination of isotropic and anisotropic shapes (Kress ‘255, Fig. 2A, isotropic horizontally, anisotropic vertically; see also Lee, Fig. 6, 2D anisotropic, Fig. 7, 1D isotropic, Fig. 8, 2D isotropic).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in a same shape and arranged in different geometrical phases (Kress ‘255, ¶127-129, ¶133, discussing same cylindrical pillars having different dimensions to impart the desired phase shift; see also Lee, ¶86, “The meta-optical device 2000 includes a plurality of nanostructures NS, which may be arranged to form a shape distribution in which the phase of incident light is changed according to a desired and/or alternatively predetermined rule relative to different positions, and which include a shape dimension of a sub wavelength.”).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in a same shape but with different sizes (Kress ‘255, Figs. 2A, 2B).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein a transparent rate of the thin film is greater than a transparent rate of the plurality of nanostructures (Lee, ¶89, necessarily implied by “The protective layer 210 may be formed of a material having a refractive index smaller than that of the nanostructures NS. The protective layer 210 may be made of a material having the same refractive index as the support layer SU” since there being no difference in refractive index between SU and 210, there is no reflective interface).
Claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kress ‘255 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Riley, Jr. (US 11579456 B2).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein the metalens array further comprises a cladding layer coating over the thin film.
Riley, Jr. teaches an analogous device having metalens arrays (MS1, MS2, … MSN and 106) over a display (Fig. 11, p1, p2, … pn) having a variety of layers including encapsulation, antireflection (comprising oxides, nitrides, amorphous silicon, etc.) (C. 18, ll. 13-65), any of which can be considered a cladding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the teachings of Riley, Jr. and added additional cladding layers to the device of the modified Kress ‘255 for the purpose of improving mechanical stability or managing reflections.
Regarding claim 9 and 19, the modified Kress ‘255 teaches the display device according to claim 11, but does not explicitly show wherein the plurality of nanostructures are in different shapes and different sizes.
Riley, Jr. explicitly shows metalens arrays having different shapes of different sizes (Fig. 4A, C. 20, ll. 40-53, “a metasurface where an inhomogeneous set of shapes is distributed across the metasurface. In this specific embodiment, square pillars are desired. However, after fabrication what is actually formed within a given metasurface are an array of squares with varying side lengths (e.g., s.sub.1), squares with rounded corners of varying radii, re and circles with varying radii r.sub.1 or r.sub.2. Specifically, the larger features here are designed to be squares or squares with rounded corners; however, as the side lengths of the squares are reduced below some minimum side length the squares become circles.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the inhomogeneous arrangement of Riley, Jr. in the device of the modified Kress ‘255 for the purpose of imparting arbitrary phase shifts, thus allowing any far field distribution of light to be achieved, e.g. a focusing without optical aberration.
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 COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights