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 § 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitation “wherein the second layer is between the first layer and the second layer” is unclear, as the second layer cannot be between itself. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted “wherein the second layer is between the first layer and the third layer.”
Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–5, 9, 12–15, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michal Mrnka et al., “Space squeezing optics: Performance limits and implementation at microwave frequencies”, APL Photonics, Volume 7, Issue 7, July 8, 2022 (cited in Applicant’s March 15, 2024, IDS, hereinafter “Mrnka) in view of Michael DelMastro, “Spaceplates: The Final Frontier in Compressing Optical Systems”, University of Ottawa, January 11, 2022 (cited in Applicant’s March 15, 2024, IDS, hereinafter “DelMastro).
Regarding Claim 1, Mrnka discloses (e.g., Fig. 1; Introduction and Discussion sections, though the whole document appears relevant) an optical lens (lens, Fig. 1); and a spaceplate (spaceplate, Fig. 1) configured to transmit light that has passed through the optical lens (Fig. 1), wherein the spaceplate comprises a plurality of layers configured to correct a chromatic aberration of the optical lens (page 2, upper left column, spaceplate design may include “non-local metamaterials consisting of a multi-layer stack of homogeneous and isotropic layer distributed along the optical axis” and the parameters “can be algorithmically optimized to approximate a spaceplate with a target set of performance characteristics”; also page 6, starting at the bottom of the left column, “coupling together a series of Fabry-Perot cavities” as the spaceplate overcomes issues with a single Fabry-Perot cavity based spaceplate, the design may include “a spaceplate consisting of up to 15 elements,” and using coupled Fabry-Perot cavities can optimize performance “in a similar manner to the way compound lenses are designed to suppress the chromatic and Seidel aberrations present in a single lens,” suggesting a plurality of layers for the spaceplate, and configuring the spaceplate to correct chromatic aberration).
Mrnka does not explicitly disclose that the above components comprise an optical imaging device.
DelMastro discusses the use of a combined metalens and spaceplate system in order to reduce thickness of the optical system (similar to the combined lens/spaceplate illustrated in Fig. 1 of Mrnka), and DelMastro teaches that an optical system to which the reduced thickness metalens / spaceplate combination can be applied is an imaging system such as a camera (e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Mrnka such that the components are used in an optical imaging device, which DelMastro teaches is a suitable configuration and use of those components (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the optical lens comprises a metalens (e.g., Abstract and section 1.4, Metalenses, of DelMastro, suggesting replacing traditional lenses with metalenses for reduced thickness and the ability to “alter[] the amplitude and phase of light in otherwise impossible ways”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the metalens is configured to operate in a long-wave infrared (LWIR) spectral range (where selecting the operable range of the imaging system would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired function of the imaging system, such as for thermal imaging, which is known to operate in the LWIR spectral band).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the plurality of layers comprises at least three layers that are stacked on each other (Discussion section of Mrnka, Page 6, upper right column, “locally optimal solution consisting of 3 Fabry-Perot cavities separated by two optimized (~λ/6) coupling regions”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein a first thickness of a first layer of the at least three layers is based on a first relationship between a predetermined resonant wavelength and a first refractive index of the first layer, wherein a second thickness of a second layer of the at least three layers is based on a second relationship between the predetermined resonant wavelength and a second refractive index of the second layer, and wherein a third thickness of a third layer of the at least three layers is based on a third relationship between the predetermined resonant wavelength and a third refractive index of the third layer (page 6 of Mrnka, right column, “spaceplate designs will feature coupled Fabry-Perot cavities, which will be honed for specific applications – such as the optimization of performance around three distinct colour channels for colour imaging,” also page 2, upper left column, thickness and refractive indices of individual layers can be individually optimized to meet desired characteristics, the combination of these teachings suggesting three layers with three different thicknesses each optimized based on different wavelengths, e.g., RGB).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein each of the at least three layers is a dielectric layer (Fabry-Perot cavities of Mrnka, where air generally acts as a dielectric).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the optical lens and the spaceplate contact each other (e.g., Fig. 1 of Mrnka, where it is described as an interface (or closely spaced interfaces), reasonably suggesting contact; also Pages 9–11 and Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro, describing the metalens and spaceplate as “monolithic”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious (where, as discussed above with respect to Claim 1, Mrnka discloses features of a combined lens/spaceplate structure, and DelMastro teaches a suitable use of such configuration, e.g., Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro illustrating its use in a typical camera system, such that combining the teachings of Mrnka and DelMastro would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, see also MPEP §§ 2144.06–07) a camera module (e.g., camera as suggested by DelMastro, Abstract, Fig. 1.7 and pages 9–11) comprising: a metalens (Fig. 1 of Mrnka; Fig. 1.7(c) of DelMastro); an image sensor configured to convert light, that is emitted or reflected from an object and transmitted through the metalens, into an electrical signal (e.g., sensor, Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that camera sensors generally operate in the claimed manner, converting light into electrical signals representing a captured image); and a spaceplate (spaceplate, Fig. 1 of Mrnka; Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro) between the metalens and the image sensor, and configured to transmit light that has passed through the metalens (Fig. 1 of Mrnka; Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro), wherein the spaceplate comprises a plurality of layers configured to correct a chromatic aberration of the metalens (from Mrnka, page 2, upper left column, spaceplate design may include “non-local metamaterials consisting of a multi-layer stack of homogeneous and isotropic layer distributed along the optical axis” and the parameters “can be algorithmically optimized to approximate a spaceplate with a target set of performance characteristics”; also page 6, starting at the bottom of the left column, “coupling together a series of Fabry-Perot cavities” as the spaceplate overcomes issues with a single Fabry-Perot cavity based spaceplate, the design may include “a spaceplate consisting of up to 15 elements,” and using coupled Fabry-Perot cavities can optimize performance “in a similar manner to the way compound lenses are designed to suppress the chromatic and Seidel aberrations present in a single lens,” suggesting a plurality of layers for the spaceplate, and configuring the spaceplate to correct chromatic aberration; from DelMastro, page 10, desire to avoid aberrations introduced by the spaceplate).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the spaceplate comprises a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer that are stacked on each other (Discussion section of Mrnka, Page 6, upper right column, “locally optimal solution consisting of 3 Fabry-Perot cavities separated by two optimized (~λ/6) coupling regions”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein a first thickness of the first layer is based on a first relationship between a predetermined resonant wavelength and a first refractive index of the first layer, wherein a second thickness of the second layer is based on a second relationship between the predetermined resonant wavelength and a second refractive index of the second layer, and wherein a third thickness of the third layer is based on a third relationship between the predetermined resonant wavelength and a third refractive index of the third layer (page 6 of Mrnka, right column, “spaceplate designs will feature coupled Fabry-Perot cavities, which will be honed for specific applications – such as the optimization of performance around three distinct colour channels for colour imaging,” also page 2, upper left column, thickness and refractive indices of individual layers can be individually optimized to meet desired characteristics, the combination of these teachings suggesting three layers with three different thicknesses each optimized based on different wavelengths, e.g., RGB).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the metalens and the spaceplate contact each other (e.g., Fig. 1 of Mrnka, where it is described as an interface (or closely spaced interfaces), reasonably suggesting contact; also Pages 9–11 and Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro, describing the metalens and spaceplate as “monolithic”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious (where, as discussed above with respect to Claim 1, Mrnka discloses features of a combined lens/spaceplate structure, and DelMastro teaches a suitable use of such configuration, e.g., Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro illustrating its use in a typical camera system, such that combining the teachings of Mrnka and DelMastro would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, see also MPEP §§ 2144.06–07) an electronic device (e.g., camera as suggested by DelMastro, Abstract, Fig. 1.7 and pages 9–11) comprising: a camera module (e.g., camera as suggested by DelMastro, Abstract, Fig. 1.7 and pages 9–11) comprising: a metalens (Fig. 1 of Mrnka; Fig. 1.7(c) of DelMastro); an image sensor configured to convert light, that is emitted or reflected from an object and transmitted through the metalens, into an electrical signal to generate image data (e.g., sensor, Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that camera sensors generally operate in the claimed manner, converting light into electrical signals representing a captured image); and a spaceplate (spaceplate, Fig. 1 of Mrnka; Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro) between the metalens and the image sensor, and configured to transmit light that has passed through the metalens (Fig. 1 of Mrnka; Fig. 1.7 of DelMastro); and a processor configured to perform one or more image processing operations on the generated image data (where a processor performing image processing on image data in a camera was well-known and predictable at the time of effective filing, yielding desired and predictable results, improving the functionality and versatility of the camera device), wherein the spaceplate comprises a plurality of layers configured to correct chromatic aberration of the metalens (from Mrnka, page 2, upper left column, spaceplate design may include “non-local metamaterials consisting of a multi-layer stack of homogeneous and isotropic layer distributed along the optical axis” and the parameters “can be algorithmically optimized to approximate a spaceplate with a target set of performance characteristics”; also page 6, starting at the bottom of the left column, “coupling together a series of Fabry-Perot cavities” as the spaceplate overcomes issues with a single Fabry-Perot cavity based spaceplate, the design may include “a spaceplate consisting of up to 15 elements,” and using coupled Fabry-Perot cavities can optimize performance “in a similar manner to the way compound lenses are designed to suppress the chromatic and Seidel aberrations present in a single lens,” suggesting a plurality of layers for the spaceplate, and configuring the spaceplate to correct chromatic aberration; from DelMastro, page 10, desire to avoid aberrations introduced by the spaceplate).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Mrnka and DelMastro would have rendered obvious wherein the spaceplate comprises a stack of at least three layers (Discussion section of Mrnka, Page 6, upper right column, “locally optimal solution consisting of 3 Fabry-Perot cavities separated by two optimized (~λ/6) coupling regions”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6–8, 10, 11, 16, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871