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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/24/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1, 18, and 19 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 falls within the category of process and claims 18 and 19 fall into the category of machine.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a method comprising computing a two or three-dimensional representation of a metasurface waveguide couple element structure.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method comprising: accessing, at a computer, representations of a substrate for a surface coupled to a display unit, one or more patterned layers adjacent to the substrate, an incident angle range, and an exit angle range of the substrate, wherein the substrate is transparent for a specified wavelength of light;
computing, using an optimization engine at the computer and for the specified wavelength of light, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of a metasurface waveguide coupler element structure based on a refractive index of the one or more patterned layers, a refractive index of the substrate, the incident angle range, and the exit angle range, wherein a period of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure is determined using a waveguide coupler equation, wherein a portion of the substrate comprises multiple instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the period is a distance between adjacent instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the optimization engine leverages an electromagnetic field simulation engine to optimize the deflection efficiency of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure by recursively manipulating the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein optimizing the deflection efficiency comprises maximizing the deflection efficiency for the specified wavelength of light for the incident angle range;
transforming, at the computer, the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure into a layout file for a fabrication machine; and
transmitting the layout file to the fabrication machine.
The italicized limitations above represent certain methods of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (i.e., a process that can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “accessing, at a computer, representations of a substrate for a surface coupled to a display unit, one or more patterned layers adjacent to the substrate, an incident angle range, and an exit angle range of the substrate, wherein the substrate is transparent for a specified wavelength of light” is a mental process and/or a mathematical relationship.
For example, the limitation “computing… a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of a metasurface waveguide coupler element structure based on a refractive index of the one or more patterned layers, a refractive index of the substrate, the incident angle range, and the exit angle range, wherein a period of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure is determined using a waveguide coupler equation, wherein a portion of the substrate comprises multiple instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the period is a distance between adjacent instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the optimization engine leverages an electromagnetic field simulation engine to optimize the deflection efficiency of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure by recursively manipulating the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein optimizing the deflection efficiency comprises maximizing the deflection efficiency for the specified wavelength of light for the incident angle range” is a mathematical calculation and/or mathematical relationship.
For example, the limitation “Transforming… the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure into a layout file for a fabrication machine; and transmitting the layout file to the fabrication machine” is a mental process and/or mathematical calculation.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are represented by the following underlined limitations:
1. A method comprising: accessing, at a computer, representations of a substrate for a surface coupled to a display unit, one or more patterned layers adjacent to the substrate, an incident angle range, and an exit angle range of the substrate, wherein the substrate is transparent for a specified wavelength of light;
computing, using an optimization engine at the computer and for the specified wavelength of light, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of a metasurface waveguide coupler element structure based on a refractive index of the one or more patterned layers, a refractive index of the substrate, the incident angle range, and the exit angle range, wherein a period of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure is determined using a waveguide coupler equation, wherein a portion of the substrate comprises multiple instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the period is a distance between adjacent instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the optimization engine leverages an electromagnetic field simulation engine to optimize the deflection efficiency of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure by recursively manipulating the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein optimizing the deflection efficiency comprises maximizing the deflection efficiency for the specified wavelength of light for the incident angle range;
transforming, at the computer, the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure into a layout file for a fabrication machine; and
transmitting the layout file to the fabrication machine.
The additional elements of utilizing a computer/optimization engine appear to be tools to perform an abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, these elements individually, or in combination, do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Independent Claims 18 and 19
Independent claims 18 and 19 fail to cure the deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-17
Dependent claims 2 and 4-17 fail to cure the deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2 and 4-17 recite limitations the represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely an extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions, and/or merely limits the abstract idea, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 2, and 4-17 do not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are the same as the reasons given above in Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section.
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) 1, 2, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamali et al (“Angle-multiplexed metasurfaces: encoding independent wavefronts in a single metasurface under different illumination angles,” ARXIV.ORG CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 7 November 2017 (2017-11-07), XP081285830).
In regard to claims 1, 2, 18, and 19, Kamali et al discloses a method comprising: accessing, at a computer, representations of a substrate for a surface coupled to a display unit, one or more patterned (Figure 3b: “angle-multiplexed grating”) layers adjacent to the substrate, an incident angle range, and an exit angle range of the substrate, wherein the substrate is transparent for a specified wavelength of light; computing, using an optimization engine at the computer and for the specified wavelength of light, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of a metasurface waveguide coupler element structure based on a refractive index of the one or more patterned layers, a refractive index of the substrate, the incident angle range, and the exit angle range (Figure 3b: “angle-multiplexed grating”), wherein a period of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure is determined using a waveguide coupler equation (page 1, left column, line 4: d(sin(θm) – sin(θin)) = mλ), wherein a portion of the substrate comprises multiple instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the period is a distance (Figure 3b: “angle-multiplexed grating”) between adjacent instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the optimization engine leverages an electromagnetic field simulation engine (page 9: Supplementary Note 1: Angle-Multiplexed Grating Simulation Results) to optimize the deflection efficiency of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure by recursively manipulating the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein optimizing the deflection efficiency comprises maximizing the deflection efficiency for the specified wavelength of light for the incident angle range (pages 3-5, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS); and would inherently comprise transforming, at the computer, the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure into a layout file for a fabrication machine; and transmitting the layout file to the fabrication machine, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of the development of said optical metasurfaces (page 5, CONCLUSION), and would also inherently comprise a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which is executed by a computer to perform said method, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of the Angle-multiplexed grating in Figure 3.
In regard to claim 20, Kamali et al discloses a substrate a substrate for a surface coupled to a display unit (page 5, DISCUSSION, re: angle-multiplexed platform that allows for devices that perform completely independent functions (i.e. hologram, etc.).
The disclosure of said substrate “being manufactured at a fabrication machine receiving data from a computer by: accessing, at the computer, representations of a substrate for a surface coupled to a display unit, one or more patterned layers adjacent to the substrate, an incident angle range, and an exit angle range of the substrate, wherein the substrate is transparent for a specified wavelength of light; computing, using an optimization engine at the computer and for the specified wavelength of light, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of a metasurface waveguide coupler element structure based on a refractive index of the one or more patterned layers, a refractive index of the substrate, the incident angle range, and the exit angle range, wherein a period of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure is determined using a waveguide coupler equation, wherein a portion of the substrate comprises multiple instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the period is a distance between adjacent instances of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein the optimization engine leverages an electromagnetic field simulation engine to optimize the deflection efficiency of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure by recursively manipulating the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure, wherein optimizing the deflection efficiency comprises maximizing the deflection efficiency for the specified wavelength of light for the incident angle range; transforming, at the computer, the representation of the metasurface waveguide coupler element structure into a layout file for the fabrication machine; and transmitting the layout file to the fabrication machine in order to cause the fabrication machine to manufacture the substrate” are directed to product-by-process limitations and it has been held that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, said substrate is being treated as anticipated by Kamali et al.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamali et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al (US 2019/0121004 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the method of Kamali et al inherently comprises: receiving, at the fabrication machine, the layout file; and fabricating, at the fabrication machine, the surface for coupling to the display unit in response to receiving the layout file, this being reasonably assumed from the disclosure of the development of said optical metasurfaces (page 5, CONCLUSION), but does not specifically disclose wherein the display unit comprises an augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) display unit.
Within the same field of endeavor, Ahmed teaches wherein it is desirable for the augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) display units display units to be coupled to metasurface waveguide coupler element structures for the purpose of increasing an optical coupling between the waveguide and an optical transmission medium (page 3, section [0037] & page 5, section [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the wherein the display unit of Kamali et al to comprise an augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) display unit since Ahmed teaches wherein it is desirable for the purpose of increasing an optical coupling between the waveguide and an optical transmission medium.
Conclusion
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 March 1, 2026