CTNF 18/839,391 CTNF 84367 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 4, 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4, 11 and 18 , last line – “a Fourier plan” is presumed to be intended as “a Fourier plane” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (“Two-dimensional optical spatial differentiation and high-contrast imaging”, 2021), of record in IDS . Regarding claim 1 , Zhou discloses a computer-implemented method (Abstract) comprising: receiving optical system characteristics of an optical system, the optical system characteristics comprising an optical path (Figs. 3e, 5a), the optical system comprising a light source (Laser) and an imaging system (CCD); receiving optical parameters of at least one metasurface (Fig. 2; pp. 2-3); selecting a location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system to modulate an incident wavefront generated by the light source (Fig. 3; pp. 3-4); and processing, based on the optical parameters of the at least one metasurface and based on the location of the metasurface within the optical path, an image acquired by the imaging system to determine one or more image properties (Figs. 1, 3; pp. 2-5). Regarding the preamble of claim 1 , when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of a computer-implemented method is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding claim 8 , Zhou discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising programming code, which when executed by at least one data processor, causes operations (Abstract) comprising: receiving optical system characteristics of an optical system, the optical system characteristics comprising an optical path (Figs. 3e, 5a), the optical system comprising a light source (Laser) and an imaging system (CCD); receiving optical parameters of at least one metasurface (Fig. 2; pp. 2-3); selecting a location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system to modulate an incident wavefront generated by the light source (Fig. 3; pp. 3-4); and processing, based on the optical parameters of the at least one metasurface and based on the location of the metasurface within the optical path, an image acquired by the imaging system to determine one or more image properties (Figs. 1, 3; pp. 2-5). Regarding the preamble of claim 8 , when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising programming code is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding claims 4 and 11 , Zhou discloses wherein selecting the location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system comprises: positioning the metasurface approximately near a Fourier plan of the optical system (Figs. 3e, 5a; pp. 2-3). Regarding claims 5 and 12 , Zhou discloses wherein selecting the location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system comprises: adjusting the location of the metasurface relative to the optical path or adjusting a position of the imaging system (pp. 2-3). Regarding claims 6 and 13 , Zhou discloses wherein the imaging system comprises a polarized camera, a microscope, or a mobile device (Abstract). Regarding claims 7 and 14 , Zhou discloses wherein the image comprises a differential interference contrast image or a quantitative phase gradient image (pp. 3, 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Two-dimensional optical spatial differentiation and high-contrast imaging”, 2021), in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0318467), hereinafter “Zhou ‘467” . Regarding claim 15 , Zhou discloses a system (Abstract) comprising: at least one data processor (Abstract), which when executed, cause operations comprising: receiving optical system characteristics of an optical system, the optical system characteristics comprising an optical path (Figs. 3e, 5a), the optical system comprising a light source (Laser) and an imaging system (CCD); receiving optical parameters of at least one metasurface (Fig. 2; pp. 2-3); selecting a location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system to modulate an incident wavefront generated by the light source (Fig. 3; pp. 3-4); and processing, based on the optical parameters of the at least one metasurface and based on the location of the metasurface within the optical path, an image acquired by the imaging system to determine one or more image properties (Figs. 1, 3; pp. 2-5). Regarding the product-by-process limitations of the recited operations of claim 15 , it has been recognized that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113. Zhou fails to explicitly disclose at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one data processor, cause the operations. However, Zhou ‘467 discloses a system (Figs. 1-12) comprising at least one memory storing instructions (paras. [0004, 0054]), which when executed by the at least one data processor (paras. [0004, 0053-0054]), cause the operations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one memory storing instructions, which when executed by the at least one data processor, cause the operations, as in Zhou ‘467, into the system of Zhou to readily perform the operations by digital machine. Regarding claim 16 , Zhou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of metasurfaces. However, Zhou ‘467 discloses a system (Figs. 1-12), wherein the metasurface (MS) comprises a plurality of metasurfaces (806, Fig. 8; 910, Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of metasurfaces, as in Zhou ‘467, into the system of Zhou to form a laterally-differentiated image as desired (Zhou ‘467, paras. [0046-0048]). Regarding claim 17 , Zhou discloses wherein each of the plurality of metasurfaces comprises a multi-level metasurface attached to an optically transmissive substrate (Fig. 1; p. 2). Regarding claim 18 , Zhou discloses wherein selecting the location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system comprises: positioning the metasurface approximately near a Fourier plan of the optical system (Figs. 3e, 5a; pp. 2-3). Regarding claim 19 , Zhou discloses wherein selecting the location of the metasurface within the optical path of the optical system comprises: adjusting the location of the metasurface relative to the optical path or adjusting a position of the imaging system (pp. 2-3). Regarding claim 20 , Zhou discloses wherein the imaging system comprises a polarized camera, a microscope, or a mobile device (Abstract) and wherein the image comprises a differential interference contrast image or a quantitative phase gradient image (pp. 3, 6) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Two-dimensional optical spatial differentiation and high-contrast imaging”, 2021) , as applied to claim s 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0318467), hereinafter “Zhou ‘467” . Regarding claims 2 and 9 , Zhou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of metasurfaces. However, Zhou ‘467 discloses a computer-implemented method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising programming code (Figs. 1-12), wherein the metasurface (MS) comprises a plurality of metasurfaces (806, Fig. 8; 910, Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the metasurface comprises a plurality of metasurfaces, as in Zhou ‘467, into the method and medium of Zhou to form a laterally-differentiated image as desired (Zhou ‘467, paras. [0046-0048]). Regarding claims 3 and 10 , Zhou discloses wherein each of the plurality of metasurfaces comprises a multi-level metasurface attached to an optically transmissive substrate (Fig. 1; p. 2). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET. 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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 2 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 4 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 5 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 6 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 7 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 8 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/839,391 Page 9 Art Unit: 2871
Prosecution Insights