DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment received on October 27, 2025 has been entered into the record.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1 of paragraph [0055] ‘Course Pitch’ should read -Coarse Pitch-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 3, 17, 21, and 24 are 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.
Claims 3, 17, 21, and 24 recite the limitation "the lens focus distance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (2024/0230960)-previously cited.
As for claim 13, Mun in an image sensor and electronic apparatus including the image sensor discloses/suggests the following: a meta-lens feature set (FIG. 6: 131 and 132 with FIG. 5A: 131, 132, 111, 112; FIG. 2D: noting 131 and 132 repeat across 130; FIG. 2B: 110: 111 and 112; noting that FIG. 6: shows a meta-lens feature set by virtue of using NP, nanopillars, as meta-lens features with paragraphs 0085-0088) comprising: one or more first features having a coarse pitch (FIG. 6: treating largest central NP as a first feature with the distance between each one between neighboring microlenses, 131 and 132 is the coarse pitch; note repeating microlenses of FIG. 2D: top row of 130: 131, 132, 131, 132, 131, 132, and please refer to annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and one or more second features having a fine pitch (FIG. 6: treating the second and third smaller NPs as the one or more second features and treating px as the fine pitch; gbx may equal px: paragraph 0093; and please refer to annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
364
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more second features are positioned relative to the one or more first features (please refer to the annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image3.png
364
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the fine pitch is smaller than the coarse pitch (note that px is smaller than the coarse pitch as shown in the annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features form a meta-lens array (FIG. 6: each microlens comprising 5 x 5 array of nanopillars: 131 and 132; FIG. 6: shows a meta-lens feature set by virtue of using NP, nanopillars as meta-lens features with paragraphs 0085-0088; FIG. 2D: top row of 130 comprising 6 meta-lens, a metal-lens array).
As for ‘configured to generate a periodic distribution of light at a measurement plane different than a plane of the meta-lens feature set, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch,’ Mun does not explicitly state this. Nevertheless, Mun demonstrates that each microlens, meta-lens, may have their centers aligned with the centers of the corresponding pixels (paragraph 0090) and demonstrates that the each microlens focuses light to its respective pixel (FIG. 5A: 131 with two light rays to 121 to 111 and 132 with two light rays to 122 and 112; paragraphs 0069, 0088); wherein a detection plane being treated as a measurement plane of the pixel, the plane of the light sensing cell, would be at a different plane than a plane of the meta-lens feature set (FIG. 5A: treating 131 and 132 being planar with 130 and measurement plane as detection plane of 111 and 112; 0061); wherein Mun suggests measurements may be performed by virtue of the image processing that may be performed on the detected image (paragraph 0209); and lastly, Mun suggests at least a periodic distribution of light having a coarse pitch would be detected and imaged by demonstrating that six microlenses over six pixels may be illuminated thereby producing six beam spots with a coarse pitch equal to the coarse pitch of the central NP, the first feature, by virtue of the center of each microlens/meta-lens being aligned with the center of each pixel (FIG. 2D: 6 pixels across would necessarily be illuminated by light focused by the 6 microlenses, meta-lenses, 131, 132, …132 on the top row of 130; paragraph 0090; FIG. 5A: light focused by 131 to center of 111 and light focused by 132 to center of 132; wherein if the center of 131 is aligned with the center of 111 and 132 is aligned with the center of 112 then the periodic distribution comprising at least 6 focused spots would be spaced periodically by the coarse pitch the distance between two adjacent centers of two microlenses, meta-lenses: reminded by the annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more first features and the one or more second features form a meta-lens array ‘configured to generate a periodic distribution of light at a measurement plane different than a plane of the meta-lens feature set, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch’ in order to detect and image at least 6 pixels across by having the centers of 6 meta-lenses aligned with 6 centers of the corresponding pixels under the meta-lenses in order to focus the light from each meta-lens into its corresponding pixel.
As for claim 14, Mun discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Mun discloses/suggests wherein a duty cycle of the one or more second features is varied (FIG. 6: px and py may be equal to each other (paragraph 0091); wherein, differing diameters of nanopillar but with the same periodicity, px/py, demonstrates varying duty cycle of the one or more second features: treating the NPs of smaller diameter than the central NP, the first feature, as second features: note annotated FIG. 6 designating the second features in the x direction below):
PNG
media_image2.png
364
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23 are allowed.
Claims 3, 17, 21, and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of Remarks, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112, filed October 27, 2025, with respect to the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, due to the amendment to the claims, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been made for claims 3, 17, 21, and 24 and a new rejection under 35 USC 103 has been made for claim 14. Please see above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 (see pages 11-13 of Remarks, Claim Rejections -35 U.S.C. 102) has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
11. 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.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877