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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-14, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 as being anticipated by Doskolovich et al. et al. (“Multifocal diffractive lens generating several fixed foci at different design wavelengths”, Optics Express, February 19, 2018, 26(4):4698-709).
Re claim 1, Doskolovich et al. discloses et al. discloses a device comprising a meta lens (3) configured to generate a plurality of diffractive orders of an image at respective focal lengths (see page 2, “Introduction”); an image sensor (5); and an actuator (6) operate 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 adjusted (Fig. 5, page, 2, second paragraph), 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 (Figs. 5 and 6, page 9, second and last paragraph); adjusting the distance between the metalens and the image sensor provides a zoom in or zoom out operation (Figs. 5 and 6, page 9, last paragraph).
Re claim 2, Doskolovich et al. discloses the device wherein the actuator (6) is operable to move the image sensor (5) to each of the plurality of positions (Fig. 5).
Re claims 4 and 13, Doskolovich et al. discloses the device wherein the plurality of positions includes at least three different positions (page 2, “Introduction”; page 9).
Re claims 5 and 14, Doskolovich et al. discloses the device wherein the image sensor (CCD) is a component of a camera.
Re claim 7, Doskolovich et al. discloses a method comprising: acquiring, by an image sensor (5), a first image while a first distance separates the image sensor from a metalens (3); moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens such that a second distance separates the image sensor from the metalens (Fig. 5); and acquiring, by the image sensor, a second image while the second distance separates the image sensor from the metalens (page 2, “Introduction”; page 9); 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 (Figs. 5 and 6, page 9), and wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens provides a zoom in or zoom out operation (Figs. 5 and 6, page 9; abstract).
Re claim 8, Doskolovich et al. discloses the method wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens includes moving the image sensor (5) (Fig. 5).
Re claims 10 and 11, Doskolovich et al. discloses the method wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens provides a zoom in or zoom out operation (page 9; abstract).
Re claims 12, 17, 19 and 20, Doskolovich et al. discloses the method further including: moving again at least one of the image sensor or the metalens such that a third distance separates the image sensor from the metalens; and acquiring by the image sensor, a third image while the third distance separates the image sensor from the metalens, and wherein moving again at least one of the image sensor to the metalens provides another zoom in or zoom out operation (page 2, “Introduction”, page 9).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doskolovich et al.
Re claim 3, Doskolovich et al. does not disclose the device wherein the actuator is operable to move the metalens to each of the plurality of positions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the actuator is operable to move the metalens to each of the plurality of positions. Employing the device wherein the actuator is operable to move the metalens as opposed to the sensor would equally change the distance between the two, and therefore would be a functionally equivalent modification.
Re claim 6, Doskolovich et al. does not disclose the device wherein the image sensor is a component of an endoscopic imaging system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the image sensor is a component of an endoscopic imaging system. Doskolovich et al. disclose the device wherein the device may be in ophthalmic and microscopy applications (page 2, “Introduction). Ophthalmic and microscopy applications are well known in the art to employ endoscopes.
Re claim 9, Doskolovich et al. does not disclose the method wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens includes moving the metalens.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the method wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens includes moving the metalens. Employing the wherein moving at least one of the image sensor or the metalens includes moving the metalens as opposed to the sensor would equally change the distance between the two, and therefore would be a functionally equivalent modification.
Re claim 15, Doskolovich et al. discloses the device wherein the plurality of positions includes at least three different positions (page 2, “introduction”; page 9).
Re claim 16, Doskolovich et al. discloses the device wherein the image sensor (5) (“CCD”) is a component of a camera.
Re claim 18, Doskolovich et al. discloses the method further including: moving again at least one of the image sensor or the metalens such that a third distance separates the image sensor from the metalens; and acquiring by the image sensor, a third image while the third distance separates the image sensor from the metalens, and wherein moving again at least one of the image sensor to the metalens provides another zoom in or zoom out operation (page 2, “Introduction”, page 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871