DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/21/26 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
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 1, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capasso et al. (US 20190154877) in view of Morita et al. (US 20250362522).
Regarding claim 1, Capasso teaches a metasurface device (fig. 1K) comprising, a metasurface including multiple metasurface elements configured to receive light including at least one of a first polarization or a second polarization (¶166, right circularly polarized light) with a diverging wavefront (¶161, spherical wavefront) from a light source (shown in fig. 1K, note: the metasurface is designed so that it can receive light), wherein the metasurface elements include an interior metasurface element (in the center of fig. 1K) which is substantially aligned to an axis (which is in the drawing of fig. 1 in the horizontal direction) and exterior metasurface elements which are rotated with respect to the axis (arranged concentrically around the elements in the center of fig. 1K, note: The reference shows that the exterior metasurface elements rotate with respect to an axis because it expressly teaches that each nanofin is rotated by a defined angle relative to an axis in the x-y plane, with the rotation angle increasing as a function of radial position from the center ¶14; fig. 1D-1E, 1K), wherein the exterior metasurface elements positioned farther away from the interior metasurface element are more rotated than the exterior metasurface elements positioned closer to the interior metasurface element (as can be seen in fig. 1K, note: that the periphery elements rotate towards 180 degrees or more. The reference shows that the periphery elements rotate toward 180 degree or more because it teaches that each nanofin’s rotation angle varies a function of radial position to provide the required phase profile (¶14), and since a full 0-2π phase coverage is required across the metasurface, the geometric phase mechanism (where phase =2θ) requires the physical nanofin orientation θ to vary up to π radians (180 degrees), which is visually confirmed in FIG. 1K where the outermost nanofins appear rotated nearly half a turn relative to the central aligned elements.), and wherein the metasurface is configured to diffract light with the first polarization into a first output light beam (¶10, note: it would inevitably occur because the rotated nanoscale element change the phase of incoming light across the surface, and any surface that changes light’s phase in this way necessarily causes the light to diffract into a beam.) and/or light with the second polarization into a second output light beam. Capasso does not specifically teach wherein the first polarization and the second polarization are orthogonal. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Morita teaches a metasurface device (fig. 2, ¶89 and ¶94), wherein the first polarization and the second polarization are orthogonal (¶89, polarization control unit 10 has a meta-surface and ¶94 the incident light L includes a first polarized light and a second polarized light that oscillate in directions substantially orthogonal to each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the metasurface of Capasso with wherein the first polarization and the second polarization are orthogonal of Morita, for the purpose of having the feature of separately detecting the first polarized light and the second polarized light (¶96).
Regarding claim 10, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above and Capasso further teaches the light received by the metasurface has a non-collimated wavefront (¶29, the meta-lens can be configured to focus collimated light to a point, focus collimated light to a line, focus uncollimated light to a point, focus uncollimated light to a line, focus light from a point to a point, focus light from a spot to a spot, or focus light from a line to a line. Note: the paragraph indicates that the metasurface receives light with a non-collimated wavefront).
Regarding claim 11, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above and Capasso further teaches the metasurface elements are rectangular with identical length and width (¶137, aspect ratios of metasurfaces (e.g., a ratio of height to width of a nanofin or a ratio of height to diameter of nanopillar) can be greater than one, at least about 1.5:1, at least about 2:1, at least about 3:1, at least about 4:1, at least about 5:1, at least about 6:1, or at least about 10:1, note: rectangular metasurface elements).
Regarding claim 12, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above and Capasso further teaches the metasurface elements are rectangular and at least one metasurface element has a different length and/or width than another metasurface element of the metasurface elements (¶28, the phase profiles of the nanostructures that vary are realized by varying orientations of the nanostructures, dimensions of the nanostructures, sizes of the nanostructures, aspect ratios of the nanostructures, materials of the nanostructures, spatial arrangement of the nanostructures, shapes of the nanostructures, or a combination of two or more thereof. Note: the phase profiles are realized by varying the dimensions, sizes, and shapes of the nanostructures, indicating that rectangular metasurface elements may have different lengths and/or widths.).
Regarding claim 13, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the metasurface elements are elliptical. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try and make the metasurface elements to be elliptical because the phase profiles of the nanostructures that vary are realized by varying orientations of the nanostructures, dimensions of the nanostructures, sizes of the nanostructures, aspect ratios of the nanostructures, or a combination of two or more thereof, therefore the phase profiles realized by varying the dimensions, sizes, and shapes of the nanostructure, indicating that the metasurface element may be shaped as elliptical (¶28) and is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above and Capasso teaches the metasurface elements are arranged in a rectangular grid (fig. 17B, note: shown is a rectangular grid).
Regarding claim 15, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teaches the metasurface elements are arranged in a hexagonal grid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try and make the metasurface elements are arranged in a hexagonal grid because since there can be structures such a circular grid shown in fig. 1K and a rectangular grid shown in fig. 17B, therefore there can different shapes of arrangement and is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. Further, it have been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capasso et al. (US 20190154877) in view of Morita et al. (US 20250362522) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 12,541,040).
Regarding claim 2, Capasso in view of Morita teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the light source comprises a VCSEL array. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hansen teaches the metasurface device, wherein the light source comprises a VCSEL array (col. 7, lines 45-55, the metastructure device is incorporated into a module that has a laser or VCSEL as the light source (see, e.g., FIGS 8, 10, and 11)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the metasurface of Capasso in view of Morita with the light source comprises a VCSEL array of Hansen, for the purpose of generating light for improved eye-safety (col. 7, lines 45-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not disclose the claimed metasurface device specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the VCSEL array comprises interlaced vertical polarization VCSELs and horizontal polarization VCSELs which output light with a spherical wavefront.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 4, is object to for the same reason as claim 3.
Specifically, with respect to claim 5, is object to for the same reason as claim 4.
Specifically, with respect to claim 6, is object to for the same reason as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose the claimed metasurface device specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the VCSEL array comprises interlaced first polarization VCSELs and second polarization VCSELs, and wherein the first polarization VCSELs and second polarization VCSELs output light with opposite polarizations.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 8, is object to for the same reason as claim 7.
Specifically, with respect to claim 9, is object to for the same reason as claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not disclose the claimed metasurface device specifically including as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the rotation, α(x, y), of the metasurface elements at specific positions are defined by the following equation, α(x, y) = arctan
-
sin
ϕ
0
x
,
y
c
o
s
(
ϕ
0
x
,
y
)
(
1
-
cos
ϕ
0
x
,
y
)
cos
ϕ
0
x
,
y
+
sin
ϕ
0
x
,
y
2
(
1
-
cos
ϕ
0
x
,
y
)
where
ϕ
0
x
,
y
= sgn(y)arccos
x
x
2
+
y
2
, where
θ
0
(x,y) = arccos(
z
0
/
x
2
+
y
2
+
z
0
2
), and where
z
0
is the distance of the metasurface plane from the source emitting with spherical wavefront placed at (x,y) = (0,0).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 02/06/26