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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered into this application. Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a computing device” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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)(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, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamagnone et al. (2023/0208104 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 4, Tamagnone discloses a metalens array is a metasurface [par. 0045] (figs. 4),
wherein the metalens array the metasurface (402) comprises: at least a metalens array unit, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4); and the metalens array unit metasurface (402) [pars. 0054] comprises:
a transmittive metalens array (i.e. area that is depicted transmitted (T2/T1/T0), the transmittive metalens array comprises: a plurality of transmittive metalens at different working waveband, and the plurality of transmittive metalens have the same focal length and are used for focusing incident lights of different wavelengths (I.e. designed at the central design wavelength [par. 0048-49] to different positions of a first plane as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4) (claim 1); and at least a reflective metalens/metasurface, the reflective metalens (i.e. area that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is implicitly used to reflect the incident light to a second plane, and the second plane is different from the first plane (claim 1); implicitly wherein the reflective metalens (i.e. area that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is a full-spectrum reflective metalens (claim 3); and wherein the metalens array unit metasurface comprises three square transmittive metalenses, and one square reflective metalens, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4) (claim 4).
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, 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.
Claims 5-9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamagnone et al. (2023/0208104 A1).
As to claims 5 and 18, Tamagnone discloses of a metalens array wherein the metalens array unit metasurface comprises plurality of a two-dimensional polygon transmittive metalenses and one/a two-dimensional polygon reflective metalens, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4). Further, Tamagnone [par. 0012] teaches of one or more additional optical elements (e.g., prisms, polarizers, wave plates, other metasurfaces, lenses, mirrors, beam splitters, filters, etc.) can be used between the gain medium and the metasurface or in the output beam to control (e.g., shape) the propagation of light. These elements are can be referred to as auxiliary optical elements. The auxiliary optical elements may not be the main active element of the optical filter.
Tamagnone fail to explicitly specify that the plurality of a two-dimensional polygon transmittive metalenses and one/a two-dimensional polygon reflective metalens is six hexagon transmittive metalenses and one hexagon (e.g. a two-dimensional polygon with six sides) reflective metalens 5 and 18; and wherein an aperture stop array is arranged between the metalens array and the first sensor (claim 20).
However, even though, Tamagnone fails to explicitly specify the exact shape of the two-dimensional polygon transmittive metalenses and one/a two-dimensional polygon reflective metalens in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims 5, 18 and 20, the shape differences are considered obvious design in view of Tamagnone of two-dimensional polygon transmittive metalenses and one/a two-dimensional polygon reflective metalens, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954) in order to provides other forms of optimization of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone two-dimensional polygon transmittive metalenses and one/a two-dimensional polygon reflective metalens, as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5 in order to optimize system, as per teaching of Tamagnone [par. 0149], since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 6-7, Tamagnone discloses of at least a reflective metalens/metasurface, the reflective metalens (i.e. area that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is implicitly used to reflect the incident light to a second plane, and the second plane is different from the first plane (claim 1); implicitly wherein the reflective metalens (i.e. area that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is a full-spectrum reflective metalens as applied to claim 1-4 above.
Tamagnone also teaches a metalens array/metasurface that can include a regular or partially regular array of refractive and/or reflective elements on a substrate, which can shape light the metasurface transmits and/or reflects by imparting a linear optical response at each element and of phase profile [pars. 0044], as applied to claim 1. Further, Tamagnone teaches that metasurface generally functions to alter the phase of light that is incident thereon as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4), such that light rays light distribution/phase distributions/design are in some sort of light distribution/design pattern(s) or such as desired distribution [par. 0060].
Tamagnone fail to explicitly specify the constructional changes in the phase distribution(s) of the metalens array of claim 1, as that claimed by Applicants claims 6-7, such as, the phase distribution of the reflective metalens is as following:
PNG
media_image1.png
122
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, (xf,yf,zf) is the reflective metalens focuses the light on the focal point of a sensor, and f is the focal length of the reflective metalens (claim 6); and the phase distribution of the transmittive metalens is as following:
PNG
media_image2.png
82
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
126
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the constructional/structural change(s) are considered obvious design variation of the light rays light distribution/phase distribution in view of Tamagnone teachings of phase distribution, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4), and teaches that other desired phase distribution/design is possible [pars. 0060]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone with as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 6-7 in order to optimize phase profiles to optimize metrics for collimation, as per teaching of Tamagnone [par. 0176].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 6-7 in order to optimize phase profiles to optimize metrics for collimation, or in order to achieve different diffraction output states, as per teaching of Tamagnone [pars. 0063-64], since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 8-9, Tamagnone teaches of a wavefront sensor system is included a metasurface [par. 0045] (figs. 4)
wherein the wavefront sensor system (fig. 4) comprises: a metalens array metalenses unit metasurface (402) [pars. 0054]; wherein, the metalens array comprises: at least a metalens array unit metasurface (402) [pars. 0054], and the metalens array unit comprises:
a plurality/array of transmittive metalens (i.e. area that is depicted transmitted (T2/T1/T0) at different working waveband; and at least one reflective metalens (i.e. included in area(s) that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)); the plurality of transmittive metalens that is included in the area(s) that is depicted that transmitted (T2/T1/T0) with the same focal length can be used for focusing incident lights of different wavelengths electromagnetic spectrum, wherein at least one reflective metalens (i.e. included in area(s) that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is used for reflecting the incident light to a second device and the second device is used for imaging of reflected lights of the reflective metalens (i.e. included in area(s) that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)).
Tamagnone fail to explicitly specify a first sensor and a second sensor; the constructional changes of incorporating first/one sensor comprises: a plurality of first sensor units; the arrangement of the first sensor unit corresponds one to one to the arrangement of the metalens array unit, and each of the first sensor units contains a focal reference point, the first sensor is used to detect the deviation between the actual focal point of each transmittive metalens and the focal reference point, the focal reference point is the theoretical focal point of the transmittive metalens on the corresponding sensor unit, and wherein the second sensor and the second sensor is used for imaging of reflected lights of the reflective metalens (claim 8) and wherein the first sensor is arranged at the focal plane of the transmittive metalens array of the metalens array (claim 9)
Tamagnone teaches of using one or more detector(s)/photodetector with plurality of sensor units/pixels in order to monitor the laser power or image or output transmissive and reflective lights, as can be seen in (fig. 4) [pars. 0040, 0065-66, 0077].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 8 and 9, in view of the teachings of Tamagnone using detector/photodetector(s) in order to monitor light power and/or image pixelated patterns accurately, as per teachings of Tamagnone as can be seen in (fig. 4) [pars. 0040, 0065-66, 0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 8 and 9, in view of the teachings of Tamagnone in order to monitor light power and/or image pixelated patterns accurately, as per teachings of Tamagnone as can be seen in (fig. 4) [pars. 0040, 0065-66, 0077], since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 11-12, Tamagnone teaches of wherein the reflective metalens (i.e. included in area(s) that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is used to image by off-axis reflection, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4) (claim 11); and wherein the wavefront distortion (i.e. astigmatism) calculated by the transmittive metalens that is included in the area(s) that is depicted that transmitted (T2/T1/T0) is used to correct the image of the reflective metalens (i.e. that is included in area(s) that is depicted by reflected beams (R2/R1/R0)) is included in the phase profile given in Equation 1 that can provide the correct gradient to ensure that light is deflected towards the focal spot of the metasurface at each position and/or the metasurface design allows for the correction of the astigmatism [pars. 0046, 0116], so as to obtain a clear image (claim 12).
As to claims 13-14, Tamagnone teaches of a wavefront sensor system is included in is a metasurface [par. 0045] (figs. 4) wherein the wavefront sensor system comprises: calculations that can be carried out to compute the complex amplitude (including both amplitude and phase) of the feedback on the facet as a function of the displacement of the metasurface [pars. 0090-91], and wherein if the transmission and/or reflection phase of each of the discrete elements is selected to match the following design phase profile equation/formular. Also, Tamagnone [pars. 0055, 58-59, 0060, 0067-71] teaches of using some sort optimization calculations equation/formulars in order to optimized functionality and design phase.
The Tamagnone fails to explicitly specify the constructional changes such as claimed in Applicant’s claims 13-14, wherein the wavefront distortion is obtained by the following formula/equation:
PNG
media_image4.png
109
288
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
126
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(claim 13); and wherein the computing device is used for calculating the wavefront distortion of light at different wavelengths in the incident light by measuring the deviation between the actual focal point and the focal reference point, and the calculated wavefront distortion can be applied to the imaging of the second sensor, so as to obtain a recovery image that recovered by the wavefront distortion (claim 14).
However, the constructional/structural change(s) are considered obvious design variation of the phase distribution/design equation/formular for calculation(s) in view of Tamagnone teachings of phase distribution/design equation/formular for calculation(s). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 13-14 in order to optimization calculations equation/formulars in order to optimized functionality and design phase and/or in order to monitor light power and/or image pixelated patterns accurately, as per teachings of Tamagnone as can be seen in (fig. 4) [pars. 0040, 0065-66, 0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamagnone as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 13-14 in order to optimization calculations equation/formulars in order to optimized functionality and design phase and/or in order to monitor light power and/or image pixelated patterns accurately, as per teachings of Tamagnone as can be seen in (fig. 4) [pars. 0040, 0065-66, 0077], since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 15-16, Tamagnone further teaches of a wavefront sensor system, wherein the wavefront sensor system comprises a structure that is use in a system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the wavefront sensor system further comprises: an optical filter; the optical filter is used for filtering the light before the light reaches the metalens array unit, so as to allow only a light of specific wavelength to incidence to the metalens array unit [pars. 0012, 0036-37, 0048] (claim 15); and
wherein the wavefront sensor system further comprises: an optical filter; the optical filter is used for filtering the light before the light reaches the metalens array unit, so as to allow only a light of specific wavelength (i.e. filtering effect can be used for wavelength selection) incidence to the metalens array unit [pars. 0012, 0036-37, 0048] (claim 16);
As to claim 17, Tamagnone teaches of wherein the optical filter further comprises: a filter array; the filter array is configured one-to-one correspondence with the transmittive metalens and the reflective metalens [pars. 0012, 0036-37, 0048, 0049, 0066].
As to claim 19, Tamagnone teaches of wherein the metalens array unit metasurface comprises three square transmittive metalenses, and one square reflective metalens, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the primary reference(s) being used in the current rejection because the claims invention is broad enough to read individually on each of the reference(s).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art metalens array.
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877