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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the applications filed on March 20th, 2023 (KR10-2023-0036089) and July 25th, 2023 (KR10-2023-0097032). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated January 4th, 2024, July 9th, 2024, and June 18th, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (JOOHOON KIM ET AL: "Scalably manufactured high-index atomic layer-polymer hybrid metasurfaces for high-efficiency virtual reality metaoptics in the visible" ARXIV.ORG, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHICA, NY 14853, 26 August 2022 (2022-08-26) (Note applicant has provided a copy of this NPL and it will be cited below in the rejections).
The applied reference has a common applicant/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a meta lens comprising:
a substrate (See, e.g., the substrate shown in Fig. 3);
a plurality of nanostructures provided on the substrate (See, e.g., the vertical protrusions coming off of the substrate in Fig. 3); and a high refractive index atomic layer formed along surfaces of the plurality of nanostructures and comprising a material having a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the plurality of nanostructures (See, e.g., the second paragraph on page 5 which explains the TiO2 coating and that the cited nanostructures are made of a resin with a refractive index of approximately 1.5 while TiO2 is known to have a refractive index of approximately 2.4-2.9).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the high refractive index atomic layer comprises TiO2 (See, e.g., the second paragraph on page 5 which explains the TiO2 coating).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a thickness of the high refractive index atomic layer is about 20 nm to about 30 nm (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows the thickness of the high refractive index atomic layer to include examples in the claimed range, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein a thickness of the high refractive index atomic layer is determined such that a polarization conversion efficiency of green light by the nanostructures coated with the high refractive index atomic layer is 70 % or more (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows the conversion efficiency of green light to be over 70% at approximately 25nm thickness of the high index layer).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the plurality of nanostructures comprise UV curable resin (See, e.g., the second paragraph on page 5 which explains that the cited nanostructures are made of a resin with a refractive index of approximately 1.5).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches an electronic device comprising: a lens assembly comprising the meta lens of claim 1 (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above);
an image sensor configured to convert an optical image of an object, formed by the lens assembly, into an electrical signal (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 8 which shows the metalens and an objective lens passing an optical image to a CCD (note a CCD’s function is to convert light into an electrical signal so this limitation is met); and
a processor configured to process a signal from the image sensor (Note this device would not be able to be operated manually and thus a processor is necessarily involved to process the signal from the CCD).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the device set forth above and further teaches an electronic device comprising:
a display device providing image light (See, e.g., the display in Fig 5); the meta lens of claim 1 (See, e.g., the rejection of claim 1 above),
the meta lens focusing light provided from the display device onto a field of view of a user (See, e.g., Fig. 5); and
a processor configured to control the display device (Note a display in a device such as this necessarily has a processor configured to at the very least control the display in response to a user input, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a meta lens, the method comprising:
manufacturing a master stamp including a first pattern identical to an array of a plurality of nanostructures to be provided in the meta lens (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows this process);
manufacturing a replica mold by replicating the master stamp (See, e.g., Fig. 3 which shows this);
forming a nanostructure layer including the plurality of nanostructures by imprinting the replica mold on a UV curable resin (See, e.g., the second paragraph on page 5 which explains the printed resin structure, i.e. a nanostructure, and the second paragraph on page 7 which explains the UV curing); and
conformally forming a high refractive index atomic layer on surfaces of the plurality of nanostructures (See, e.g., the second paragraph on page 5 which explains the TiO2 coating and Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the method set forth above and further teaches preparing a reticle for manufacturing the master stamp (See, e.g., Fig. 3 and the second paragraph on page 7 which show/explain this).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the manufacturing of the master stamp comprises:
forming a hard mask layer on a substrate (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows this in the upper left step);
forming a photoresist layer on the hard mask layer (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows this in the upper middle step);
patterning the photoresist layer so that the photoresist layer has the first pattern (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows this in the upper right step);
etching the hard mask layer using the photoresist layer patterned to have the first pattern as an etching mask (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows this in the bottom right step); and
etching the substrate using the patterned photoresist layer and the etched hard mask layer as an etching mask (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows this in the bottom middle step).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the substrate comprises a silicon substrate having a diameter of 4 inches or more (See, e.g., Supplementary Fig. 5 which shows the substrate to be silicon and Supplementary Note 7 which explains the silicon substrate may be 12 inches wide as an example).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the hard mask layer comprises an amorphous carbon layer (See, e.g., Supplementary Note 7 which explains this).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the high refractive index atomic layer comprises TiO2 (See, e.g., the second paragraph of page 5 which explains this).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein a thickness of the high refractive index atomic layer is about 20 nm to about 30 nm (See, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows some examples of this thickness).
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, 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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim et al. (JOOHOON KIM ET AL: "Scalably manufactured high-index atomic layer-polymer hybrid metasurfaces for high-efficiency virtual reality metaoptics in the visible" ARXIV.ORG, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHICA, NY 14853, 26 August 2022 (2022-08-26) (Note applicant has provided a copy of this NPL and it will be cited below in the rejections).
The applied reference has a common inventor/assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the high refractive index atomic layer comprises ZrO2.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the high refractive index atomic layer to comprise ZrO2 for the purpose of optimizing the refractive index of the layer (Note ZrO2 has a known “high” index of refraction in the same range as TiO2 and is thus a suitable alternative, also the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim et al. (JOOHOON KIM ET AL: "Scalably manufactured high-index atomic layer-polymer hybrid metasurfaces for high-efficiency virtual reality metaoptics in the visible" ARXIV.ORG, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHICA, NY 14853, 26 August 2022 (2022-08-26) (Note applicant has provided a copy of this NPL and it will be cited below in the rejections) in view of Calafiore (US 2020/0409151 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor/assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure of a flat layer formed between the substrate and the plurality of nanostructures and comprising same material as the plurality of nanostructures.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Calafiore teaches a flat layer between a substrate and a plurality of nanostructures and comprising the same material as the nanostructures (See, e.g., Fig. 7 which shows nanostructures 750 coming off flat layer 720 and being of the same material).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kim to include such a layer, as taught by Calafiore, for the purpose of having more control over the electromagnetic radiation passing the device, among other things.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14 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 an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach a beam splitter located on a path along which the image light is directed to the field of view of the user, wherein the processor is further configured to control the display device to output an additional image based on an environment the user is looking at.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art, alone in combination, fails to teach wherein, during the patterning of the photoresist layer, a scan and step exposure process is performed using only some light that is incident near an optical axis of a lens optical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872