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 .
Notice of Non-compliant Amendment
The amendments to the specification are non-compliant under MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121. Examiner reminds the applicant that “(B) a section (must begin on a separate sheet) entitled “Amendments to the Specification” (if there are any amendments to the specification). This section should include all amendments to the specification including amendments to the abstract of the disclosure. A more detailed discussion is provided in subsection II.B…Applicants are also permitted to amend the specification by replacement sections (e.g., as provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), 1.154(b), or 1.163(c)).” See MPEP § 714(II)(A-B) for further details and guidance.
The amendments to the abstract are non-compliant under MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121. The text of the prior abstract was struck through and followed by a substantially rewritten abstract different from the prior version. Applicant must submit a clean substitute abstract that must not be underlined. Where the abstract is being substantially rewritten and the amended abstract bears little or no resemblance to the previously filed version of the abstract, a new (substitute) abstract may be provided in clean form accompanied by an instruction for the cancellation of the previous version of the abstract. The text of the new abstract must not be underlined. It would be counterproductive for applicant to prepare and provide an abstract so riddled with strike-through and underlining that its meaning and language are obscured from view and comprehension. See MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121 (II)(B). Whether supplying a marked-up version of a previous abstract or a clean form new abstract, the abstract must comply with 37 CFR 1.72(b) regarding the length and placement of the abstract on a separate sheet of paper. See MPEP § 714(II)(B) for further details and guidance.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Since the technical features requiring the additional illustration of FIG. 4 are no longer recited in the claims, the current drawings (FIGs. 1-3) now show every feature of the invention as currently claimed. Consequently, the drawings satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.83(a). Withdrawal of the objections to the drawings is therefore respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. See new drawing objection(s) presented below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre- AIA ), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite. While Applicant disagrees with the merits of the rejection, Applicant presently cancels claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 in order to advance prosecution. Withdrawal of the §112(b) rejection is respectfully requested since the rejection is now moot," the Examiner traverses. See new § 112(b) rejection(s) presented below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that " Fu's metasurface cannot be implemented in a single structure. According to Fu's paragraph…(i.e., electromagnetic interference) between the two distinct metasurfaces," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same teachings applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “metasurface cannot be implemented in a single structure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s), for the amended claims disclose a single metalens not a metasurface implemented in a single structure. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection, for Fu discloses a single metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]), wherein the metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]) comprises both a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) consisting of nanorods (plurality of optical device structures 202 comprising semiconductor materials and structure thickness 208 being a minimum of 100 nm, structure width 210 between about 20 nm to about 600 nm; [0031-32]) arranged in the sub-wavelength regime (laser beams 106 each have wavelength between about 400 nm and about 2 μm, average pitch 212 is between 200 nm to 1 μm; [0017], [0034]) and a pattern (fig. 4) of a diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]).
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Examiner's contention that combining separate components…rather, it involves significant technical challenges related to near-field coupling and interference," the Examiner traverses. See previous response to arguments presented above and § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) presented below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In contrast, the present Claims 1, 7, and 14 achieve both collimation and diffraction functions within a single metastructure…Fu cannot achieve without the risk of functional failure due to near-field coupling," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Counsel's assertion that “Fu cannot achieve without the risk of functional failure due to near-field coupling” is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, for “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Examiner also reminds the applicant that ““[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).” See MPEP § 2112.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In brief, Fu explicitly teaches away from such integration…would actively destroy the physical operation principle taught by Fu," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the “spacer layer 128” of Fu is never relied upon in the § 102(a)(1) rejection(s). Examiner also reminds the applicant that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)…Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” See MPEP § 2123. Counsel's assertion that “modifying Fu to combine its separated metasurfaces into a single integrated layer with a combined phase distribution would actively destroy the physical operation principle taught by Fu” is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, for “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.” See MPEP § 2145. Examiner also reminds the applicant that there is no structural modification of Fu in the § 102(a)(1) rejection(s). See previous response to arguments presented above and § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) presented below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant submits that the integration of multiple optical functions into a single metastructure is a non-obvious technical advancement…and traditional lens but also the space between the traditional lens and its traditional DOE"," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “it is necessary for