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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 3/04/2026. Claims 1, 12, 15, are amended, claim 11 is canceled, claims 29-31 are new.
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, 7-13, 15, 20-23, 25 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 10,591,643 to Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses an metalens array for three-dimensional imaging, comprising: an array of metalens units (an array of lenses 1101-1109 or Fig. 11 and lens units of Fig. 14-16 and 18), wherein each metalens unit in the array is configured with an extended depth of view (DOV) for projecting (Fig. 4, 6; col. 6, ll. 36-65) a cluster of object sources positioned in a range of object distances in the axial direction into a cluster of image spots in an image plane such that each of the image spots remains in focus and is separated from other image spots in the cluster of image spots (“Each of the lens 1101-1109 in the array 1100 focuses light in the same focal plane, but the different focal spots are translationally shifted in the focal plane in accordance with some embodiments of the invention” and Figs. 17 & 19; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14); and wherein the metalens array is configured to project the cluster of object sources into multiple clusters of image spots in the image plane, wherein each cluster of image spots is a different copy of the cluster of object sources in the image plane located apart from other clusters of image spots (Figs. 11-19; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14), wherein each metalens unit in the array comprises a plurality of nanostructures (col. 5, ll. 3-20), herein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a geometry selected to impart the metalens unit with a bounded angular field of view (FOV) such that the metalens unit operates to pass an incident light emitted inside the bounded angular FOV of the metalens unit (numerical aperture of metalenses, Fig. 4 & 6; col. 6, ll. 36-65) and reject an incident light beyond the bounded angular FOV of the metalens unit (“multiplexed optical elements offer an effective aperture for each multiplexed lens 1101-1109 that is equal to that of the entire optical element 1200 rather than that of the individual lenslets 1201-1209 within the larger array. The larger aperture of the multiplexed lenses can be used directly in imaging to achieve a higher spatial resolution. Therefore, the spatially multiplexed design in accordance with some embodiments of the invention facilitates the realization of optical elements with multi-functionalities to achieve a high packing density of distinct optical elements on a surface without reducing the numerical aperture of each sub-element”; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14)1.
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Lin discloses the metalens array is configured to allow only a predetermined number of metalens units within the metalens array to image an object point source into the predetermined number of image spots in the image plane (Figs. 11-19), wherein the predetermined number is less than the number of metalens units in the metalens array, thereby limiting the total number of images of the object point source in the image plane (Figs. 11-19; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14). Note: This configuration of the meta lens array includes a structure capable of receiving light profile that does not impinge on the entirety of the array. The lens arrays provided by Lin are capable of operating without being entirely illuminated.
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the total number of clusters in the multiple clusters of image spots equals the predetermined number (Fig. 4-6, 11-19; col. 6, ll. 36-65).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Lin discloses the predetermined number is between 4 and 9 (Fig. 4-6, 11-19; col. 6, ll. 36-65).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the predetermined number of metalens units includes either 2x2 metalens units or 3x3 metalens units (Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Lin discloses the metalens array has an overall two- dimensional (2D) FOV in an object plane determined by the sum of individual bounded angular FOVs associated with the individual metalens units in the metalens array (“multiplexed optical elements offer an effective aperture for each multiplexed lens 1101-1109 that is equal to that of the entire optical element 1200 rather than that of the individual lenslets 1201-1209 within the larger array. The larger aperture of the multiplexed lenses can be used directly in imaging to achieve a higher spatial resolution. Therefore, the spatially multiplexed design in accordance with some embodiments of the invention facilitates the realization of optical elements with multi-functionalities to achieve a high packing density of distinct optical elements on a surface without reducing the numerical aperture of each sub-element”; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14).
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses the metalens array has a depth of view (DOV) in the axial direction that equals the extended DOV of the individual metalens units in the metalens array (multiplexed imaging; Fig. 4 & 6, 11-19; col. 6, ll. 36-65).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses a metalens unit (an array of lenses 1101-1109 or Fig. 11 and lens units of Fig. 14-16 and 18) for three-dimensional (3D) imaging, wherein: the metalens unit (an array of lenses 1101-1109 or Fig. 11 and lens units of Fig. 14-16 and 18) is configured with an extended depth of view (DOV) (Fig. 4 & 6; col. 6, ll. 36-65) for projecting a cluster of object sources positioned in a range of object distances in the axial direction into a cluster of image spots in an image plane such that each of the image spots remains in focus and is separated from other image spots in the cluster of image spots (“multiplexed optical elements offer an effective aperture for each multiplexed lens 1101-1109 that is equal to that of the entire optical element 1200 rather than that of the individual lenslets 1201-1209 within the larger array. The larger aperture of the multiplexed lenses can be used directly in imaging to achieve a higher spatial resolution. Therefore, the spatially multiplexed design in accordance with some embodiments of the invention facilitates the realization of optical elements with multi-functionalities to achieve a high packing density of distinct optical elements on a surface without reducing the numerical aperture of each sub-element”; Figs. 4, 6, 17, 19, 23; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14); and the metalens unit comprises a plurality of nanostructures (col. 5, ll. 3-20), herein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a geometry selected to impart the metalens unit with a bounded angular field of view (FOV) such that the metalens unit operates to pass an incident light emitted inside the bounded angular FOV of the metalens unit and reject an incident light beyond the bounded angular FOV of the metalens unit (Fig. 4 & 6; col. 6, ll. 36-65 & col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14). Respective embodiments singularly anticipate the claimed invention, and additional written description and figures provide context for understanding the respective embodiments.
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses an metalens array for three-dimensional (3D) imaging, comprising: an array of metalens units (an array of lenses 1101-1109 or Fig. 11 and lens units of Fig. 14-16 and 18 in the context of Figs. 11-19; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14) and, wherein each metalens unit in the array is configured with an extended depth of view (DOV) for projecting a cluster of object sources positioned in a range of object distances in the axial direction into a cluster of image spots in an image plane such that each of the image spots remains in focus and is separated from other image spots in the cluster of image spots (“multiplexed optical elements offer an effective aperture for each multiplexed lens 1101-1109 that is equal to that of the entire optical element 1200 rather than that of the individual lenslets 1201-1209 within the larger array. The larger aperture of the multiplexed lenses can be used directly in imaging to achieve a higher spatial resolution. Therefore, the spatially multiplexed design in accordance with some embodiments of the invention facilitates the realization of optical elements with multi-functionalities to achieve a high packing density of distinct optical elements on a surface without reducing the numerical aperture of each sub-element”; Figs. 4, 6, 17, 19, 23; col. 8, ln. 1-col. 12, ln. 14); wherein each metalens unit in the array comprises a plurality of nanostructures (col. 5, ll. 3-20), herein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a geometry selected to impart the metalens unit with a bounded angular field of view (FOV) such that the metalens unit operates to pass an incident light emitted inside a predetermined cutoff angle of the bounded angular FOV and reject an incident light beyond the predetermined cutoff angle of the bounded angular FOV (numerical aperture of metalenses, Fig. 4 & 6; col. 6, ll. 36-65); and wherein the metalens array generates only a predetermined number of copies of images for each object point source in an image plane (Figs. 11-19). It is noted that a finite numerical aperture necessarily limits incident light beyond a cutoff angle.
Regarding claim 25, Lin discloses the array of metalens units includes MxN metalens units, wherein M =N (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 29-31, Lin discloses the plurality of nanostructures each have the same or substantially the same angular-dependent transmission profile (“the spatially multiplexed design in accordance with some embodiments of the invention facilitates the realization of optical elements with multi-functionalities to achieve a high packing density of distinct optical elements on a surface without reducing the numerical aperture of each sub-element… other embodiments of metalens array with enhanced numerical apertures can be designed without departing from embodiments of this invention”, Figs. 11, 18-19; col. 9, ll. 12-col. 11, ln. 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of US Pat. No. 9,507,064 to Brongersma et al. (hereinafter Brongersma).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Lin discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: each metalens unit in the metalens array is configured with a phase-shift profile to effectuate a Bessel beam point spread function (PSF) in the image plane for each object source in an object plane within the extended DOV.
