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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 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 "The amendments and new figure do not constitute new matter as support is found throughout the specification and drawings. Reconsideration of the objections/rejections and favorable action are earnestly solicited," the Examiner traverses. Examiner notes that the applicant should specifically point out the support for any and all amendments and show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The Abstract was objected to for allegedly having undue length. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this contention as the Abstract had less than 150 words, so it cannot be considered unduly lengthy…," the Examiner traverses. As stated in the previous action (dated 19 December 2025), “Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.”
In response to the applicant's argument that "In response to the objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) and for the sake of clarity, Applicant submits herewith New Sheet adding new FIG. 4 to clearly illustrate the feature "phase distribution of the multidirectional optical element." As shown in new FIG. 4…Therefore, withdrawal of the 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) objections to the drawings is respectfully requested. No new matter is introduced in the New Sheet or Replacement Sheets," the Examiner traverses. Examiner submits that “plot corresponds to an area of approximately 100 pm by 100 pm, where the lightest regions represent a phase value of approximately 3 radians, and the darkest regions represent a phase value of approximately -3 radians” is not disclosed nor supported by the as-filed specification and drawings, and is also not recited in the claims.
In response to the applicant's argument that "It is believed that the amended Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 now clearly define the functional and structural relationship of the multidirectional optical element within the claimed system. Therefore, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections to those claims are respectfully requested," the Examiner traverses. See 112(b) rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that "collimation metasurface…while a separate "diffractive metasurface 118", which is a beam splitter, is disposed on a second surface 112 to split the laser beams 116 into diffraction beams 120," 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 the applicant's argument that "Fu's FIG. 1A…This confirms that in Fu, the collimation function and the diffraction function are performed by two distinct, physically separated layers that are designed not to interfere with one another. Consequently, it is clear that Fu's "collimation metasurface 114" and "field metasurface substrate 122" are physically separated from the "diffractive metasurface 118" and disposed at distinct locations (e.g., on opposite surfaces of the substrate or separated by a spacer layer)," 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 the applicant's argument that "The Claimed Invention Features an Integrated Single-Layer Metastructure. Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the present application explicitly recite that the "metastructure comprises a concentric structure with a pattern of a diffractive optical element…As a result, Applicant respectfully submits that Fu fails to disclose a single metastructure that "comprises a concentric structure with a pattern of a diffractive optical element," Fu does not describe each and every limitation of Claims 1, 7, and 14," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "The Claimed Invention Features an Integrated Single-Layer Metastructure," "the claimed invention integrates the functions of a metalens (e.g., collimation or focusing) and a diffractive optical element into a single integrated layer," "the claimed invention achieves both collimation and diffraction within the same physical interface," and "Applicant respectfully submits that Fu fails to disclose a single metastructure") 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).
Fu discloses a multidirectional optical element…wherein the metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]) comprises a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) with a pattern (fig. 4) of a diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]). See § 102 rejection(s) below for further details. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it relies on limitations that are not recited in the claims. The claim(s) merely require “a multidirectional optical element…comprising a metastructure, wherein the metastructure comprises a concentric structure with a pattern of a diffractive optical element.” Nothing in the claim(s) requires integration of metalens and diffractive optical element functions into a single layer, a single physical interface, nor the absence of multiple layers or physically separated components. Fu discloses an optical device including metasurface-based optical structures having a phase profile with a center point and a pattern of a diffractive metasurface disposed on a surface, which reasonably corresponds to the claimed metastructure comprising a concentric structure with a diffractive pattern. Whether Fu implements such features in a single layer or multiple layers is irrelevant, as the claim(s) do not recite any structural limitation requiring a single integrated layer. Examiner also reminds the applicant that the court(s) affirmed…“that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
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.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 phase distribution of the multidirectional optical element is composed of phase distributions of the concentric structure and the diffractive optical element 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 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19 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.
With respect to Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g). Furthermore, claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP § 2115.
In the current instance, "multidirectional optical element of Claim 1, wherein the multidirectional optical element is configured to function as a diffractive optical element" and “wherein the multidirectional optical element is configured for use in a wavefront sensor” (recited in, e.g., Claims 5 and 6) recite functional language, for the claim limitations merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention. For example, it is unclear what structural characteristics make the multidirectional optical element capable of functioning as a diffractive optical element, and whether a diffractive optical element is positively claimed, or if there is no requirement for a diffractive optical element and the claims only merely require the multidirectional optical element to function as one. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope with reasonable certainty. “Configured for use in” merely recites an intended use, for it is unclear what structural features of the multidirectional optical element make it suitable for use in a wavefront sensor and the limitation does not impose any meaningful boundaries distinguishing it from other optical elements. Thus, these limitations are purely functional and result-oriented. Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.
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 1-19 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 (optical device 102; [0018]), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 108; [0018]); and
a metalens (e.g., collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]), wherein the metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]) comprises a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) with 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 (optical device 102; [0018]) 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 (optical device 102; [0018]) of Claim 1, wherein the metalens (e.g., 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 4, Fu discloses the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) of Claim 1, wherein a phase distribution (phase profile 400; [0039]) of the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) is composed of phase distributions (phase profile 400 of a plurality of optical device structures 202; [0039]) of the concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) and the pattern (fig. 4) of the diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]).
With respect to Claim 5, Fu discloses the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) of Claim 1, wherein the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) configured to function as a diffractive optical element (apparatus further includes a diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on second surface 112, diffractive metasurface 118 includes plurality of optical device structures to diffract one or more laser beams 106; [0016] into diffraction beams 120; [0004] and [0018]).
With respect to Claim 6, Fu discloses the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) of Claim 1, wherein the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) is configured for use in a wavefront sensor (sensor apparatuses with stacked metasurfaces suitable for small form factors and operable to be utilized as three-dimensional sensors for sensing applications; [0014] and [0050]; 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]).
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 (optical device 102; [0018]), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 108; [0018]); and
a metalens (e.g., collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]), wherein the metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]) comprises a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) with 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 (optical device 102; [0018]) 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 (e.g., 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 11, Fu discloses the diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b) of Claim 7, wherein a phase distribution (phase profile 400; [0039]) of the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) is composed of phase distributions (phase profile 400 of a plurality of optical device structures 202; [0039]) of the concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) and the pattern (fig. 4) of the diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]).
With respect to Claim 12, Fu discloses the diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b) of Claim 7, wherein the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) configured to function as a diffractive optical element (apparatus further includes a diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on second surface 112, diffractive metasurface 118 includes plurality of optical device structures to diffract one or more laser beams 106; [0016] into diffraction beams 120; [0004] and [0018]).
With respect to Claim 13, Fu discloses the diffractive optical system (fig. 1a-5b) of Claim 7, wherein the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) is configured for use in a wavefront sensor (sensor apparatuses with stacked metasurfaces suitable for small form factors and operable to be utilized as three-dimensional sensors for sensing applications; [0014] and [0050]; 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]).
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 (optical device 102; [0018]), comprising:
a substrate (substrate 108; [0018]); and
a metalens (e.g., collimation metasurface 114 and field metasurface substrate 122; [0018] and [0024]) disposed (fig. 1a-b) on the substrate (substrate 108; [0018]), comprising a metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]), wherein the metastructure (plurality of optical device structures 202 of metasurfaces; [0031]) comprises a concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) with 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 (optical device 102; [0018]) 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 (e.g., 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 17, 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 a phase distribution (phase profile 400; [0039]) of the multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) is composed of phase distributions (phase profile 400 of a plurality of optical device structures 202; [0039]) of the concentric structure (comprising center point 402 of phase profile 400 utilized in optical device 102; [0039-40]; fig. 4) and the pattern (fig. 4) of the diffractive optical element (diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on first surface 110; [0018] and [0028]).
With respect to Claim 18, 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 multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) configured to function as a diffractive optical element (apparatus further includes a diffractive metasurface 118 disposed on second surface 112, diffractive metasurface 118 includes plurality of optical device structures to diffract one or more laser beams 106; [0016] into diffraction beams 120; [0004] and [0018]).
With respect to Claim 19, 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 multidirectional optical element (optical device 102; [0018]) is configured for use in a wavefront sensor (sensor apparatuses with stacked metasurfaces suitable for small form factors and operable to be utilized as three-dimensional sensors for sensing applications; [0014] and [0050]; [0015] and [0042]).
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 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 14 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights