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, see the response, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to pending claims 18-25, 27-28 and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 18-25, 27-28 and 31, as set forth in the office action of 5/5/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 32 and 33 under 35USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ronchini Ximenes et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0319344) and Park et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220137402).
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.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronchini Ximenes et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0319344) in view of Park et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 20220137402).
With respect to claim 32, Ronchini Ximenes et al disclose: An imaging method [ taught by figure 4 ] comprising the steps of: generating at least one first optical beam, by a light-emitting device [ taught by the source of optical beams (412) ]; deflecting, by a spatial light modulator, the at least one first optical beam in a first deflection direction within a first field of view to generate a first deflected beam, by applying an external control signal on the spatial light modulator [ taught by fine steering element (405) having an external signal applied by control (360); it is noted that the fifth paragraph of page 7 of the specification of the present application teaches that a spatial light modulator can use acousto-optic deflection; thus, being met by paragraph [0066] of Ronchini Ximenes et al ]; and generating, by a passive transmissive deflecting device comprising an optical metasurface formed by a two-dimensional arrangement of deflecting cells, at least one second deflected beam from the first deflected beam within a second field of view, the second field of view being wider than the first field of view [ Ronchini Ximenes et al teaches coarse beam steering element (405) widening the beams ] .
Ronchini Ximenes et al does not disclose an optical metasurface formed by a two-dimensional arrangement of deflecting cells.
Figure 1 of Park et al teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have steered beam with a device including a metasurface formed by a two-dimensional arrangement of deflecting cells, as shown by paragraph [0084], which states:
“… For example, the phase mask 140 may have a different nanostructure array for each pixel to form a disordered-engineered metasurface (DEM). The nanostructures 142 may be configured differently according to pixels in terms of at least one of the nanostructure size, the number of nanostructures, the nanostructure shape…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a metasurface formed by a 2D arrangement of cells in the device of Ronchini Ximenes et al because Park et al taught this was known structure used in beam steering.
Claim 33 is met by imaging aperture (320) and imaging device (355) disclosed by figure 3 of Ronchini Ximenes et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is 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.
Claims 18-31 are allowed.
Claim 18 is allowable over the cited prior art for at least reciting “…each of said deflecting cells being reachable by said first deflected beam and being associated with an elementary field of view chosen independently from the elementary fields of view of adjacent deflecting cells…”; as this limitation is presented in entire context.
Claims 19-31 depend on claim 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
