DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 12, the “and” from line 2 should be moved to the end of line 5
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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.
4. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (“Theoretical study on a broadband, high cross-polarization conversion efficiency metalens based on phase discontinuity”, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, GB, vol. 47, no. 27, 11 June 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses an apparatus (1. Introduction, page 2, “multilayered twisted complementary split-ring resonators”) comprising:
a meta optical element having a phase function that has both diverging and converging optical characteristics (1. Introduction, page 2, “a bi-functional metalens is proposed to diverge or converge the wave”).
Regarding claim 2, Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element comprises a metalens (1. Introduction, page 2, “bifunctional metalens”).
Regarding claim 3, Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element has a metasurface comprising meta-atoms (1. Introduction, page 2, “(CSRRs) structure”).
Regarding claim 4, Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element is composed of an inorganic material (2. The unit cell description, page 2, “layers of metal”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Yang et al. (“Full-space polarization-regulated lightwave steering via single-layer metasurfaces”, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, GB, vol. 54, no. 1, 12 October 2020).
Regarding claim 5, Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the meta optical element is composed of silicon on a glass substrate.
However, Yang teaches wherein a metasurface with bifunctionality forms a metalens (Fig. 1(c) caption), and discloses wherein a meta optical element is composed of silicon on a glass substrate (Figs. 1(a)-(b) caption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ding and Yang such that a meta optical element was composed of silicon on a glass substrate, motivated by forming a Huygens’ metasurface (1. Introduction, page 1).
8. Claims 6-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Park et al. (EP 3816676 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ding fails to disclose wherein the phase function has a diverging optical characteristic near a periphery of the meta optical element and a converging optical characteristic near a center region of the meta optical element.
However, Park teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a meta optical element (Abstract), and discloses wherein the meta optical element has a phase function which has a converging optical characteristic near a center region of the meta optical element ([0125], convex), and a diverging optical characteristic near a periphery of the meta optical element ([0088], inflection point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ding and Park such that the phase function was to have a diverging optical characteristic near a periphery of the meta optical element, and a converging characteristic near a center, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 7, Ding fails to explicitly disclose a lens system including at least one lens; and wherein the meta optical element is optically aligned with the at least one lens.
However, Park teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a meta optical element (Abstract), and discloses wherein the meta optical element is optically aligned with at least one lens (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ding and Park such that the meta optical element was optically aligned with a lens, motivated by improving image aberration correction ([0008]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Ding discloses wherein the at least one lens includes at least one of a refractive lens (Park - [0011]), a diffractive lens, a GRIN lens, or a metalens (Park - Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ding discloses wherein the lens system includes a stack of refractive lenses (Park - [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ding discloses an image sensor optically aligned with the lens system and the meta optical element (Park - [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Ding discloses an imaging system (Abstract) comprising:
a lens system (Abstract);
a meta optical element (1. Introduction, page 2, “bi-functional metalens”),
wherein the meta optical element has a phase function having both diverging and converging optical characteristics (1. Introduction, page 2, “a bi-functional metalens is proposed to diverge or converge the wave”).
Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the meta optical element is optically aligned with, and disposed between, at least one lens and an image sensor.
However, Park teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a meta optical element (Abstract), and discloses wherein a meta optical element is optically aligned with, and disposed between, at least one lens and an image sensor ([0025] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ding and Park such that the meta optical element was aligned with, and disposed between, at least one lens and an image sensor, motivated by forming a coaxial optical system.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ding discloses further including a cover glass disposed over the image sensor (Park - [0085]), wherein the meta optical element is disposed on the cover glass (Park - Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element is disposed on the image sensor (Park - Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ding discloses wherein the image sensor is composed of semiconductor material (Park - [0002]), and wherein the meta optical element is etched into the semiconductor material (Park - [0129]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element comprises a metalens (Ding - 1. Introduction, page 2, “bifunctional metalens”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element has a metasurface comprising meta-atoms (Ding - 1. Introduction, page 2, “(CSRRs) structure”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ding discloses wherein the meta optical element is composed of an inorganic material (2. The unit cell description, page 2, “layers of metal”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ding discloses wherein the phase function has a converging optical characteristic near a center region of the meta optical element ([0125], convex), and a diverging optical characteristic near a periphery of the meta optical element ([0088], inflection point).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, modified Ding discloses wherein the at least one lens includes at least one of a refractive lens (Park - [0011]), a diffractive lens, a GRIN lens, or a metalens (Park - Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, modified Ding discloses wherein the lens system includes a stack of refractive lenses (Park - [0011]).
9. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Park, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 19, modified Ding fails to explicitly disclose wherein the meta optical element is composed of silicon on a glass substrate.
However, Yang teaches wherein a metasurface with bifunctionality forms a metalens (Fig. 1(c) caption), and discloses wherein a meta optical element is composed of silicon on a glass substrate (Figs. 1(a)-(b) caption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Ding and Yang such that a meta optical element was composed of silicon on a glass substrate, motivated by forming a Huygens’ metasurface (Yang - 1. Introduction, page 1).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872