Brongersma discloses each metalens unit in the metalens array is configured with a phase-shift profile to effectuate a Bessel beam point spread function (PSF) in the image plane for each object source in an object plane within the extended DOV (Figs. 1; col. 7, ll. 5-55).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lens with a Bessel PSF as taught by Brongersma with the system as disclosed by Lin. The motivation would have been to provide a non-diffracting light patterns used in medical applications, optical trapping, scanner applications, and alignment applications (col. 7, ll. 5-55).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lin discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: each metalens unit comprises: a substrate support; and an axicon structure disposed on the substrate support to effectuate the Bessel beam PSF for a given object source.
Brongersma discloses each metalens unit comprises: a substrate support; and an axicon structure disposed on the substrate support to effectuate the Bessel beam PSF for a given object source (Figs. 1; col. 7, ll. 5-55).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lens with a Bessel PSF as taught by Brongersma with the system as disclosed by Lin. The motivation would have been to provide a non-diffracting light patterns used in medical applications, optical trapping, scanner applications, and alignment applications (col. 7, ll. 5-55).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: each metalens unit comprises: a substrate support; and a 2D array of nanostructures disposed on the substrate support to effectuate a spatial phase-shift profile that resembles an axicon.
Brongersma discloses each metalens unit comprises: a substrate support; and a 2D array of nanostructures disposed on the substrate support to effectuate a spatial phase-shift profile that resembles an axicon (Figs. 1B; col. 7, ll. 5-55).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lens with a Bessel PSF as taught by Brongersma with the system as disclosed by Lin. The motivation would have been to provide a non-diffracting light patterns used in medical applications, optical trapping, scanner applications, and alignment applications (col. 7, ll. 5-55).
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Lin discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the array of metalens units includes MxN metalens units, wherein M ≠ N.
Lin discloses the array of metalens units includes MxN metalens units, wherein M = N (e.g. Fig. 11), and a removal of a column or row of metalenses in the Fig. 11 embodiment would amount to the claimed invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art understand omission of a column or row of metalended would have been obvious where the function attributed to such lenses is not desired or required/ Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the 3/04/2026 Remarks, Applicant argues “Examiner’s assumption [that because Lin’s lenses 1101-1109 ‘offer an effective aperture’ they inevitably must have a bounded angular FOV such that the lenses 1101-1109 operate to pass an incident light emitted inside the bounded angular FOV of the lenses 1101-1109 and reject an incident light beyond the bounded angular FOV of the lenses 1101-1109] lacks evidentiary support”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the rejections rely on the teachings regarding the lenses numerical aperture and thus by definition a bounded angular FOV passing and rejecting light for varied angles. The claims do not require a particular manner of interpreting passing and rejecting light, e.g. absorbing, reflecting, scattering, diffracting, etc., and do not require a particular manner of interpreting “bounded”. There is no requirement that “rejected’ angles of incident light have zero transmission through the lenses, as disclosed by Applicant. The portion of Lin cited discusses both the effective aperture and numerical aperture, related optical characteristics of a lens system understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to relate to the angular extent to which a lens system utilizes transmitted light. Applicant argues that an effective aperture may still transmit incident light beyond a particular angular FOV, albeit with degraded performance such as increased aberrations, focal shift, and/or altered mapping at the image plane and thus does not “reject” incident light as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specifications, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the numerical aperture of a lens is itself a clarification of the angular extent through which the lens passes light and rejects light.
Further, Applicant argues that “Lin is silent as to any nanostructure-level geometry that intentionally establishes an angular acceptance window and rejects light outside that window”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the geometric design of nanostructures phase profiles is made explicitly with numerical aperture as a design element in the cited portions of Lin. It appears that Applicant intends for angular light rejection to be narrowly construed as a particular means by which light is controlled – claims are not so-limited. A person having ordinary skill in the art, evidenced by the herein cited “Designing large, high-efficiency, high-numerical-aperture, transmissive meta-lenses for visible light” (hereinafter Byrnes), would have understood passing and rejecting light through a metasurface to be a matter of a measure of efficiency for particular pathways of light. Byrnes discloses “focusing efficiency (fraction of power incident upon the lens that ends up being collimated) is 79%... [a]nother 7% of the light is transmitted but scattered into other directions, while the rest either reflects off the metasurface immediately, or is transmitted but with too large a scattering angle to escape the substrate on the first pass”. The claim does not require any particular mechanism by which light is rejected and thus the numerical aperture described in Lin provides a sufficient teaching for passing and rejecting incident light in a general manner anticipating the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights