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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 03/26/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Sorg (US-20220295023-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sorg discloses a laser module (fig. 17) comprising: a light source configured to emit laser light (light source 21-23 emits laser light L1-L3, 0082); a housing configured to accommodate the light source (housing 3 accommodates 21-23, 0083), the housing provided with an emission port through which the laser light is emitted (3 provided with emission port (open area at top of 33 surface) through which L1-L3 emitted); a sealing member having optical transparency (sealing member 32 with optical transparency, 0092), the sealing member configured to seal the emission port (32 seals open area at top of 33 surface, 0092), the sealing member having a first surface and a second surface intersecting an emission direction of the laser light (32 has first surface 55 and second surface 50 both intersecting emission direction (arrows), 0085); and a first metasurface lens provided on the first surface (metasurface lens 53 on 55, 0085, 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 5, Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 1, wherein the first metasurface lens functions as a collimating lens (53 functions as collimating lens, 0111).
Regarding claim 9, Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 1, wherein the first surface is an inner surface covering the emission port (55 is inner surface covering open area of top of 33 surface), and wherein the second surface is an outer surface opposite to the inner surface (50 is outer surface opposite 55).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Lenef (US-20220109287-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 1.
Sorg does not disclose wherein the first metasurface lens comprises a plurality of columnar bodies having optical transparency.
Lenef discloses a VCSEL system and metalens array with a plurality of columnar bodies having optical transparency (fig. 1 system with metalens array 120 comprising plurality of columnar bodies 122s having optical transparency, 0025, 0037, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first metasurface lens comprises a plurality of columnar bodies having optical transparency to provide greater flexibility in creating various illumination patterns by controlling phase delay (Lenef 0028-0029, 0043-0044).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Lenef and Byrnes (US-20170082263-A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 2.
Modified Sorg does not disclose wherein a cross-sectional area intersecting the emission direction of each of the plurality of columnar bodies is set in accordance with a position of a columnar body.
Byrnes discloses collimating metalenses configured to collimate incident light, wherein nanostructure diameter (and cross-sectional area) may be set based on position of the nanostructure (figs. 3 + 9 nanostructures 313 + 910, 0061, 0116, 0122-0123, 0163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cross-sectional area intersecting the emission direction of each of the plurality of columnar bodies is set in accordance with a position of a columnar body to reduce diffraction artifacts and improve lens transmission (Byrnes 0128).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Lenef, Byrnes, and Vulis (US-20230070943-A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 3.
Modified Sorg does not disclose wherein the plurality of columnar bodies is concentrically aligned, and wherein the plurality of columnar bodies is arranged with a periodic change in the cross-sectional areas of the plurality of columnar bodies in a direction away from a center point of the concentric circle.
Vulis discloses a beam deflector metasurface with a plurality of columnar bodies concentrically aligned and arranged with a periodic change in cross-sectional areas in a direction away from a center point of the concentric circle (figs. 1-3 columnar bodies 225 concentrically aligned and increase in crosssectional area moving away from center, 0029, 0044-0046, 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of columnar bodies is concentrically aligned, and wherein the plurality of columnar bodies is arranged with a periodic change in the cross-sectional areas of the plurality of columnar bodies in a direction away from a center point of the concentric circle to help better achieve desired phase function and improve optical efficiency and output predictability compared to other lattice shapes (Vulis 0038, 0046).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg.
Regarding claim 6, Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 1.
Sorg does not explicitly show wherein the second surface is an inner surface covering the emission port, and wherein the first surface is an outer surface opposite to the inner surface.
Sorg separately discloses arranging optical structures on the outer surface of the cover (figs. 12-14 optical element 5,51 on outer surface of 32, 0085, 0104), and the teachings of figs. 1-16 applying to fig. 17 (0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second surface instead be the inner surface 55 covering emission port and move 53 to the outer (now first) surface 50 opposite 55 so metasurface lens can act on output of sealing member and offer improved control of final output beam without having to be concerned with effects of a subsequent/downstream sealing member, as would be the case with an inner surface metasurface lens.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Yang (NPL Reconfigurable Parfocal Zoom Metalens).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 6.
Modified Sorg does not disclose further comprising a second metasurface lens provided on the second surface, wherein the second metasurface lens functions as a beam expander.
Yang discloses a doublet metalens configuration on opposite sides of a single substrate with a beam first incident upon a beam expander metasurface lens (fig. 1a doublet MS-1 and MS-2 on gray substrate, beam first incident upon beam expander MS-1, Section 2, pgs. 2+3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second metasurface lens provided on the second surface, wherein the second metasurface lens functions as a beam expander to expand the beam so that it has a larger width when incident upon first metasurface lens (Yang section 2 pg. 2), will reduce power density/thermal damage at first metasurface.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Riley (US-20190064532-A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 6.
Modified Sorg does not disclose further comprising a cover layer covering the first metasurface lens.
Riley discloses a transmissive metasurface lens with a cover layer (fig. 2a mechanical protection layer 24 covers metasurface lens 20, Abstract, 0222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cover layer covering the first metasurface lens to provide mechanical stability to the metasurface lens (Riley 0222).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorg in view of Havens (US-20080223934-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sorg discloses the laser module according to claim 1.
Sorg does not disclose further comprising a mask configured to remove a part of light emitted from the first metasurface lens.
Havens discloses a laser light source with an aperture configured to remove a part of light emitted from a laser diode after it passes through an aimer focusing lens (fig. 25 aperture stop 80 removes part of light from laser diode 5a after passing through aimer focusing lens 17, 0177, 0187-0188).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mask configured to remove a part of light emitted from the first metasurface lens to eliminate the effect of any directional nonuniformity around optical axis (Havens 0177).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blasczak US-20240113496-A1
Kress US-20230075868-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights