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 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that examiner did not do enough of an explanation.
Regarding Claim 6,
An optical design method comprising:
a setting step of setting a first step pattern provided to a binary optic based on optical design of a configuration in which the binary optic and a conventional lens are used in combination; (to me this is a mental step of selecting the optical design and some math..calculating w/public software [0044], thus directed at abstract limitations)
a first calculating step of calculating first phase data indicating a relation of a phase to a shape of a meta-atom based on a preliminarily set first wavelength; (calculating is math, thus directed at abstract limitation) (calculating is math, thus directed at abstract limitation)
a first identifying step of calculating a first phase pattern from the first step pattern and identifying a fine pattern indicating the shape of the meta-atom corresponding to the first phase pattern by referring to the first phase data; (calculating is math, thus directed at abstract limitation)
a second calculating step of calculating second phase data different from the first phase data based on a preliminarily set second wavelength different from the first wavelength; (calculating is math, thus directed at abstract limitation)
a second identifying step of identifying a second phase pattern corresponding to the fine pattern by referring to the second phase data; and (this is a mental step of mentally reviewing the data for phase patterns, thus directed to an abstract limitation).
a designing step of designing the conventional lens based on the second phase pattern, (this is a designing step which can be done mentally, thus abstract or with math (publicly available software, [0051], thus directed to an abstract limitation.
wherein the first calculating step calculates the first phase data using optical software of a vector model, and the designing step designs the conventional lens using optical design software for optical tracking.
(calculating with a vector model is math), design with software is both math (software/algorithm) or mental (designing the aid of software still requires mental steps).
35 USC 101
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 6,7,13, does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Regarding Claim 6,7,13,
The claimed invention is directed to a process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “An optical design method comprising…”, so it is a method/process claim, which is a statutory category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application the claim recites mathematical concepts, which are recognized judicial exceptions. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not connect the mathematical calculations to any concrete physical action; it just outputs design information.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 6,7,13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Arbabi et al (US 20160306079A1)
Regarding Claim 6,
Arbabi et al discloses an optical design method comprising: a setting step of setting a first step pattern provided to a binary optic based on optical design of a configuration in which the binary optic and a conventional lens are used in combination ([0044-0045], description of desired phase profiles sampled at lattice points, coupling phase to meta-atom geometry teaches designing unit cells (meta-atoms) to impart phase delays to achieve a desired wavefront. This inherently includes selecting an initial desired phase pattern phase on conventional optical design before assigning meta-atom geometries.); a first calculating step of calculating first phase data indicating a relation of a phase to a shape of a meta-atom based on a preliminarily set first wavelength (Arbabi et al shows simulations plotting phase responses at two wavelengths (ᵩ1 and ᵩ2) as functions of meta-atom geometries D1 and D2 [0048] “A periodic array of meta-molecules was simulated to find the transmission amplitude and phase … ᵩ1 and ᵩ2 in the simulation description.”); a first identifying step of calculating a first phase pattern from the first step pattern and identifying a fine pattern indicating the shape of the meta-atom corresponding to the first phase pattern by referring to the first phase data (The lens design in the reference involves sampling desired phase profiles at lattice points and finding meta-atom parameters (diameters) that achieve the desired phases [0048] “in the lens design process, the desired transmission phases..resulting in a ᵩ1 and ᵩ2 pair at each lattice site. Using the plots..values of the two post diameters can be found for each lattice point.”); a second calculating step of calculating second phase data different from the first phase data based on a preliminarily set second wavelength different from the first wavelength (The reference’s library approach inherently includes evaluating phase responses ᵩ1 and ᵩ2 at two wavelengths for each meta-atom geometry [0048] “same multi-wavelength phase analysis (“simulated transmission amplitude and phase for 1550 mu.m. and 915 mu.m plotted as functions of D1 and D2”); a second identifying step of identifying a second phase pattern corresponding to the fine pattern by referring to the second phase data (the reference uses the second wavelength’s phase response in the same way to assessing meta-atom dimensions for that wavelength [0048] “description of selecting geometries for desired ᵩ1 and ᵩ2 pairs at each lattice site.”); and a designing step of designing the conventional lens based on the second phase pattern (the reference discloses designing meta surface lenses at two wavelengths, inherently tying optical-element design to the computed phase profiles at both wavelengths (“discussion of designing multi-wavelength lens to focus at specific positions for 915 nm to 1550 nm” [0024] Fig. 14 measurement results); wherein the first calculating step calculates the first phase data using optical software of a vector model [0048], and the designing step designs the conventional lens using optical design software for optical tracking [0043].
Regarding Claim 7,
Arbabi et al discloses wherein the designing step includes identifying a second step pattern corresponding to the second phase pattern and designing the conventional lens based on the second step pattern (The step of converting phase profiles into a step pattern of meta-atom geometries (diameters) at the second wavelength is shown where the plots ᵩ2 are used to find required diameters for each lattice point)(“using the plots…value of the two post diameters can be found…”)[0048].
Regarding Claim 13,
Arbabi et al discloses an evaluating step of determining whether or not designed configuration satisfies the specification determined after the designing step. (The reference's library approach inherently includes evaluating phase responses 41)[0048]
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 LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights