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 .
Amendment
The Response, filed on August 14, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 14, 2026, the title and claims 1, 8, 14, 17, 21 have been amended, claims 16, 20 and 23 have been cancelled, and claims 25-28 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 23, Applicant has cancelled claim 23, rendering the rejection moot. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 23 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims, Applicant argues that “Doskolovich does not disclose an "oscillation," but rather describes generically taking images "at different distances from the focusing lens.” (Remarks, p. 9).
Independent claim 1, as currently presented, now provides “wherein the actuator is configured to oscillate the image sensor and/or the metalens between multiple positions of the plurality of positions,” “wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation,” and causing at least one processor “to execute operations comprising determining a respective image size of an object at a first distance from the apparatus in each of the plurality of images acquired by the image sensor during the oscillation”. The combination of Doskolovich, Li and Suto has not been found by the Examiner to teach or disclose the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 21, is withdrawn.
Independent claim 8, as currently presented, now provides “repeating (a), (b), and (c) such that the actuator oscillates the at least one of the image sensor or the metalens between the first distance and the second distance.” Doskolovich clearly teaches moving the image sensor between a first and second distance (e.g, p. 4706, “The images were taken at different distances from the focusing lens in 50 μm increments.”), and oscillation which would occur during repeated/consecutive uses/operations, and the claim, as currently presented, does not preclude this interpretation. In light of at least the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of the art as applied to independent claim 8, and dependent claims 9-12 and 22.
Independent claim 14, as currently presented, now provides “wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation.” Doskolovich clearly teaches moving the image sensor between a first and second distance (e.g, p. 4706, “The images were taken at different distances from the focusing lens in 50 μm increments.”), and oscillation which would occur during repeated/consecutive uses/operations, and the claim, as currently presented, does not preclude this interpretation. The Examiner also notes that the image sensor only acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation and does not require the images taken during oscillation to be of the same object. In light of at least the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of the art as applied to independent claim 14, and dependent claims 15 and 23.
Independent claim 17, as currently presented, now provides “…at least one processor to: determine that a specified criteria is satisfied, based on determining that the specified criteria is satisfied, causing an image acquisition process to end, wherein the acquisition process comprises oscillation of the image sensor and/or the metalens between multiple positions of a plurality of positions, and wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation; and determine a distance to the object based on the images acquired by the image sensor.” The combination of Doskolovich, Li and Suto has not been found by the Examiner to teach or disclose the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 17, and dependent claims 18-20 and 24, is withdrawn.
* * * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: an actuator or means for oscillation. As the claims are drawn to an apparatus, means to provide physical oscillation are necessary and essential to acquiring a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions during the oscillation.
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 8, 9, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature entitled “Multifocal diffractive lens generating several fixed foci at different design wavelengths” by Doskolovich et al. (hereinafter “Doskolovich”), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0229207 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 8, Doskolovich teaches a method comprising: (a) acquiring, by an image sensor, a first image while a first distance separates the image sensor from a metalens (e.g., fig. 5; pp. 4706-4707), (b) moving, by an actuator (e.g., fig. 5, element 6; p. 4706) at least one of the image sensor or the metalens such that a second distance separates the image sensor from the metalens (e.g., fig. 5; pp. 4706-4707), (c) acquiring, by the image sensor, a second image while the second distance separates the image sensor from the metalens (e.g., fig. 5; pp. 4706-4707), wherein each of the first and second images corresponds, respectively, to a different one of a plurality of diffractive orders of an image generated by the metalens (e.g., fig. 5; pp. 4706-4707), and (d) moving, by the actuator, at least one of the image sensor or the metalens such that the first distance separates the image sensor from the metalens (e.g., fig. 5, element 6; p. 4706, motorized stage allows the taking of images at different distances from the focusing lens in 50 μm increments), and repeating (a), (b), and (c) such that the actuator oscillates the at least one of the image sensor or the metalens between the first distance and the second distance (e.g., Doskolovich - fig. 5, element 6; p. 4706-4707; in that oscillation which would occur during repeated/consecutive uses/operations, and the claim, as currently presented, does not preclude this interpretation.) Doskolovich, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly provide that the meta-lens comprises a surface having meta-atoms operable to act as a lens.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s original disclosure only recites that “[a] metalens can include, for example, a metasurface, which refers to a surface with distributed small structures (e.g., meta-atoms or other nano-structures) arranged to interact with light in a particular manner. In the case of a metalens, the meta-atoms are arranged so that the metastructure functions as a lens” (specification, [0025]), and that the original disclosure is not found to teach or disclose a new or novel meta-lens.
Nevertheless, Li teaches a meta-lens comprising a surface having meta-atoms operable to act as a lens (e.g., fig. 1, with antennas 110 and 115; fig. 9, with antennas 910, 915, 918; [0003-0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the multi-focal meta-lens as taught by Li with the method as taught by Doskolovich, because using meta-lens comprising a surface having meta-atoms to provide the lensing function allows substantial weight and space savings over conventional lenses.
Regarding claim 9, Doskolovich and Li teach all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens includes moving the image sensor (e.g., Doskolovich - fig. 5, element 6; pp. 4706-4707).
