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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 41–51, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlevaninezhad et al., "Metasurface-based bijective illumination collection imaging provides high-resolution tomography in three dimensions," Nature Photonics, Published 14 February 2022, Vol. 16, Issue 3, pages 203–211 (last accessed at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-022-00956-6 on June 12, 2026, where the publication date of 14 February 2022 was listed, having different, though partially overlapping, authorship than the inventorship of the pending application).
Regarding Claim 41, Pahlevaninezhad discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) a lens (e.g., Fig. 1) comprising: an optical center and an optical axis passing through the optical center (e.g., z-axis, Fig. 1); and one or more lens portions (corresponding to illumination and collection beams, Fig. 1e); wherein the one or more lens portions comprise at least a first lens portion for refracting light rays state impinging at right angle thereto from a first side towards the optical axis on a second side at a constant bending angle thereby defining a focal line on the second side along the optical axis (corresponding to the illumination beam, Figs. 1a–c; “Design and comparison” section on page 206, constant angle β of 21°, focal line illustrated in the images).
Pahlevaninezhad does not explicitly disclose that the light rays that are refracted are of a predefined polarization. However, Pahlevaninezhad appears silent regarding polarization, reasonably suggesting that all light, regardless of polarization, would be subject to the refraction described in the document, meaning that light having a “predefined polarization” would also be refracted, satisfying the claim limitations. The Examiner notes that no distinction is made between the behavior of light rays having a “predefined polarization” and any other light rays. Further, in view of the nearly identical structure taught by Pahlevaninezhad, it would be likely, and reasonable to assume absent evidence to the contrary, that the same structure of Pahlevaninezhad, including the nanopillar metastructures, would achieve the claimed refraction of light rays of “predefined polarization”.
Regarding Claim 42, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein the at least first lens portion is positioned at a distance away from the optical center (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 43, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein the at least first lens portion comprises the first lens portion and a second lens portion; wherein centers of the first and second lens portions are on diagonally opposite sides of the optical center; and wherein the first and second lens portions are configured for passing therethrough the light rays of orthogonal polarization states (Fig. 1e, diagonally opposite illumination beams).
Regarding Claim 44, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein the one or more lens portions further comprise: at least a third lens portion for refracting light rays impinging at the constant bending angle thereto from the focal line on the second side to the first side at a direction parallel to the optical axis (Fig. 1, collection beam portions; page 206:
In BICI, the illumination and collection paths are separated using two metasurfaces (arrays of nanoscale, subwavelength-spaced optical elements) positioned on two adjacent quadrants of a fictitious circle perpendicular to and centred at the imaging optical axis. Figure 1a,b depicts the schematics of an illumination beam impinging at a right angle on one of the metasurfaces from a collimated source. Provided that the illumination metasurface bends the ray incident on the point (r, θ), r is radius and θ is polar angle (Fig. 1a), by a constant angle β in the r–z plane, all the rays incident on the arc of radius r will cross a single point (the focal point) on the z axis (Fig. 1b). As a result, ray families originating from arcs of constant radii on the metasurface will form a continuous focal line along the z axis (Fig. 1c). The collection metasurface (with a flipped profile of the illumination metasurface with respect to the x axis) forms ray sheets, mirror images of those in the illumination paths with respect to the x–z plane (Fig. 1d,e), which are the trajectories of the collected light. A snapshot of the illumination and collection beams in one of the lateral planes intersecting the focal line is illustrated in Fig. 1f.
).
Regarding Claim 45, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein the at least a third lens portion comprises the third lens portion and a fourth lens portion (two collection beams, Fig. 1e); wherein centers of the third and fourth lens portions are on diagonally opposite sides of the optical center (Fig. 1e); and wherein the third and fourth lens portions are configured for passing therethrough the light rays of orthogonal polarization states (Fig. 1e).
Regarding Claim 46, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein, for a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate system defined on the lens with the origin thereof at the optical center, each of the one or more lens portions is positioned in a respective quadrant of the 2D coordinate system (Fig. 1e).
Regarding Claim 47, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein centers of each circumferentially neighboring pair of the one or more lens portions are at right angle with respect to the optical center (Fig. 1e).
Regarding Claim 48, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein the bending angle is 21° (page 206, “Design and comparison” section, constant angle β of 21°).
Regarding Claim 49, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein each of the one or more lens portions comprises a metasurface coupled to a substrate (Fig. 1b and its description of metasurface).
Regarding Claim 50, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious wherein each metasurface comprises a plurality of nano-pillars in a pattern of arcs, said arcs being portions of a plurality of concentric circles centered at the optical center (Fig. 3c; “Implementation and validation” section page 207).
Regarding Claim 51, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious an axicon with the vertex thereof being the optical center; wherein the one or more lens portions are defined on the axicon (page 207, “can also be realized using an axicon”).
Regarding Claim 53, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious a method of fabricating the lens of claim 41, the method comprising: depositing an amorphous silicon (a-Si) layer is on the substrate using a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition; coating a layer of negative tone photoresist on the a-Si layer; using electron beam lithography (EBL) to create an etching pattern on the layer of negative tone photoresist; and using deep reactive ion etching to generate a-Si nano-pillars for forming the metasurfaces of the one or more lens portions (see “Methods” section on the last page under title “ARTICLES” describing this method of fabrication).
Regarding Claim 54, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious a method of using the lens of claim 45, the method comprising at least one of: aiming a first light beam to the first lens portion; and collecting a third light beam and a fourth light beam from the third lens portion and the fourth lens portion, respectively; wherein the first light beam has a cross-sectional size matching a size of the first lens portion (e.g., Fig. 1 and its description).
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 (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 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)(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.
Claims 55–60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pahlevaninezhad.
Regarding Claim 55, Pahlevaninezhad discloses (where the whole document appears relevant) a lens (e.g., Fig. 1) comprising: an optical center and an optical axis passing through the optical center (e.g., z-axis, Fig. 1); and a plurality of lens portions comprising a first lens portion and a second lens portion on diagonally opposite first and second quadrants of a plane perpendicular to the optical axis for refracting light rays from a first side to a second side (corresponding to illumination beams, Fig. 1), and a third lens portion on a third quadrant of the plane for refracting light rays from the second side to the first side (corresponding to one of the collection beams, Fig. 1); wherein the first and second lens portions are configured for refracting light rays impinging at right angle thereto from the first side towards the optical axis on the second side at a constant bending angle thereby defining a focal line on the second side along the optical axis (corresponding to the illumination beam, Figs. 1a–c; “Design and comparison” section on page 206, constant angle β of 21°, focal line illustrated in the images), and the third lens portion is configured for refracting light rays impinging from the focal line on the second side at the constant bending angle thereto to the first side parallel to the optical axis (Fig. 1, collection beam portions, page 206); or1 wherein the third lens portion is configured for refracting light rays impinging at right angle thereto from the second side towards the optical axis on the first side at the constant bending angle thereby defining the focal line on the first side along the optical axis, and the first and second lens portions are configured for refracting light rays impinging from the focal line on the first side at the constant bending angle thereto to the second side parallel to the optical axis.
Regarding Claim 56, Pahlevaninezhad discloses wherein the plurality of lens portions are away from the optical center (e.g., Fig. 1d).
Regarding Claim 57, Pahlevaninezhad discloses wherein the plurality of lens portions further comprises: a fourth lens portion on a fourth quadrant of the plane for refracting light rays impinging from the focal line on the second side at the constant bending angle thereto to the first side parallel to the optical axis (Fig. 1e and its description, additional collection beam); or for refracting light rays impinging at right angle thereto from the second side towards the optical axis on the first side at the constant bending angle thereby towards the focal line on the first side.
Regarding Claim 58, Pahlevaninezhad discloses wherein the bending angle is 21° (page 206, “Design and comparison” section, constant angle β of 21°).
Regarding Claim 59, Pahlevaninezhad discloses wherein each of the one or more lens portions comprises a metasurface coupled to a substrate (Fig. 1b and its description of metasurface).
Regarding Claim 60, Pahlevaninezhad discloses wherein the lens comprises an axicon with the vertex thereof being the optical center; and wherein the one or more lens portions are defined on the axicon (page 207, “can also be realized using an axicon”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 52 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 52, Pahlevaninezhad would have rendered obvious an imaging apparatus (e.g., Fig. 3a) comprising: a beam conditioning module for receiving first and second light rays and outputting the first and second light rays to the lens of claim 41 (e.g., Fig. 3a, when applied to the structure shown in Fig. 1 having two illumination beams).
However, Pahlevaninezhad does not appear to teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the other cited art, a polarizing beam splitter for splitting a light ray into a first polarized light ray and a second polarized light ray of orthogonal polarization states; and an adjustment module for introducing time delay to and/or for adjusting frequency of at least one of the first and second polarized light rays before the first and second polarized light rays are input into the beam conditioning module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
1 Note that what follows the “or” is not required, as the limitations prior to “or” are met; however, the “or” appears to recite a reversed configuration, e.g., swapping the location of the illumination and collection beams in Fig. 1 of Pahlevaninezhad.
Prosecution Insights