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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 23, 2026 which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1 and has canceled claim 2.
Claims 9-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Claims 1, and 3-8 remain pending in this application.
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) 1, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Moon et al (US 2022/0171209 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Moon et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an apparatus that is comprised of a deflector element (100, Figure 10A) serves as the optical element wherein the deflector element comprises a meta optical element (MOE, please see paragraphs [0020] and [0050]), and a beam steering system that is comprised of a beam steerer (70) for moving a mirror member (30), that is operable to produce intermediate light incident on the optical element (100) at any different incident angles. Moon et al teaches that the optical element or the deflector element is configured to generate an illumination based on the intermediate light and wherein a direction of the illumination depends on an angle at which the intermediate light is incident on the optical element, (please see Figure 10A, paragraphs [0098] and [0099]).
This reference has met all the limitation of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the generated illumination is a far-field illumination. But the phrase “far-field” is arbitrarily defined. As shown in Figure 10A, the illumination light from the deflector or optical element is being illuminated to a distant location. It is therefore either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the illumination a far-field illumination.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the optical element has a phase function such that a phase delay imparted by the optical element differs based on the incident angle of the intermediate light incident on a common area of the optical element wherein the common area of the optical element is shared for different incident angles”.
Moon et al teaches optical element or meta optical element (100, Figure 10A) comprises a plurality of nanorods, (pleases see paragraph [0020] and Figure 1) that each provides a phase modification or delay is imparted upon the incident light depends on the incident angle of the intermediate light, (please see paragraph [0099]). The phase modification provided by each of the nanostructure or the nanorods gives a phase function by the meta optical element. Moon et al further teaches that the intermediate light incident on a common area of the optical element wherein the common area of the optical element is shared for different incident angles, (please see Figures 10A and 11A-11B).
With regard to claim 6, Moon et al teaches that the apparatus comprises a controller or steerer (70, Figure 10A) operable to control the beam steering system to produce a sequence of two or more light beams wherein each of the light beams has a different respective angle of incidence on the optical element or the deflector element (30), wherein a respective direction of the far-field illumination produced by the optical element differs for each of the light beams.
With regard to claim 8, Moon et al teaches that the deflector optical element is a meta optical element, (please see paragraph [0050]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Aieta et al (US 2019/0086683 A1).
The apparatus taught by Moon et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 3, Moon et al teaches that some of the incident angles of the intermediate light impinging on the optical element or deflector optical element. However, this reference does not teach explicitly that the optical element or the deflector optical element is operable to produce the far-field illumination at a respect output angle greater than the incident angle of the intermediate light. Aieta et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a meta optical element would produce illumination at a respect output angle greater than the incident angle of the light, (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Aieta et al to make the meta optical element to provide the illumination with an output angle greater than the incident angle for the benefit of making the illumination have a greater angle angular expansion.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Hwang et al (US 2019/0025408 A1).
The apparatus taught by Moon et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 4, Moon et al does not teach explicitly that the beam steering system includes an optical phase array. Hwang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a beam steering device may comprise an optical phase array (OPA, please see Figure 2). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hwang et al to make the beam steering system comprise an optical phase array for the benefit of using art well-known device to achieve the beam steering function.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Saitoh et al (US 2022/0326565 A1).
The apparatus taught by Moon et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 5 and 10, Moon et al teaches to include a light source (11, Figure 10A) to produce a light as the intermediate light. Moon et al however does not teach explicitly that the light generates a coherent light. With regard to claim 10, Moon et al also does not teach explicitly that the optical element or deflector optical element comprises a diffractive optical element. Saitoh et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus that is comprised of a laser light source (151, Figure 1) for generating a coherent light as intermediate light at a light deflector (101) and the light deflector operable to produce intermediate light incident on the diffractive optical element (121, please see paragraph [0032]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Saitoh et al to use a laser light emitter for generating coherent light and alternatively use a diffractive optical element (DOE) as the deflector optical element for generating the far-field illumination.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Saitoh et al (US 2022/0326565 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Saitoh et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, an optical scanning device serves as the apparatus that is comprised of a diffraction element (121, Figure 1 please see paragraphs [0032]) serves as the optical element, and a light deflector (101) serves as the beam steering system that is operable to produce intermediate light incident on the optical element (121) at any different incident angles. Saitoh et al teaches that the optical element or the diffraction element is configured to generate an illumination based on the intermediate light and wherein a direction of the illumination depends on an angle at which the intermediate light is incident on the optical element, (please see Figure 1, paragraphs [0037] and [0040]).
This reference has met all the limitation of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the generated illumination is a far-field illumination. But the phrase “far-field” is arbitrarily defined. As shown in Figure 1, the illumination light from the optical element (121) is being illuminated to a distant location. It is therefore either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the illumination a far-field illumination.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the optical element has a phase function such that a phase delay imparted by the optical element differs based on the incident angle of the intermediate light incident on a common area of the optical element wherein the common area of the optical element is shared for different incident angles”.
Saitoh et al teaches diffraction optical element (121, Figure 1) implicitly has a phase function such that a phase modification or delay is imparted upon the incident light depending on the incident angle of the intermediate light. Furthermore, Saitoh et al teaches that the intermediate light incident on a common area (i.e. in the same interpretation of Figures 1A and 1B of the specification of instant application), wherein the common area of the optical element is shared for different incident angles.
With regard to claim 3, Saitoh et al teaches that the incident angles of the intermediate light impinging on the optical diffraction element (121) and the optical diffraction element is operable to produce illumination at a respective output angle greater than the incident angle of the intermediate light, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 5, Saitoh et al teaches that the device is further comprised of a laser light source (151, Figure 1) for generating a coherent light as intermediate light at a light deflector or beam steering system (101) and beam steering system is operable to produce intermediate light incident on the optical diffraction element (121, please see paragraph [0032]).
With regard to claim 6, Saitoh et al teaches that the apparatus comprises a controller (141, Figure 1) operable to control the beam steering system (101) to produce a sequence of two or more light beams wherein each of the light beams has a different respective angle of incidence on the optical diffraction element (121), wherein a respective direction of the far-field illumination produced by the optical element differs for each of the light beams.
With regard to claim 7, Saitoh et al teaches that the optical diffraction element is a diffractive optical element, (please see paragraph [0032]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Hwang et al (US 2019/0025408 A1).
The scanning device taught by Saitoh et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 4, Saitoh et al does not teach explicitly that the beam steering system includes an optical phase array. Hwang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a beam steering device may comprise an optical phase array (OPA, please see Figure 2). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hwang et al to make the beam steering system comprise an optical phase array for the benefit of using art well-known device to achieve the beam steering function.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Moon et al (US 2022/0171209 A1).
The scanning device taught by Saitoh et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8, Saitoh et al does not teach explicitly that the optical element may alternatively comprise a meta-optical element. Moon et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus that is comprised of a meta-optical element (100, Figure 10A, paragraph [0050]) that is capable of generating an illumination based on intermediate light generated by a beam steering system (30). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Moon et al to alternatively use a meta-optical element to achieve the same illumination generation function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claim has been fully considered and is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited Moon et al reference, the cited Moon et al reference specifically teaches that “the steerer 70 may drive the mirror member 30 so that an angle at which light is incident on the meta surface deflector 100 changes to move a position at which the image is focused” (please see paragraph [0099]). This means the phase function with a phase delay imparted by the optical element (100) differs indeed based on the incident angle of the intermediate light (from the tunable mirror 30) incident on a common area of the optical element. The cited Moon et al reference therefore reads on the claims.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited Saitoh reference, applicant being one skilled in the art that diffraction of incident light, based on the phase function including the phase delay departed by the optical element or diffractive optical element implicitly described by diffraction equation: d*(sin(a)+sin(b)) = m*l, wherein a denotes the incident angle of the light, b denotes angle of the diffracted light beam, d is the spacing of the diffractive structure, m is an integer indicates the diffraction order and l is wavelength of the incident light. This means for a diffractive optical element, phase delay imparted by the diffractive optical element is inherently dependent on the incident angle of the incident light. The coted Saitoh reference therefore reads on the claims.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
