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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-14 in the reply filed on 2/26/26 is acknowledged.
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(s) 5 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 contains one or more terms of “λ” which is not defined in the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, it is understood by Examiner as intended use related to a light wavelength.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2,5-6,13 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20120038918).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches (Figs. 1-9) A monolithic homodyne encoder, comprising:
a diffractive optical slab (Fig. 5), wherein the diffractive optical slab includes a first side and a second side that are optically parallel to each other, a first set of phase maps (left side) on the first side of the diffractive optical slab that apply a spatial phase map to incoming light, and a second set of phase maps (right side) on the second side of the diffractive optical slab that directs the light to a component (“Detector”).
Regarding claim 2, Liu The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the component (Fig. 5, “Detector”) is a detector and the diffractive optical slab directs the light onto a detector and the detector detects an image of a target with the light from the diffractive optical slab.
Regarding claim 5, Liu further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the first side and the second side are optically parallel to each other within an amount of equal to or less than λ/4 (considered as intended use wavelength, e.g., visible or far infrared, Figs. 1,3).
Regarding claim 6, Liu further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the first set of phase maps and the second set of phase maps are gratings with apertures ([15], “double sided ...”, each surface has an aperture), metaoptic materials, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Liu further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the component is a mirror, a filter system, a beam splitter, a detector (see Fig. 5, “Detector”), a focusing optic, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 1,3,14 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 20090141354).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches (Figs. 4,12-13) A monolithic homodyne encoder (1 in Fig. 4), comprising:
a diffractive optical slab (2a), wherein the diffractive optical slab includes a first side and a second side that are optically parallel to each other, a first set of phase maps (left side) on the first side of the diffractive optical slab that apply a spatial phase map to incoming light, and a second set of phase maps (right side) on the second side of the diffractive optical slab (in 1 of Figs. 12-13) that directs the light to a component (lenses and detector in Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the component is a focusing optic (lenses in Fig. 12) and the diffractive optical slab aligns the light onto the focusing optic.
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, further including one or more additional diffractive optical slabs (11,3a in Fig. 4) bonded to the diffractive optical slab.
Claim(s) 1,6,11 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Tervo (US 20170315346).
PNG
media_image3.png
492
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tervo teaches (Fig. 2) A monolithic homodyne encoder, comprising:
a diffractive optical slab (32), wherein the diffractive optical slab includes a first side and a second side that are optically parallel to each other, a first set of phase maps (42) on the first side of the diffractive optical slab that apply a spatial phase map to incoming light, and a second set of phase maps (44) on the second side of the diffractive optical slab that directs the light to a component (54).
Regarding claim 6, LTervo further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the first set of phase maps and the second set of phase maps are gratings with apertures (Fig. 2, each of 42 and 44 has an aperture), metaoptic materials, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Tervo further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 6, wherein the second set of phase maps are a Complex Conjugate of the first set of phase maps (42 and 44 appear to be complex conjugate).
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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 3, but does not explicitly teach The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 3, wherein the focusing optic collimates the light before focusing the light onto a detector that detects an image of a target with the light from the focusing optic.
The difference between the claimed invention and Kobayashi’s teaching is the light inside the lens group between 1 and 103 is collimated at some location.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the light inside the lens group between 1 and 103 is collimated at some location would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices (whether the light is collimated at some location has no specific effects as long as the output is a beam focusing on 103, more like to claim a light propagates at specific angles without any specific purposes, and there are numerous lens groups capable of focusing a light beam on a spot, it is more likely than not for some lens group light inside the lens group is collimated especially for adjustable focusing lens group, Applicant may consider to add further limitations for the specific collimated portion performing inventive function so as to distinguish from the prior art teaching).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kobayashi by having the light inside the lens group between 1 and 103 at some location is collimated for the purposes of design choices.
Claim(s) 7,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Pau (US 20240264342).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 6, but does not teach The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 6, wherein the first set of phase maps is equal to or greater than 3 apertures in a non-overlapping, non-redundant pattern.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Pau teaches an encoder wherein a set of phase maps is equal to or greater than 3 apertures in a non-overlapping, non-redundant pattern (Fig. 8B, more than 3 apertures same or different sizes, either overlapping or not).
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 set of phase maps is equal to or greater than 3 apertures in a non-overlapping, non-redundant pattern as taught by Pau in the teaching of Liu for the purposes of multi-area imaging.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, and further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 6, wherein at least one aperture in the first set of phase maps and the second set of phase maps are equal (both have one aperture).
Liu does not teach the at least one aperture is a number of apertures.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Pau teaches at least one aperture is a number of apertures (Fig. 8B).
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 at least one aperture is a number of apertures as taught by Pau in the teaching of Liu for the purposes of multi area imaging.
Claim(s) 1,6,8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi (US 20200285067).
PNG
media_image4.png
360
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Arbabi teaches (Figs. 4-6) A monolithic homodyne encoder, comprising:
a diffractive optical slab (e.g., Fig. 4), wherein the diffractive optical slab includes a first side and a second side that are optically parallel to each other, a first set of phase maps (metasurface 2) on the first side of the diffractive optical slab that apply a spatial phase map to incoming light, and a second set of phase maps (metasurface 3) on the second side of the diffractive optical slab that directs the light to a place (the focal point).
Arbabi does not explicitly teach the place is a component.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the place is a component would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of e.g., detecting chromatic correction effects.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Arbabi by having the place is a component for the purposes of detecting chromatic correction effects.
Regarding claim 6, Arbabi further teaches further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the first set of phase maps and the second set of phase maps are gratings with apertures, metaoptic materials (metasurfaces), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Arbabi teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 6, and further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 6, wherein the first set of phase maps produce a final aperture separation (Fig. 5A, the focal points are separated on the right).
Arbabi does not explicitly teach the separation is at least 2 times the diameter of the first set of phase maps.
However the separation is “a result-effective variable” because it confers focusing distance. And 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 separation is at least 2 times the diameter of the first set of phase maps, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the separation is at least 2 times the diameter of the first set of phase maps for the purposes of long focal distance applications (the longer the larger the separation).
Regarding claim 10, Arbabi further teaches The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 6, wherein the first set of phase maps and the second set of phase maps are apertures where the second set of phase maps have a diameter that is greater than the first set of phase maps (as seen in Fig. 4, the light expands from metasurface 2 to metasurface 3 making the aperture larger, also Fig. 6C).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi (US 20200285067) in view of Song (CN 114910991, as evidenced by the translation).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Arbabi teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The monolithic homodyne encoder of claim 1, wherein the diffractive optical slab has a shape that is a flat-topped pyramid with the first side of the diffractive optical slab being a top side of the flat-topped pyramid and the second side of the diffractive optical slab being a base of the flat-topped pyramid.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Song teaches a diffractive element (132 in Fig. 11) has a shape that is a flat-topped pyramid with a first side (137) of the diffractive element being a top side of the flat-topped pyramid and a second side (136) of the diffractive element being a base of the flat-topped pyramid.
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 diffractive optical slab (as a diffractive element) has a shape that is a flat-topped pyramid with the first side of the diffractive optical slab being a top side of the flat-topped pyramid and the second side of the diffractive optical slab being a base of the flat-topped pyramid as taught by Song in the teaching of the modified Arbabi for the purposes of design choices (Fig. 4 shows the light propagation aperture becomes larger for the slab).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