Regarding claim 14, Doskolovich teaches a system comprising a light emitting component operable to emit light toward an object (e.g., fig. 5, element 1), an imager operable to sense light reflected by the object (e.g., fig. 5), the imager including a metalens configured to generate a plurality of diffractive orders of an image at respective corresponding focal lengths (e.g., fig. 5, element 3; pp. 4706-4707), an image sensor (e.g., fig. 5, element 5), and an actuator operable to move at least one of the metalens or the image sensor to each of a plurality of positions so that a distance between the metalens and the image sensor is adjustable (e.g., fig. 5, element 6; pp. 4706-4707), wherein the distance between the metalens and the image sensor for each respective one of the positions corresponds to a particular one of the focal lengths (e.g., pp. 4706-4707), wherein the actuator is configured to oscillate the image sensor and/or the metalens between multiple positions of the plurality of positions (e.g., fig. 5, element 6; p. 4706, motorized stage allows the taking of images at different distances from the focusing lens in 50 μm increments), and wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation (e.g., Doskolovich - fig. 5, element 6; p. 4706-4707; in that oscillation which would occur during repeated/consecutive uses/operations, and the system claim, as currently presented, does not preclude this interpretation.) Doskolovich, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly provide that the meta-lens comprises a surface having meta-atoms operable to act as a lens.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s original disclosure only recites that “[a] metalens can include, for example, a metasurface, which refers to a surface with distributed small structures (e.g., meta-atoms or other nano-structures) arranged to interact with light in a particular manner. In the case of a metalens, the meta-atoms are arranged so that the metastructure functions as a lens” (specification, [0025]), and that the original disclosure is not found to teach or disclose a new or novel meta-lens.
Nevertheless, Li teaches a meta-lens comprising a surface having meta-atoms operable to act as a lens (e.g., fig. 1, with antennas 110 and 115; fig. 9, with antennas 910, 915, 918; [0003-0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the multi-focal meta-lens as taught by Li with the system as taught by Doskolovich, because using meta-lens comprising a surface having meta-atoms to provide the lensing function allows substantial weight and space savings over conventional lenses.
Regarding claim 22, Doskolovich and Li teach all the limitations of claim 22 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching the method comprising repeating (a), (b), (c), and (d) until a specified criteria is satisfied, wherein the specified criteria comprises a predetermined number of images having been acquired (e.g., Doskolovich - fig. 5, element 6; p. 4706-4707; e.g., repeating (a), (b), (c) and (d) would clearly be accomplished by multiple uses or repeats of the method/operation; the Examiner notes that the method can be performed by a person and is not limited or claimed as being performed as part of processor functionality).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doskolovich, Li, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0045724 to Luo et al. (hereinafter “Luo”).
Regarding claim 10, Doskolovich and Li teach all the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens includes moving the metalens.
Nevertheless, the concept of moving a lens to a plurality of positions is well-known and accepted in the imaging arts. For example, Luo teaches moving a metalens or an image sensor via an actuator to a plurality of positions (e.g., [0017-24]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have moved a metalens as taught by Luo with the method as taught by Doskolovich and Li as a means to provide focus, without the need for concerns related to electrical connectivity when/if a sensor is moved for focusing purposes. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doskolovich and Li, in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0262793 to Suto.
Regarding claim 11, Doskolovich and Li teach all the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, infra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the method further including determining a respective image size of an object in each of the first and second images, and determining a ratio of the image size of the object in the first image and the image size of the object in the first image.
Nevertheless, Suto teaches determining a respective image size of an object in each of the first and second images, and determining a ratio of the image size of the object in the first image and the image size of the object in the first image (e.g., [0065-83]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the functionality as taught by Suto with the method as taught by Doskolovich and Li in order to determine distances without the need of a separate device, such as a range finder.
Regarding claim 12, Doskolovich, Li and Suto teach all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching the method further including determining a distance to the object based on the ratio (e.g., Suto - [0066-68]).
Regarding claim 15, Doskolovich and Li teach all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, infra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the system further including at least one processor and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to determine a respective image size of an object in each of a plurality of images acquired by the image sensor, wherein each of the plurality of acquired images is a respective image captured at a different one of the focal lengths, and determine a ratio of the respective image size of the object in a first one of the acquired images and a second one of the acquired images.
Nevertheless, Suto teaches a processor (e.g., fig. 1, element 2; [0062-63]) and one or more memories (e.g., fig. 1, element 2; [0062], [0064]) coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor (e.g., [0062]) to determine a respective image size of an object in each of a plurality of images acquired by the image sensor (e.g., [0075]), wherein each of the plurality of acquired images is a respective image captured at a different one of the focal lengths (e.g., [0065], [0079]), and determine a ratio of the respective image size of the object in a first one of the acquired images and a second one of the acquired images (e.g., [0066], [083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the processor and memory, and their functionality related to the process of images received as taught by Suto with the system as taught by Doskolovich and Li in order to determine distances without the need of a separate device, such as a range finder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 21 and 26-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 21 and 26-28, the prior art has not been found by the Examiner to teach or fairly suggest the claimed combination of an apparatus comprising a metalens configured to generate a plurality of diffractive orders of an image at respective corresponding focal lengths, wherein the metalens comprises a surface having meta-atoms operable to act as a lens, an image sensor, an actuator operable to move at least one of the metalens or the image sensor to each of a plurality of positions so that a distance between the metalens and the image sensor is adjustable, wherein the distance between the metalens and the image sensor for each respective one of the positions corresponds to a particular one of the focal lengths, wherein the actuator is configured to oscillate the image sensor and/or the metalens between multiple positions of the plurality of positions, and wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation, at least one processor, and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions that cause the at least one processor to execute operations comprising determining a respective image size of an object at a first distance from the apparatus in each of the plurality of images acquired by the image sensor during the oscillation, wherein each of the plurality of images is a respective image captured at a different one of the focal lengths, and determining a ratio of the respective image size of the object in a first one of the acquired images and a second one of the acquired images.
The closest references explicitly fail to teach wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire a plurality of images at different positions of the multiple positions visited during the oscillation, and the at least one processor executes operations comprising determining a respective image size of an object at a first distance from the apparatus in each of the plurality of images acquired by the image sensor during the oscillation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights