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
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are new pending in the application. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended and claim 16 has been canceled by the Applicant. Previous claim 1-3,7,9,15-19 rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-,3,5,7-8,10,12,14,16-18 of copending Application No. 18757616 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1. Previous Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 13.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application JP 2023-117319 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recites the limitation for “wherein at least two of the plurality of annulus sections form a phase distribution in which a phase difference of 2np (n = 1, 2, ... an integer representing a designed diffraction order or a diffraction order)”, in lines 4-6. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be understood and treated given, that the phase distribution may encompass two or more annulus sections in which there is a phase difference of 2np, or that the phase distribution over the lens including two or more annulus sections includes parts or ring structures where there is phase difference of 2np (n = 1, 2…), or that or the phase distribution over the lens including two or more annulus sections includes two or more annulus sections with the phase difference being 2np (n = 1, 2…) between them? The limitation above, as written appears to be missing a verb, given the phrase “…form a phase distribution in which a phase difference of 2np“ seems incomplete and unclear. The above limitation will be treated broadly, such that two or more annular structures or sections may have phase difference of 2p or multiple of that. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 depend on claim 1, and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
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 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et. al. (hereafter Han) US 20200174163 A1 in view of Park et al. (hereafter Park) US 20210103075 A1 (both of record).
In regard to independent claim 1, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) an optical element (meta-lens, e.g. 100, 102, 104 and optical apparatus 1000,2000, 3000 including the same, see abstract, paragraphs [02, 07-42,72-80, 93-109, 113-119, 134-144,154-157], e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-20] comprising:
a substrate (substrate 110, paragraphs [71-72, 81-83]);
a plurality of annulus sections concentrically arranged on the substrate (i.e. as concentric circular ring-shapes in regions 120_1,.. 120-N, 122-1, 122-N, on substate 110, paragraphs [72-80, 93-109, 113-119], Figs. 1-3,10, 16),
wherein at least two of the plurality of annulus sections form a phase distribution in which a phase difference of 2np (n = 1, 2, ... an integer representing a designed diffraction order or a diffraction order) (i.e. as given the phase distribution and 2p target phase change of the shapes is set in any given region with respect to a central wavelength λm, paragraphs [108-113,117]),
wherein a first annulus section, one of the plurality of annulus sections (e.g. any of the shapes in regions 122-1,122-2 or 122-K, Figs. 2, 10, 16), includes a plurality of first structures with a first height, and a plurality of second structures with a second height different from the first height (i.e. as nanostructures NS1, NS2 or NSK with first height H, and nanostructures NS1, NS2 or NSK with second height smaller by e.g. DH and vice-versa, as height variation, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109, 21-23], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16),
wherein at least two of the plurality of first structures have different widths in a radial direction of the optical element (e.g. as NS1, NS2 or NSK with H have different widths in radial direction x (r), as the shape, size such as width and height, arrangement, etc. of the plurality of nanostructures NS parameters may be constant in the same region or may be expressed as a function based on a location of the plurality of nanostructures NS in the meta-lens, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16), and
wherein at least two the plurality of second structures have mutually different widths in the radial direction of the optical element ( as NS1, NS2 or NSK with smaller H have different widths in radial direction x (r), as the shape, size such as width and height, arrangement, etc. of the plurality of nanostructures NS as parameters may be constant in the same region or may be expressed as a function based on a location of the plurality of nanostructures NS in the meta-lens. paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16).
But Han does not specify a substrate thickness t, and that inequality is satisfied: 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height.
However, Park teaches in the same family of invention (see Figs. 1-13, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-38, 67-78, 84-94,110-115]) and further teaches a substrate thickness t, and that inequality is satisfied: 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height (i.e. as substrate SU thickness can be 100 l0 - 1000l0, while height of the plurality of nanostructures from λ0 and less than 10 λ0, this providing support for the nanostructures and paragraphs [23, 67-78, 84-94,110-115]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and specify the substrate thickness of the substrate of Han according to teachings of Park in order to provide substrate with sufficient thickness that provides support for the nanostructures (see Park, paragraphs [68-69, 88, 110-111]).
As a result of the Han-Park combination, the combination also teaches and renders obvious that 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1, given the applied thickness of the substrate 110 according to thickness of substrate SU, and given the height of nanostructures of lower or higher H, e.g. Han paragraphs [21-22, 101-107]).
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequalities are satisfied:
0.05 <= H2/H1 <= 0.95
where H1 is the first height, and H2 is the second height (i.e. as NS1, NS2 or NSK with first height H, and nanostructures NS1, NS2 or NSK with second height smaller by e.g. DH, includes heights ratio in the above range, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109, 21-25], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequalities are satisfied: 1.04 < Wmax1/Wmin1 < 20.00
1.04 < Wmax2/Wmin2 < 20.00
(as due to NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and smaller H have different max/min widths WRk ratio in above in radial direction x (r), paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16)
where Wmax1 is a maximum width of the plurality of first structures, Wmax2 is a maximum width of the plurality of second structures, Wmin1 is a minimum width of the plurality of first structures, and Wmin2 is a minimum width of the plurality of second structures (as NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and smaller H with different max/min widths WRk ratio in above in radial direction x (r), paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 4, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the plurality of first structures and the plurality of second structures are arranged at the same period in the radial direction (i.e. as least NS1,NS2, NSK have same pitch p in 122_k region, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], as depicted in Figs. 29,10,16).
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequalities are satisfied: 0.05 <= DW1/P <= 0.80
0.15 <= DW2/P <= 0.95 where P is the period, DW1 is a difference between a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of first structures, and DW2 is a difference between a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of second structures (as due to NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and smaller H having difference in max/min widths WRk and radial width/pitch ratio is in above ranges, see paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 96-109, 17], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.05 <= DW1/DW2 <= 1.50
where DW1 is a difference between a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of first structures, and DW2 is a difference between a maximum width and a minimum width of the plurality of second structures (as due to NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and smaller H having difference in max/min widths WRk and their ratio in above range, see paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 96-109, 17], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 7, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.70 <= V2max/V1min <= 1.50
where V1min is a minimum value of a filling rate of the plurality of first structures, and V2max is a maximum value of the filling rate of the plurality of second structures (as the ratio filling rates, is same as ratio of max volume for small nanostructures over min volume of large nanostructures in NS1, NS2 or NSK, given the relative sizes the ratio in the above range, see paragraphs [72-80, 96-109,113-119, 134-144], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 8, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequalities are satisfied:
1.50 <= AR1 <= 20.00
1.50 <= AR2 <= 20.00
where AR1 is a maximum value of an aspect ratio of the plurality of first structures (i.e. as given the max aspect ratio of NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and smaller H in the above range, see paragraphs [72-80, 96-109, 113-119, 134-144], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16), and AR2 is a maximum value of the aspect ratio of the plurality of second structures (i.e. as given the minimum aspect ratio of NS1, NS2 or NSK with other of larger and smaller H in the above range, see paragraphs [72-80, 96-109, 113-119, 134-144], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 9, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.50 <= AR2/AR1 <= 4.00
where AR1 is a maximum value of an aspect ratio of the plurality of first structures, and AR2 is a maximum value of the aspect ratio of the plurality of second structures (i.e. as given the maximum or minimum aspect ratio of NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and/or smaller H in the above range, see paragraphs [72-80, 96-109, 113-119, 134-144], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16).
Regarding claim 10, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.60 <= Wmax2/Wmax1 <= 1.20
where Wmax1 is a maximum width of the plurality of first structures, and Wmax2 is a maximum width of the plurality of second structures (as due to NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and/or smaller H have different max widths WRk with their ratio in above range, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], as depicted in Figs. 2,10,16)
Regarding claim 11, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.25 <= DH/(m x l0) <= 3.00
where DH is a difference between the first height and the second height, m is a designed diffraction order, and l0 is a design wavelength (i.e. given that the nanostructures height difference is 2λ or less at operating/design wavelength for given diffraction order e.g. m=1,2,3, higher orders up to 8, see e.g. paragraphs [21-25, 72-80, 101-118]).
Regarding claim 12, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.15 <= NP <= 0.85
where NP is a value of a ratio of a minimum phase in a first area in which the plurality of first structures are provided to a maximum phase difference in the first annulus section (i.e. as given the such min phase in NS1, NS2 or NSK with one of larger and smaller H, and max phase in 120_1, ..122-1,122_K, ratio in the above range, as depicted in Figs. 11, 7-8, e.g. paragraphs [96-109, 113-119], and since the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of providing phase modulation with the given size and arrangement of the plurality of nanostrctures. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.).
Regarding claim 13, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the following inequality is satisfied:
0.50 <= NP x (H1/H2) <= 1.50
where NP is a value of a ratio of a minimum phase in a first area in which the plurality of first structures are provided to a maximum phase difference in the first annulus section, H1 is the first height, and H2 is the second height (i.e. as given the such min phase in NS1, NS2 or NSK with one of larger and smaller H, and max phase in 120_1, ..122-1,122_K ratio, with given sizes of NS1, NS2 or NSK with one of larger and smaller H, as depicted in Figs. 11, 7-8, e.g. paragraphs [96-109, 113-119], and since the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of providing phase modulation with the given size and arrangement of the plurality of nanostrctures. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.).
Regarding claim 14, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that a phase modulation amount caused by each of the plurality of first structures and the plurality of second structures monotonically changes in the radial direction of the optical element (i.e. as such phase change over to NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and/or smaller H in radial direction, as depicted in Figs. 11, 7-8, e.g. paragraphs [96-109, 113-119]).
Regarding claim 15, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that a phase modulation amount caused by the plurality of first structures is larger than that caused by the plurality of second structures (i.e. as such phase amount over to NS1, NS2 or NSK with larger and/or smaller H in radial direction, as depicted in Figs. 11, 7-8, e.g. paragraphs [96-109, 113-119], and since the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of providing phase modulation amount(s) with the given size and arrangement of the plurality of nanostrctures. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2114.).
Regarding claim 17, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) an optical system comprising a plurality of optical elements including the optical element according to claim 1 (as meta-lens, e.g. 100, 102, 104 is part of optical system 100, 2000,3100 with plurality of lenses e1, e2, …of optical apparatus 3000 with 1000,2000, 3000, see abstract, paragraphs [02, 07-42,72-80, 139-144,154-157], e.g. Figs. 1-2,10,16-20]).
Regarding claim 18, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) a lens apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 17; and a holder configured to hold the optical system (as meta-lens, e.g. 100, 102, 104 is part of optical system 100, 2000,3100 with plurality of lenses e1, e2, …of optical apparatus 3000 with 1000,2000, 3100 which holder that holds the lens, see abstract, paragraphs [02, 07-42,72-80, 139-144,154-157], e.g. Figs. 1-2,10,16-20]).
Regarding claim 19, Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) an image pickup apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 17; and an image sensor configured to receive an image formed by the optical system (as meta-lens, e.g. 100, 102, 104 is part of optical system 100, 2000,3100 with plurality of lenses e1, e2, …of optical photographing apparatus 3000 with 1000,2000, 3100 with image sensor 3500, for taking images of an object OBJ, paragraphs [02, 07-42,72-80, 139-144,154-157], e.g. Figs. 1-2,10,16-20]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on page 10-11 of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Han alone or in combination with cited prior art of Park does not disclose or render obvious the new limitation in claim 1, namely that “wherein the following inequality is satisfied:0.0<H2/t<0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height”, because Han doesn’t disclose such relationship or specific substrate thickness, and Park only discloses substrate thickness with to adjust deflection characteristics of lens surfaces to control aberrations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issues, as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Han teaches most and in combination with the cited prior art of Park teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, as Han teaches (see Figs. 1-20) an optical element (meta-lens, e.g. 100, 102, 104 and optical apparatus 1000,2000, 3000 including the same, see abstract, paragraphs [02, 07-42,72-80, 93-109, 113-119, 134-144,154-157], e.g. Figs. 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-20] comprising:
a substrate (substrate 110, paragraphs [71-72, 81-83]);
a plurality of annulus sections concentrically arranged on the substrate (i.e. as concentric circular ring-shapes in regions 120_1,.. 120-N, 122-1, 122-N, on substate 110, paragraphs [72-80, 93-109, 113-119], Figs. 1-3,10, 16),
wherein at least two of the plurality of annulus sections form a phase distribution in which a phase difference of 2np (n = 1, 2, ... an integer representing a designed diffraction order or a diffraction order) (i.e. as given the phase distribution and 2p target phase change of the shapes is set in any given region with respect to a central wavelength λm, paragraphs [108-113,117]),
wherein a first annulus section, one of the plurality of annulus sections (e.g. any of the shapes in regions 122-1,122-2 or 122-K, Figs. 2, 10, 16), includes a plurality of first structures with a first height, and a plurality of second structures with a second height different from the first height (i.e. as nanostructures NS1, NS2 or NSK with first height H, and nanostructures NS1, NS2 or NSK with second height smaller by e.g. DH and vice-versa, as height variation, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109, 21-23], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16),
wherein at least two of the plurality of first structures have different widths in a radial direction of the optical element (e.g. as NS1, NS2 or NSK with H have different widths in radial direction x (r), as the shape, size such as width and height, arrangement, etc. of the plurality of nanostructures NS parameters may be constant in the same region or may be expressed as a function based on a location of the plurality of nanostructures NS in the meta-lens, paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16), and
wherein at least two the plurality of second structures have mutually different widths in the radial direction of the optical element ( as NS1, NS2 or NSK with smaller H have different widths in radial direction x (r), as the shape, size such as width and height, arrangement, etc. of the plurality of nanostructures NS as parameters may be constant in the same region or may be expressed as a function based on a location of the plurality of nanostructures NS in the meta-lens. paragraphs [113-119, 134-144, 72-80, 93-109], e.g. Figs. 2,10,16).
But Han does not specify a substrate thickness t, and that inequality is satisfied: 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height.
However, Park teaches in the same family of invention (see Figs. 1-13, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-38, 67-78, 84-94,110-115]) and further teaches a substrate thickness t, and that inequality is satisfied: 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height (i.e. as substrate SU thickness can be 100 l0 - 1000l0, while height of the plurality of nanostructures from λ0 and less than 10 λ0, this providing support for the nanostructures and paragraphs [23, 67-78, 84-94,110-115]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and specify the substrate thickness of the substrate of Han according to teachings of Park in order to provide substrate with sufficient thickness that provides support for the nanostructures (see Park, paragraphs [68-69, 88, 110-111]).
As a result of the Han-Park combination, the combination also teaches and renders obvious that 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1, given the applied thickness of the substrate 110 according to thickness of substrate SU, and given the height of nanostructures of lower or higher H, e.g. Han paragraphs [21-22, 101-107]).
Specifically, Han teaches the substrate (substrate 110, paragraphs [71-72, 81-83]), but as noted above, Han does not specify a substrate thickness t, and that then the inequality is satisfied: 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height.
As noted above, Park was used, as Park teaches in the same family of invention (see Figs. 1-13, title, abstract, paragraphs [06-38, 67-78, 84-94,110-115]) and further teaches a substrate thickness t, and that inequality is satisfied: 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1 where t is a thickness of the substrate, and H2 is the second height (i.e. as substrate SU thickness can be 100 l0 - 1000l0, while height of the plurality of nanostructures from λ0 and less than 10 λ0, this providing support for the nanostructures and paragraphs [23, 67-78, 84-94,110-115]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and specify the substrate thickness of the substrate of Han according to teachings of Park in order to provide substrate with sufficient thickness that provides support for the nanostructures (see Park, paragraphs [68-69, 88, 110-111]).
Notably, as a result of the Han-Park combination, the combination also teaches and renders obvious that 0.0 <= H2/t <= 0.1, given the applied thickness of the substrate 110 according to thickness of substrate SU, and given the height of nanostructures of lower or higher H, e.g. Han paragraphs [21-22, 101-107]).
Examiner has provided reason to combine (i.e., given that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and specify the substrate thickness of the substrate of Han according to teachings of Park in order to provide substrate with sufficient thickness that provides support for the nanostructures, see Park, paragraphs [68-69, 88, 110-111]). Applicant has merely alleged that no such reason was provided or no reason exists, and has not provided any evidence or argument directed to how the identified reason in the first action fails to meet the legal requirements of a reason to combine as set forth by KSR. Applicants statement regarding other purposes for the substrate thickness are noted, but were not relied upon in the combination rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that setting the substrate thickness (t) to satisfy the inequality noted above, or explicit teaching of the relationship thickness of the substrate and height H2 of the second nanostructures) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim limitation is understood and treated in term of the structures recited in the claim, where in order for the structure of the optical element to satisfy the inequality i.e. 0.0<=H2/t<=0.1, the prior art need to include example structure(s) where such height and thickness ratio has a value in the recited range. The limitation is not treated such that the expression 0.0<=H2/t<=0.1 is explicitly taught or that the range of the ratio H2/t is fully and explicitly taught.
Therefore the cited prior art of Han alone and in combination with cited prior art of Park discloses and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, including the limitations raised under issue (1) above.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 11 of the Remarks dated 09/02/2026/
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights