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.
Claims 25 and 26 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the second polymeric material" in lines 2-3 and claim 26 recites the limitation “the second metastructure” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For purpose of examination, it was presumed applicant intended for said claims to depend from claim 24, where said limitations are previously disclosed.
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.
Claim(s) 15-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley, JR. et al (US 2019/0064532 A1), herein referred to as “Riley”.
In regard to claim 15, Riley discloses an optical device (page 9, section [0215] – page 10, section [0222], Figure 1G) comprising: a substrate comprising a surface (Figure 1G, “10”); a first metastructure (Figure 1G, “18, 24”) disposed on the surface of the substrate (Figure 1G, “10”), wherein the first metastructure includes a first plurality of meta-atoms (Figure 1G, “18”) separated from one another by a first polymeric material (page 10, section [0222], re: poly(methyl methacrylate) embedding material), wherein each of the meta-atoms of the first plurality of meta-atoms has an aspect ratio of at least 1.6 (Figure 1G, “18”), wherein a width of the plurality of meta-atoms within the first metastructure varies (Figure 1G, “18”), and wherein the first metastructure is configured to function as a lens, a lens array, a beam splitter, a diffuser, or a bandpass filter (page 16, section [0257], re: imaging system that replaces five to six unique refractive lenses or page 15, section [0251], re: metasurface elements serve to split the unpolarized light into two distinct polarizations).
Regarding claim 16, Riley discloses wherein the first polymeric material comprises poly(methyl methacrylate) (page 10, section [0222]).
Regarding claim 17, Riley discloses wherein the meta-atoms are composed of titanium dioxide (page 9, section [0219]).
Regarding claim 18, Riley discloses wherein the substrate is composed of fused silica (page 9, section [0216]).
Regarding claim 19, Riley discloses a module comprising: a housing; an optoelectronic component operable to emit or sense light, wherein the optoelectronic component is disposed within the housing; and said optical device, wherein the optical device is disposed over the optoelectronic component (page 15, section [0251], Figures 12A-C).
Regarding claim 20, Riley discloses wherein the optoelectronic component is a light emitter, and wherein the optical device is disposed so as to intersect a path of light emitted by the light emitter (page 15, section [0251], Figures 12A-C, re: laser or LED).
Regarding claim 21, Riley discloses wherein the optoelectronic component is a light sensor, and wherein the optical device is disposed so as to intersect a path of light entering the module for sensing by the light sensor (page 3, section [0080] – page 4, section [0086]).
Regarding claim 22, Riley discloses wherein the optical device spans across one of the optical channels (page 14, section [0249] – page 16, section [0256], re: polarization channels).
Regarding claim 23, Riley discloses wherein the optical device spans across each of the optical channels (page 14, section [0249] – page 16, section [0256], re: polarization channels).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 is 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 fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 24: an optical device as claimed, specifically comprising a second metastructure disposed above the first metastructure, wherein the second metastructure includes a second plurality of meta-atoms separated from one another by a second polymeric material, wherein the first polymeric material and the second polymeric material have different coefficients of thermal expansion, different glass transition temperatures, or both different coefficients of thermal expansion and different glass transition temperatures.
Claims 25 and 26 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, taking into account the presumptions made in the examination of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-23, 25, and 26 have 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 28, 2026