the traditional diffractive optical system to deal with light alignment for not only the space between its laser and traditional lens but also the space between the traditional lens and its traditional DOE”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's argument that “it is necessary for the traditional diffractive optical system to deal with light alignment for not only the space between its laser and traditional lens but also the space between the traditional lens and its traditional DOE”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to the applicant's argument that " In contrast to the Examiner's assertion that a "one piece construction" is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice…the "spaced" configurations taught by Fu, and thus cannot be considered a mere matter of obvious engineering choice," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) do not rely nor require any modification related to a matter of obvious engineering choice. See previous response to arguments presented above and § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) presented below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Accordingly, because Fu fails to disclose a single metastructure that "comprises both a concentric structure consisting of nanorods arranged in the sub-wavelength regime and a pattern of a diffractive optical element", Fu does not describe each and every limitation of amended Claims 1, 7, and 14…Furthermore, nothing in this Response should be construed as an intent to concede any issue with regard to any claim, except as specifically stated herein," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same teachings applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection. See previous response to arguments presented above and § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) presented below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the diffractive optical element and nanorods arranged in the sub-wavelength regime must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner submits that the as-filed specification recites “the metastructure 100 may be designed to comprise a pattern 110 (shown as a dog-bone-like pattern for example) of a diffractive optical element (not shown).” in para. [0015].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3, 7-10, and 14-16 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 recite the limitation "the sub-wavelength regime." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), for “a sub-wavelength regime” is not previously recited in the claim(s). Furthermore, the term “sub-wavelength regime” in Claims 1, 7, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sub-wavelength regime” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner submits that “wherein the metastructure comprises both a concentric structure consisting of nanorods arranged in the sub-wavelength regime and a pattern of a diffractive optical element” never identifies the relevant optical wavelength or wavelength range, the dimensions of the nanorods or their spacing and/or pitch, or even a threshold establishing what qualifies as a sub-wavelength. The metastructure, concentric structure, nanorods, and pattern of the diffractive optical element are also rendered indefinite for the use of the term “the sub-wavelength regime.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a multidirectional optical element, diffractive optical system, and wavefront sensor.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. US 20220308263 A1 (herein after "Fu").
With respect to Claim 1, Fu discloses a multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 108; [0018]); and
a single metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]), wherein the metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]) comprises both a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) consisting of nanorods (plurality of optical device structures 202 comprising semiconductor materials and structure thickness 208 being a minimum of 100 nm, structure width 210 between about 20 nm to about 600 nm; [0031-32]) arranged in the sub-wavelength regime (laser beams 106 each have wavelength between about 400 nm and about 2 μm, average pitch 212 is between 200 nm to 1 μm; [0017], [0034]) and a pattern (fig. 4) of a diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]).
With respect to Claim 2, Fu discloses the multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]) of Claim 1, wherein the pattern (fig. 4) of the diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]) is one of a dog-bone-like pattern, a fish-bone-like pattern, a bird-like pattern and a fishing-net-like pattern (multiple arrays 500a combined to form diffractive metasurface 118 in a hexagonal lattice configuration, inclusive of a fishing-net-like diffraction pattern; [0043]).
With respect to Claim 3, Fu discloses the multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]) of Claim 1, wherein the metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) and substrate (substrate 108; [0018]) are primarily made of one of glass, titanium dioxide, niobium(V) oxide, zinc oxide, silicon, silicon Nitride, indium gallium oxide, and gallium nitride (substrate 108 and field metasurface substrate 122 includes silicon (Si) and high-refractive-index glass; [0018] and [0024]).
With respect to Claim 7, Fu discloses a diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b), comprising:
a laser (infrared lasers of light source 104; [0016]), being configured to generate a laser beam (light source 104 to project one or more laser beams 106; [0016]); and
a multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 108; [0018]); and
a single metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]), wherein the metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]) comprises both a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) consisting of nanorods (plurality of optical device structures 202 comprising semiconductor materials and structure thickness 208 being a minimum of 100 nm, structure width 210 between about 20 nm to about 600 nm; [0031-32]) arranged in the sub-wavelength regime (laser beams 106 each have wavelength between about 400 nm and about 2 μm, average pitch 212 is between 200 nm to 1 μm; [0017], [0034]) and a pattern (fig. 4) of a diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]);
wherein the multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]) is configured to make the laser beam (one or more laser beams 106; [0016]) converge (field metasurface 126 converges laser beams 106 propagating through optical device 102; [0025]) at a plurality of focuses (diffraction beams 120 having one or more diffraction orders n; [0027]).
With respect to Claim 8, Fu discloses the diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b) of Claim 7, wherein the laser (infrared lasers of light source 104; [0016]) is a vertical cavity surface emitting Laser (light source 104 is an array of vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) devices; [0016]).
With respect to Claim 9, Fu discloses the diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b) of Claim 7, wherein the pattern (fig. 4) of the diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]) is one of a dog-bone-like pattern, a fish-bone-like pattern, a bird-like pattern and a fishing-net-like pattern (multiple arrays 500a combined to form diffractive metasurface 118 in a hexagonal lattice configuration, inclusive of a fishing-net-like diffraction pattern; [0043]).
With respect to Claim 10, Fu discloses the diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b) of Claim 7, wherein the metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) and the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]) are primarily made of one of glass, titanium dioxide, niobium(V) oxide, zinc oxide, silicon, silicon Nitride, indium gallium oxide, and gallium nitride (substrate 108 and field metasurface substrate 122 includes silicon (Si) and high-refractive-index glass; [0018] and [0024]).
With respect to Claim 14, Fu discloses a wavefront sensor (e.g., apparatus 100A is a dot matrix diffuser; [0015] with e.g., multiple arrays 500a conjoined to form diffractive metasurface 118 on second surface 112 of substrate 108; [0042]), comprising:
a detector (field metasurface 126; [0024]); and
a multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 108; [0018]); and
a single metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]), wherein the metastructure (phase profile 400 of optical device 102; [0039]) comprises both a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) consisting of nanorods (plurality of optical device structures 202 comprising semiconductor materials and structure thickness 208 being a minimum of 100 nm, structure width 210 between about 20 nm to about 600 nm; [0031-32]) arranged in the sub-wavelength regime (laser beams 106 each have wavelength between about 400 nm and about 2 μm, average pitch 212 is between 200 nm to 1 μm; [0017], [0034]) and a pattern (fig. 4) of a diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]);
wherein, the multidirectional optical element (apparatus includes light source operable to project one or more laser beams and includes an optical device; [0004]) is configured to make an incident light beam (one or more laser beams 106 are incident on optical device 102; [0023]) converge (field metasurface 126 converges laser beams 106 propagating through optical device 102; [0025]) at a plurality of focuses (diffraction beams 120 having one or more diffraction orders n; [0027]), and the detector (field metasurface 126; [0024]) is configured to detect the incident light beam (converges and improves the light collection efficiency of laser beams 106 propagating through optical device 102, phase profile 400 of plurality of optical device structures 202 utilized in field metasurface 126, laser beams 106 propagate towards diffractive metasurface 118 to be diffracted into diffraction beams 120; [0025-27] and [0039]) according to the plurality of focuses (diffraction beams 120 having one or more diffraction orders n; [0027]).
With respect to Claim 15, Fu discloses the wavefront sensor (e.g., apparatus 100A is a dot matrix diffuser; [0015] with e.g., multiple arrays 500a conjoined to form diffractive metasurface 118 on second surface 112 of substrate 108; [0042]) of Claim 14, wherein the pattern (fig. 4) of the diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]) is one of a dog-bone-like pattern, a fish-bone-like pattern, a bird-like pattern and a fishing-net-like pattern (multiple arrays 500a combined to form diffractive metasurface 118 in a hexagonal lattice configuration, inclusive of a fishing-net-like diffraction pattern; [0043]).
With respect to Claim 16, Fu discloses the wavefront sensor (e.g., apparatus 100A is a dot matrix diffuser; [0015] with e.g., multiple arrays 500a conjoined to form diffractive metasurface 118 on second surface 112 of substrate 108; [0042]) of Claim 14, wherein the metalens (optical device 102 comprising collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) and the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]) are primarily made of one of glass, titanium dioxide, niobium(V) oxide, zinc oxide, silicon, silicon Nitride, indium gallium oxide, and gallium nitride (substrate 108 and field metasurface substrate 122 includes silicon (Si) and high-refractive-index glass; [0018] and [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Santonocito et al. discloses Recent Advances in Tunable Metasurfaces and Their Application in Optics substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 31 July 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights