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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings with 11 Sheets of Figs. 1-15 received on 6/28/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Specification recites (para 55) “V2a is a minimum value of a filling rate”. However, claim 6 recites “V2a is a maximum value of a filling rate”. It is suggested that specification be corrected to recite –V2a is a maximum of a filing date--.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 2021/0191231 A1) in view of Han et al (US 2020/0249429 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi teaches (fig 1,2,4) an optical element (terahertz wave lens 1, para 47) comprising:
a substrate (substrate 2 without base layer as in annotated fig 4, para 48); and
a plurality of annulus sections (“the uneven structure 3 includes a plurality of repetition units RU1 to RUk that are arranged along a radial direction (predetermined direction) from a center P of the substrate 2 toward an outer edge of the substrate 2 when viewed in the thickness direction D”, para 51) concentrically arranged on the substrate (as in fig 2),
wherein the plurality of annulus sections (repetition units RU1 to RUk ) include a first annulus section (first annulus section comprising sections A1-A9, fig 2) that includes a first area (region A1, para 52) where a base layer is provided (as annotated in fig 4 below), and a second area (region A2 or region A9, para 52) where the base layer is not provided (no base under second structures in fig 4 annotated with respect to A9, but similarly for A2 and other regions too) (“the height positions of the bottom portions 3b of the regions A1 to A9 are further moved toward the inside of the substrate 2 as the region is shifted from the region A1 toward the region A9”, para 55).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a plurality of first structures (3a in A1) having widths in a radial direction are arranged in the first area (region A1), and
wherein a plurality of second structures (3a in A9) having widths in the radial direction are arranged in the second area (region A9) (also fig 9 shows the plurality of structures in each area A1-A9).
However, Hayashi does not teach
wherein a plurality of first structures having mutually different widths in a radial direction are arranged in the first area, and
wherein a plurality of second structures having mutually different widths in the radial direction are arranged in the second area
Hayashi and Han are related as plurality of structures in optical elements.
Han teaches (fig 19),
wherein a plurality of first structures (plurality of nanostructures in first region 223_1, para 150) having mutually different widths in a radial direction (as in fig 19) are arranged in the first area (first region 223_1, para 150), and
wherein a plurality of second structures (plurality of nanostructures in second region 223_2, para 150) having mutually different widths in the radial direction are arranged in the second area (second region 223_2, para 150)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widths of plurality of first and second structures of Hayashi to include the mutually different widths of Han for the purpose of a versatile design exhibiting a refractive power with respect to light of a predetermined wavelength (para 150).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi-Han teaches the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the base layer (as in annotated fig 4, Hayashi) is made of the same material as that of the plurality of first structures (“as in the present embodiment, when the uneven structure is formed in the surface of the substrate itself”, para 65).
Regarding Claim 3, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 ≤H1/H2 ≤ 0.90 where H1 (h1 in fig 9) is a height of each of the plurality of first structures (3a in region A1, para 52, Hayashi), and H2 (h2 in fig 9) is a height of each of the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9, para 52) (h1 <h2 and hence satisfies the inequality).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.80 ≤ (H1+HL)/H2 ≤ 1.20 where where H1 (height of 3a in A1 in fig 9) is a height of each of the plurality of first structures (3a in region A1, para 52, Hayashi), and H2 (height of 3a in A9 in fig 9) is a height of each of the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9, para 52), and HL is a height of the base layer (HL is height of base layer shown annotated in fig 4, Also shown annotated fig 9). (height of 3a in A1+HL=height of 3a in A9 and hence the equality is satisfied)
PNG
media_image2.png
542
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein a phase delay amount caused by the plurality of first structures (3a in region A1, para 52, Hayashi) for light incident perpendicularly to a surface of the substrate is larger than that caused by the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9, para 52) for the light (“where the phase difference between the regions adjacent to each other is set to the first phase difference, and second phase difference regions (in the present embodiment, the regions A1 and A2) where the phase difference between the regions adjacent to each other is set to the second phase difference smaller than the first phase difference”, para 121).
Regarding Claim 6, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0.50 ≤ V1s ≤ 1.00,
0.80 ≤ V2a/V2s ≤ 1.20
where HL is a height of the base layer, V1s is a maximum value of a filling rate of the plurality of first structures in a range from a surface of the substrate to the height HL, V2s is a maximum value of a filling rate of the plurality of second structures in a range from the surface of the surface to the height HL, and V2a is a maximum value of a filling rate of the plurality of first structures and the plurality of second structures in a range from a position at the height HL to a corresponding one of tips of the plurality of first structures and the plurality of second structures (as Hayashi’s regions A1 and A9 are similar to the current figs 9A-9B, region A1 is similar to fig 9A and region A9 is similar to fig 9B, the above relationships of the maximum filling rates V1s, V2s and V2a, are satisfied).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 ≤ V1a/V1s ≤ 0.80 where HL is a height of the base layer, V1s is a maximum value of a filling rate of the plurality of first structures in a range from a surface of the substrate to the height HL, and V1a is a maximum value of the filling rate of the plurality of first structures in a range from a position at the height HL to a tip of the plurality of first structures (as Hayashi’s regions A1 and A9 are similar to the current figs 9A-9B, region A1 is similar to fig 9A and region A9 is similar to fig 9B, the above relationships of the maximum filling rates V1s and V2a, are satisfied).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1.
However, Hayashi does not teach
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
1.05 ≤ Wmax1/Wmin1 ≤ 6.00
1.05 ≤ Wmax2/Wmin2 ≤ 6.00
where Wmax1 and Wmin1 are a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of first structures, respectively, and Wmax2 and Wmin2 are a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of second structures, respectively.
Hayashi and Han are related as plurality of structures in optical elements.
Han teaches (fig 19),
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
1.05 ≤ Wmax1/Wmin1 ≤ 6.00
1.05 ≤ Wmax2/Wmin2 ≤ 6.00
where Wmax1 and Wmin1 are a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of first structures (plurality of nanostructures in first region 223_1, para 150), respectively, and Wmax2 and Wmin2 are a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of second structures (plurality of nanostructures in second region 223_2, para 150), respectively (as in fig 19, the min and max widths are within the limits of 1.05 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widths of plurality of first and second structures of Hayashi to include the inequalities of Han for the purpose of a versatile design exhibiting a refractive power with respect to light of a predetermined wavelength (para 150).
Regarding Claim 9, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein a phase modulation amount (“where the phase difference between the regions adjacent to each other is set to the first phase difference, and second phase difference regions (in the present embodiment, the regions A1 and A2) where the phase difference between the regions adjacent to each other is set to the second phase difference smaller than the first phase difference”, para 121, Hayashi) caused by each of the plurality of first structures (plurality of nanostructures in second region 223_1, para 150) and the plurality of second structures (plurality of nanostructures in second region 223_2, para 150) monotonically changes in the radial direction (as the phase difference of a second region is smaller than the first region, the phase difference keeps changing monotonically along the radial direction).
Regarding Claim 10, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1.
However, Hayashi does not teach
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.35 ≤ AR1/AR2 ≤ 2.00
where AR1 is a maximum value of an aspect ratio of the plurality of first structures, and AR2 is a maximum value of an aspect ratio of the plurality of second structures.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The ratio AR1/AR2 of optical element be in a range of values. An increase in AR1/AR2 increases phase modulation but makes the device unwieldy. A decrease in AR1/AR2 results in a more compact device but decreases the phase modulation. Therefore, AR1/AR2 is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the AR1/AR2 to be within the claimed range according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improve phase modulation with optical device becoming unwieldy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aspect ratio AR1/AR2. One would have been motivated to have the claimed range of aspect ratios balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired phase delays.
Regarding Claim 11, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 ≤ H2/λ0 ≤ 4.00
where H2 is a height of each of the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9), and λ0 is a reference wavelength (λ0 = 125µm, max height of pillars 31 is 120 µm and minimum height is 95 µm, hence 0.76 ≤ H2/λ0 ≤ 0.96).
Regarding Claim 12, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1.
However, Hayashi does not teach
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.70 ≤ Wmax1/Wmax2 ≤ 1.40
where Wmax1 is a maximum width of the plurality of first structures, and Wmax2 is a maximum width of the plurality of second structures.
Hayashi and Han are related as plurality of structures in optical elements.
Han teaches (fig 19),
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.70 ≤ Wmax1/Wmax2 ≤ 1.00
where Wmax1 is a maximum width of the plurality of first structures (plurality of nanostructures in first region 223_1, para 150), respectively, and Wmax2 is a maximum width of the plurality of second structures (plurality of nanostructures in second region 223_2, para 150), respectively (as in fig 19, the min and max widths are within the limits of 1.05 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the widths of plurality of first and second structures of Hayashi to include the inequality of Han for the purpose of a versatile design exhibiting a refractive power with respect to light of a predetermined wavelength (para 150).
Regarding Claim 13, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.10 ≤ P/H2 ≤ 0.60 where P is an array period of the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9, para 52) in the radial direction, and H2 is a height of each of the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9, para 52) (pitch p =30µm, para 49, the maximum value of the heights h of the pillars 31 (namely, the height h of the pillar 31 belonging to the region A9) is approximately 120 μm, hence H2 = 120µm, p/H2 = 0.25 which is within the range)
Regarding Claim 14, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.15 ≤ E/n ≤ 0.95 where E is a normalized phase at a boundary between the first area (region A1) and the second area (region A2), and n is a designed diffraction order (Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and the normalized phase for a diffraction order satisfies the inequality. See MPEP § 2112.01.)
Regarding Claim 15, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.00 ≤ H2/t ≤ 0.10
where H2 is a height of each of the plurality of second structures (3a in region A9, page 52, Hayashi, fig 9), and t is a thickness of the substrate (substrate is considered to be only the substrate right below structures in region A9) (“The thickness of the substrate 2 is, for example, approximately 0.5 mm”, para 48, “the maximum value of the heights h of the pillars 31 (namely, the height h of the pillar 31 belonging to the region A9) is approximately 120 μm”, para 56, hence t, the thickness of the substrate is 0.5mm or 500 μm - 120 μm = 380 μm, H2= 120 μm, H2/t = 120/380 = 0.315).
Hayashi-Han do not teach 0.00 ≤ H2/t ≤ 0.10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Hayashi-Han teaches that the H2/t is in a range of values. An increase in H2/t increases phase modulation but makes the device unwieldy. A decrease in H2/t results in a more compact device but decreases the phase modulation. Therefore, H2/t is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed ratio of H2/t, and one would have chosen the H2/t ratio between 0.0 to 0.10 according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving phase modulation with unwieldiness of device. One would have been motivated to have ratio H2/t to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with device size.
Regarding Claim 16, Hayashi-Han teach the optical element according to claim 1.
However, Hayashi does not teach
an optical system comprising a plurality of optical elements including the optical element according to claim 1.
Hayashi and Han are related as optical elements.
Han teaches (fig 2,19),
an optical system (imaging apparatus 100, para 66) comprising a plurality of optical elements (optical devices 110,120, para 66) including the optical element (first optical device 110, para 66, “At least one of the first through third optical devices 110, 120, and 130 may be a thin-lens including a substrate on which plurality of nanostructures are provided”, para 67) according to claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi to include the optical system of Han for the purpose of use in cameras in electronic devices (para 171).
Regarding Claim 17, Hayashi-Han teach the optical system according to claim 16.
However, Hayashi does not teach
a lens apparatus comprising the optical system according to claim 16 and
a holder configured to hold the optical system.
Hayashi and Han are related as optical elements.
Han teaches (fig 2,19,25),
a lens apparatus (camera, para 171) comprising the optical system (imaging apparatus 100, para 66, imaging apparatus 1100, fig 25, para 171)
a holder configured to hold the optical system (imaging apparatus 100, para 66, imaging apparatus 1100, fig 25, para 171) (a holder is inherently present as the systems 1100 are not free standing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi to include lens apparatus with the optical system of Han for the purpose of use in cameras in electronic devices (para 171).
Regarding Claim 18, Hayashi-Han teach the optical system according to claim 16.
However, Hayashi does not teach an image pickup apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 16 and
an image sensor configured to receive an image formed by the optical system.
Hayashi and Han are related as optical elements.
Han teaches (fig 2,19,25),
an image pickup apparatus (image pickup device, para 119) comprising the optical system (imaging apparatus 100, para 66, imaging apparatus 1100, fig 25, para 171)
an image sensor (“image sensor (CIS) using a charge-coupled device (CCD)”, para 165) configured to receive an image formed by the optical system (imaging apparatus 100, para 66, imaging apparatus 1100, fig 25, para 171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashi to include an image pickup apparatus with the optical system of Han for the purpose of use in cameras in electronic devices (para 171).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dal Negro et al (WO 2020/227675 A1, of record) teaches a tiered diffractive element with nanostructures at different heights.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights