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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/01/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No copies were provided of the cited foreign patent documents (with a relevant English translation) or of the cited non-patent literature publications.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/14/2026.
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 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a first width in a first direction along the flat surface and a second width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction along the flat surface in the sectional shape of each of the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies are adjusted on the basis of a first function indicating a phase distribution of the output light on the flat surface, the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies are sequentially arranged in the first direction and the second direction such that a sectional shape providing a phase closest to a remainder of the first function with respect to 2π is satisfied, and the phase and the polarized light characteristics are adjusted such that the output light has a desired deflection angle with respect to the normal direction” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what the further limitation is. Claim 1 already states the sectional shape affects the phase adjustment and that the pillar-shaped bodies are formed to adjust the polarized wave characteristics and output desired polarized light characteristics. While claim 2 does add that the first width and the second width of the sectional shape are specifically adjusted in order to perform this operation, the limitation of “adjusted on the basis of a first function indicating a phase distribution of the output light” only appears to add that a function is used in the process of designing the sectional shape of the pillar-shaped bodies – in order to obtain an optical element which adjusts phase and polarized light characteristic to achieve a desired deflection angle. Further, examiner is unsure what is meant by “a sectional shape providing a phase closest to a remainder of the first function with respect to 2π is satisfied.”
It is additionally unclear what “a first function” is – whether it is an equation used for designing the shape of the pillar-shaped bodies such as a phase distribution, or if it is an operation that is being performed on the light such as polarization. Due to ¶0035-¶0036 of the specification, examiner assumes that a first function is an equation of phase distribution used to design the shape of the pillar-shaped bodies. However, this equation and its variables are not present in the claim, rendering the limitation unclear.
The limitations appear to be directed to a method of designing the product or a method of making the product, which fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Examiner notes 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. There are no ranges or metes and bounds provided for the first width, second width, and sectional shape, or even for the function which is used to determine these values.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes the limitations of claim 2 are inherently met by an optical element having the same structure and function – that is, a plurality of pillar-shaped bodies which adjust phase, polarization, and deflection angle of output light, since it must have been designed in order to do so.
Claims 3-4 are dependent on claim 2 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the first width and the second width in the sectional area of each of the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies are adjusted on the basis of a second function indicating a phase distribution of the output light on the flat surface, and the phase and the lens characteristics are adjusted such that the output light has a focal point at a desired focal distance with respect to the normal direction” raises clarity issues.
The limitation “the sectional area” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes and suggests “the sectional shape”.
This claim is further unclear for similar reasons as claim 2. The claim appears to state that a second function is used to design the sectional shape – the first width and the second width – of the pillar-shaped bodies in order to obtain an optical element which adjusts phase to achieve a desired focal length. It is additionally unclear what “a second function” is – whether it is an equation used for designing the shape of the pillar-shaped bodies such as a phase distribution, or if it is an operation that is being performed on the light such as polarization. Due to ¶0040-¶0042 of the specification, examiner assumes that a second function is an equation of phase distribution used to design the shape of the pillar-shaped bodies. However, this equation and its variables are not present in the claim, rendering the limitation unclear.
The limitations appear to be directed to a method of designing the product or a method of making the product, which fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Examiner notes 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. There are no ranges or metes and bounds provided for the first width, second width, and sectional shape, or even for the function which is used to determine these values.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes the limitations of claim 3 are inherently met by an optical element having the same structure and function – that is, a plurality of pillar-shaped bodies which adjust phase and the focal point of output light, since it must have been designed in order to do so.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the first width and the second width in the sectional area of each of the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies are adjusted on the basis of a third function indicating a phase distribution of the output light on the flat surface, a phase difference is generated between a first phase in the first direction and a second phase in the second direction of the output light, and adjustment is performed such that the output light has a desired polarized wave characteristics in the normal direction” raises clarity issues.
The limitation “the sectional area” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes and suggests “the sectional shape”.
This claim is further unclear for similar reasons as claim 2. The claim appears to state that a third function is used to design the sectional shape – the first width and the second width – of the pillar-shaped bodies in order to obtain an optical element which adjusts phase to achieve a desired polarization. It is additionally unclear what “a third function” is – whether it is an equation used for designing the shape of the pillar-shaped bodies such as a phase distribution, or if it is an operation that is being performed on the light such as polarization. Due to ¶0046-¶0049 of the specification, examiner assumes that a first function is an equation of phase distribution used to design the shape of the pillar-shaped bodies. However, this equation and its variables are not present in the claim, rendering the limitation unclear.
The limitations appear to be directed to a method of designing the product or a method of making the product, which fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Examiner notes 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. There are no ranges or metes and bounds provided for the first width, second width, and sectional shape, or even for the function which is used to determine these values.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes the limitations of claim 2 are inherently met by an optical element having the same structure and function – that is, a plurality of pillar-shaped bodies which adjust phase and the polarization of output light, since it must have been designed in order to do so.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Deli Chen, et al. "Design of dielectric deflecting metasurface and metalens in the visible-light range," Optical Engineering 60(3), 035104 (8 Mar 2021), https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.60.3.035104), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen discloses an optical element (Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’) comprising a plurality of pillar-shaped bodies (TiO2 elliptic cylinder; Fig. 1; first paragraph of Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’) that are formed of a material with a predetermined dielectric constant (Table 1; last paragraph of Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’) on a flat surface of a transparent substrate (SiO2/glass substrate; Fig. 1; first paragraph of Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’) through which light is transmitted and that are arranged in a matrix shape (implicit from Fig. 1 and Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’, which discusses a lattice period U and shows the lattice period in two dimensions),
wherein each pillar-shaped body is formed to perform phase adjustment on output light which is output by transmission of input light (Fig. 2; Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’), on the basis of the dielectric constant (first paragraph of Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’), a sectional shape in a direction parallel to the flat surface (Fig. 1), and a length in a normal direction with respect to the flat surface (Fig. 1), to adjust deflection characteristics with respect to the normal direction (“the red nanostructures converge the incident light at the right focus, and the blue nanostructures converge the incident light at the left focus” Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’; Fig. 7 – particularly Figs. 7(a) and 7(b)), lens characteristics with respect to the normal direction (“the alternately arranged nanostructures can focus the incident LCP light at any two focal points” Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’), and polarized wave characteristics with respect to the normal direction (“the incident LCP light is converted into transmitted RCP light” Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’), and to output the output light having desired polarized light characteristics (“the incident LCP light is converted into transmitted RCP light” Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’, also see last paragraph of Section 1 ‘Introduction’).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the optical element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Chen further discloses a first width in a first direction along the flat surface (Ra; Fig. 1) and a second width in a second direction (Rb; Fig. 1) perpendicular to the first direction (Ra) along the flat surface in the sectional shape of each of the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies (TiO2 elliptic cylinder) are adjusted on the basis of a first function indicating a phase distribution of the output light on the flat surface (Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’ discusses the shape of the pillars related to the phase, further it is implicit that the ‘Bifocal Metalenses’ of Section 3.4 rely on the design considerations of the previous sections, such as: Section 3.1 ‘Deflecting Metasurface with Gradient Phase’, Eq. (2), Fig. 3), the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies (TiO2 elliptic cylinder) are sequentially arranged in the first direction and the second direction (implicit from Figs. 1, 3 and Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’, which discusses a lattice period U and shows the lattice period in two dimensions) such that a sectional shape providing a phase closest to a remainder of the first function with respect to 2π is satisfied (inherent, see 112(b) rejection above), and the phase and the polarized light characteristics are adjusted such that the output light has a desired deflection angle with respect to the normal direction (“the red nanostructures converge the incident light at the right focus, and the blue nanostructures converge the incident light at the left focus” Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’; Fig. 7 – particularly Figs. 7(a) and 7(b)).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the optical element according to claim 2, as set forth above. Chen further discloses the first width (Ra) and the second width (Rb) in the sectional area of each of the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies (TiO2 elliptic cylinder) are adjusted on the basis of a second function indicating a phase distribution of the output light on the flat surface (inherent, see 122(b) rejection above; additionally Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’ discusses the shape of the pillars related to the phase, further it is stated that the ‘Bifocal Metalenses’ of Section 3.4 rely on the design considerations of Section 3.3 ‘Metalens with Focusing Characteristics’, Eq. (3)), and the phase and the lens characteristics are adjusted such that the output light has a focal point at a desired focal distance with respect to the normal direction (Section 3.3 ‘Metalens with Focusing Characteristics’, Section 3.4 ‘Bifocal Metalenses’).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the optical element according to claim 3, as set forth above. Chen further discloses the first width (Ra) and the second width (Rb) in the sectional area of each of the plurality of pillar-shaped bodies (TiO2 elliptic cylinder) are adjusted on the basis of a third function indicating a phase distribution of the output light on the flat surface (Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’ discusses the shape of the pillars related to the phase and polarization), a phase difference is generated between a first phase in the first direction and a second phase in the second direction of the output light (necessarily follows from the optical element effecting polarization of the output light), and adjustment is performed such that the output light has a desired polarized wave characteristics in the normal direction (inherent, see 112(b) rejection above, additionally see second paragraph of Section 2 ‘Theoretical Design of the Unit Cell’).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guo et al. (CN 108508506 A) discloses a similar optical element with a plurality of pillar-shaped bodies wherein the first and second widths are designed to adjust phase to have at least two of.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 27th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights