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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2024 being considered by the examiner. A copy of initialed form is attached for Applicant’s record.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hao et al.(US 20230280499 A1 hereinafter Hao).
Regarding claim 1, Hao discloses a light beam homogenizer, in figure 7, comprising: at least one optical element arranged to receive a light beam from a light source (not shown) and output a homogenized light beam (fig.7), the at least one optical element including at least one metalenslet array (i.e. metalens array 220), wherein the at least one metalenslet array includes a plurality of metalenslets arranged in an array formation (figure7).
Regarding claim 2, Hao discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical element comprising: a first lenslet array (210)(fig.7) arranged to receive the light beam from the light source and configured to split the light beam into a plurality of beamlets; and a second lenslet array (220)(fig.7) arranged to receive the plurality of beamlets from the first lenslet array and configured to cause the plurality of beamlets to converge and superimpose upon one another at a homogenization plane (i.e. image plane)(fig.7) wherein the at least one metalenslet array is at least one of the first lenslet array and the second lenslet array.
Regarding claim 3, Hao discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 2, wherein the first lenslet array (210)(fig.7) comprising a first metalenslet array arranged to receive the light beam from the light source and configured to split the light beam into the plurality of beamlets (figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Hao discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 3, wherein the first metalenslet array (210)(fig.7) is configured to shape the plurality of beamlets to have a/any shape, and each metalenslet in the plurality of metalenslet has the shape.
Regarding claim 5, Hao discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the predefined shape is a rectangular shape (figure 7).
Regarding claim 19, Hao discloses a light beam homogenizer, in figure 7, comprising: a first lenslet array (210)(fig.7) arranged to receive a light beam from a light source and configured to split the light beam into a plurality of beamlets; and a second lenslet array (220)(fig.7) arranged to receive the plurality of beamlets from the first metalenslet array and configured to output a homogenized light beam by causing the plurality of beamlets to converge and superimpose upon one another at a homogenization plane (i.e., image plane), wherein at least one of the first lenslet array (210) and the second lenslet array (220) is a metalenslet array and includes a plurality of metalenslets arranged in an array formation (par.[0107]).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ang et al.(US 20220196480 A1 hereinafter Ang).
Regarding claim 1, Ang discloses a light beam homogenizer, in figure 10, comprising: at least one optical element arranged to receive a light beam from a light source (1070) and output a homogenized light beam (1072), the at least one optical element including at least one metalenslet array (i.e. metalens array), wherein the at least one metalenslet array includes a plurality of metalenslets arranged in an array formation (figure10).
Regarding claim 2, Ang discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical element comprising: a first lenslet array (10721)(fig.10) arranged to receive the light beam from the light source and configured to split the light beam into a plurality of beamlets; and a second lenslet array (10722)(fig.10) arranged to receive the plurality of beamlets from the first lenslet array and configured to cause the plurality of beamlets to converge and superimpose upon one another at a homogenization plane (1030) wherein the at least one metalenslet array is at least one of the first lenslet array and the second lenslet array.
Regarding claim 6, Ang discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 2, wherein the second metalenslet array (10722)(fig.10) comprising: a second metalenslet array (10721)(fig.10) arranged to receive the plurality of beamlets from the first metalenslet array and configured to cause the plurality of beamlets to converge and superimpose upon one another at the homogenization plane (fig.10).
Regarding claim 7, Ang discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 6, wherein the second metalenslet array (10721)(fig.10) is configured to cause the plurality of beamlets to converge and superimpose upon one another within an area on the homogenization plane having a shape and a size (1032).
Claims 1 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kress et al.(US 20210405255 hereinafter Kress).
Regarding claim 1, Kress discloses a light beam homogenizer, in figures 7-8, comprising: at least one optical element arranged to receive a light beam from a light source (LED array 720) and output a homogenized light beam (700/701/800/801), the at least one optical element including at least one metalenslet array (730/731/830/831/), wherein the at least one metalenslet array includes a plurality of metalenslets arranged in an array formation (figure 2A or 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein each respective metalenslet in the plurality of metalenslets comprising: a plurality of pillars formed on a planar substrate (Fig. 2A, par.[0097], see also figures 13A, 13B and its associated texts).
Regarding claim 12, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 11, wherein the planar substrate is fused silica and at plurality of pillars are formed from silicon nitride (par.[0072]).
Regarding claim 13, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pillars are arranged in an array formation (par.[0073]).
Regarding claim 14, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 13, wherein the array formation has a fixed period that is less than a wavelength of the light beam (par.[0088]).
Regarding claim 15, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 11, wherein each pillar in the plurality of pillars has a same height (par.[0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 11, wherein the pillars in the plurality of pillars have variable widths such that the respective metalenslet causes a position-variant phase change in the light beam as the light beam passes through the respective metalenslet.
Regarding claim 17, Kress discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 11, wherein the pillars in the plurality of pillars have widths that are less than a wavelength of the light beam (par.[0070], [0083]).
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kress et al.(US 20210405255 hereinafter Kress).
Regarding claim 1, Kress discloses a light beam homogenizer, in figure 2, comprising: at least one optical element arranged to receive a light beam from a light source (210) and output a homogenized light beam (240), the at least one optical element including at least one metalenslet array (220), wherein the at least one metalenslet array includes a plurality of metalenslets arranged in an array formation (figure 2; par.[0030], [0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Shastri et al. discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the light source (210/310) is a monochromatic light source and the light beam is a monochromatic light beam (par.[0030], see also claim 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiu et al.(US 20240077655 A1 hereinafter Qiu).
Qiu discloses a laser system, in figure 1, comprising:
a laser (140) configured to generate a laser beam (par.[0029]);
a first metalenslet array (121) arranged to receive a light beam from the laser and configured to split the laser beam into a plurality of beamlets, the first metalenslet array including a first plurality of metalenslets (1200) arranged in a first array formation; and
a second metalenslet array (122) arranged to receive the plurality of beamlets from the first metalenslet array and configured to output a homogenized laser beam by causing the plurality of beamlets to converge and superimpose upon one another at a homogenization plane, the second metalenslet array including a second plurality of metalenslets arranged in a second array formation (figure 1)(par.[0034]).
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al.(US 20230280499 A1 hereinafter Hao) as applied to claim 2, in view of HASSAN FIROOZI (US 20240241380 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hao discloses the light beam homogenizer of claim 2, the at least one optical element further comprising: an optically substrate having a thickness in a first dimension between a first surface and a second surface that is opposite the first surface, wherein the first lenslet array is arranged on the first surface of the optically substrate and the second lenslet array is arranged on the second surface of the optically substrate. However, Hao does not disclose wherein the optically substrate is an optically transparent substrate. Hassan Firoozi discloses metalens array in figure 3 and teaches substrate 3 is optically transparent substrate (par.[0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teaching of Hassan Firoozi to device of Hao for purpose of forming optical metalens array.
Regarding claim 9, Hao in view of Hassan Firoozi disclose the light beam homogenizer of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first lenslet array (210) and the second lenslet array (220) on optically transparent substrate, except for directly etched or deposited onto the optically transparent substrate (or how it is formed/made).
It should be noted that the method of forming the device, such as directly etched or deposited, is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. A "product by method" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by method" claim, and not the patentability of the method, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by method" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. See also MPEP 706.03(e). Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, Hao in view of Hassan Firoozi disclose the light beam homogenizer of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first lenslet array (210) and the second lenslet array (220) on the optically transparent substrate, except for they are fabricated separately and subsequently attached to the optically transparent substrate (or how said first and second lenslet array are formed on substrate). It should be noted that the method of forming the device, such as “fabricated separately and subsequently attached” to the optically transparent substrate, is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. A "product by method" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by method" claim, and not the patentability of the method, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by method" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. See also MPEP 706.03(e). Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hao et al.(US 20240264278 A1) discloses a laser surface light source configured to emit an initial beam with an initial divergence angle; a first metalens configured to enable the initial beam to pass through the first metalens and configured to modulate the initial beam with the initial divergence angle into a first beam with a first divergence angle; a second metalens configured to enable the first beam to pass through the second metalens and configured to modulate the first beam with the first divergence angle into a second beam with a second divergence angle, wherein the second beam is configured to generate point clouds or multiple lines in a far field; and wherein, the first metalens is arranged between the second metalens and the laser surface light source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872