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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 11/11/2024 and 7/8/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (2021/0118932), hereinafter Cho in view of Ni et al. (2021/0382371), hereinafter Ni in further view of Chen et al. (2020/0103640), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a Huygens metalens (paragraph 0046 discloses a meta-lens which is equivalent; figures 1-3) comprising: a substrate (110, substrate) having a first pixel (122, thin lens element) and a second pixel (121, thin lens element) thereon (paragraphs 0044 and 0046]; figure 1); the first pixel (122, thin lens element) including a first periodic array of first antennae (132, first scatterer) each having a first width, a first height, the first periodic array having a first period (interval T) (figures 1 and 3; paragraphs 0059-0061); the second pixel (121, thin lens element) including a second periodic array of second antennae (131, scatterers) each having a second width and a second height, the second periodic array having a second period, at least one of (i) the first and the second widths are unequal, (ii) the first and the second heights are unequal, and (iii) the first and the second periods are unequal (figures 1 and 3; paragraphs 0059-0061).
Cho does not disclose that the first pixel includes a first electric-dipole resonance, and a first magnetic-dipole resonance; the second pixel includes a second electric-dipole resonance, and a second magnetic-dipole resonance; a center wavelength of the first electric-dipole resonance differing from a design wavelength of the metalens, at which the metalens operates, by less than four times a linewidth of the first electric-dipole resonance; a center wavelength of the first magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the first magnetic-dipole resonance; a center wavelength of the second electric-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the second electric-dipole resonance; and a center wavelength of the second magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the second magnetic-dipole resonance.
Cho and Ni are related as meta lens.
Ni discloses a metalens (112, metalens) (figure 3; paragraph 0090) comprising a first pixel that includes a first electric-dipole resonance (around 1550 nm), and a first magnetic-dipole resonance (around 1550 nm) (figure 1B; paragraphs 0144-0145); a second pixel includes a second electric-dipole resonance (around 1550 nm), and a second magnetic-dipole resonance (around 1550 nm) (figure 1B; paragraphs 0144-0145) (Examiner notes that Ni discloses a plurality of nanoantennas 108 that include the electric dipole resonance and magnetic dipole resonance; and such the first and second pixels include the nanoantennas 108); a center wavelength of the second electric-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength of the second electric-dipole resonance (a center wavelength of an electric-dipole having a resonance around 1550 nm and a design wavelength of a metalens being 1550 nm of the metalens, at which the metalens operates; paragraphs 0109, 0112, and 0145); and a center wavelength of the second magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength of the second magnetic-dipole resonance (a center wavelength of an electric-dipole having a resonance around 1550 nm and a design wavelength of a metalens being 1550 nm of the metalens, at which the metalens operates; paragraphs 0109, 0112, and 0145).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho with the teachings of Ni for the purpose of it would enable integration of a chip (paragraphs 0004-0005).
Cho and Chen are related as meta lens.
Chen discloses a metalens (paragraph 0004) comprising a center wavelength differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth (240 nm) (paragraph 0011 discloses a large linewidth of 240 nm; the Full Width Half Maximum is a measure of linewidth).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho with the teachings of Chen for the purpose of reducing aberrations (see HARVARD paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho further discloses that in response to a wave incident thereon at the design wavelength, the first pixel and the second pixel impose a respective first phase delay and a second phase delay on the wave, the second phase delay differing from the first phase delay (paragraphs 0046-0047).
Cho does not disclose that the wave is a plane wave.
Ni discloses that the wave is a plane wave (paragraph 0114).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho with the teachings of Ni for the purpose of enabling integration of a chip (paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses a third pixel (123, thin lens element) adjacent to the first pixel (122, thin lens element) and on a side of the first pixel opposite the second pixel (121, thin lens element) such that the first pixel is between the second pixel and the third pixel (figures 1 and 3; paragraphs 0059-0061); the third pixel including a third periodic array of third antennae (133, scatterer) each having a third width and a third height, a third electric-dipole resonance, and a third magnetic dipole resonance, the third periodic array having a third period, at least one of (i) the first and the third widths are unequal, (ii) the first and the third heights are unequal, and (iii) the first and the third periods are unequal (figures 1 and 3; paragraphs 0059-0061).
Cho does not disclose a center wavelength of the third electric -dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the third electric-dipole resonance; and a center wavelength of the third magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the third magnetic-dipole resonance.
Ni does disclose a center wavelength of the third electric -dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength of the third electric-dipole resonance; and a center wavelength of the third magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength of the third magnetic-dipole resonance (paragraphs 0109, 0112, and 0145 disclose a center wavelength of an electric-dipole having a resonance around 1550 nm and a design wavelength of a metalens being 1550 nm of the metalens, at which the metalens operates)
Chen discloses a center wavelength by less than four times a linewidth (paragraph 0011 discloses a large linewidth (240 nm); (the Full Width Half Maximum is a measure of linewidth)).
Regarding claim 11, Cho discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho does not specifically disclose the first period being at least 40 nm greater than the first width and, the second period being at least 40 nm greater than the second width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first period being at least 40 nm greater than the first width and, the second period being at least 40 nm greater than the second width, based on routine experimentation for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 12, Cho discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho does not specifically disclose a ratio of first height to the first width being less than two, and a ratio of second height to the second width being less than two.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that a ratio of first height to the first width being less than two, and a ratio of second height to the second width being less than two, based on routine experimentation for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Cho discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho does not specifically disclose the first pixel and the second pixel being separated by an interpixel distance that is greater than or equal to the design wavelength.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first pixel and the second pixel being separated by an interpixel distance that is greater than or equal to the design wavelength, based on routine experimentation for when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art it is not inventive to discover an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Cho discloses the first pixel and the second pixel being on a front surface of the substrate, the first periodic array and the second periodic array including at least eight periods in each of a first direction parallel to the front surface and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction parallel to the front surface (figure 6, paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 15, Cho discloses that the first height and the second height being along an axial direction of the metalens, each of the first pixel and second pixel having m-fold rotational symmetry about an axis perpendicular the axial direction, where m is an integer greater than or equal to two (figures 3 and 6).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (2021/0118932), hereinafter Cho in view of Ni et al. (2021/0382371), hereinafter Ni in further view of Chen et al. (2020/0103640), hereinafter Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yen (2022/0086319).
Regarding claim 4, Cho in view of Ni and Chen disclose all the limitations in common with claim 3, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho in view of Ni and Chen do not disclose that the third pixel being identical to the second pixel, such that: (i) the third width, the third height, and the third period equal the second width, the second height, and the second period, respectively, and (ii) the third electric-dipole resonance and the third magnetic-dipole resonance equal the second electric-dipole resonance and the second magnetic-dipole resonance, respectively.
Yen discloses a metalens (paragraph 0020), wherein the third pixel being identical to the second pixel, such that: (i) the third width, the third height, and the third period equal the second width, the second height, and the second period, respectively, and (ii) the third electric-dipole resonance and the third magnetic-dipole resonance equal the second electric-dipole resonance and the second magnetic-dipole resonance, respectively (paragraph 0025).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho in view of Ni and Chen with the teachings of Yen for the purpose of enabling the inclusion of infrared (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Cho further discloses in response to a plane wave incident thereon at the design wavelength, the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel impose a respective first phase delay, a second phase delay, and a third phase delay on the plane wave, the third phase delay equaling the second delay and differing from the first phase delay (paragraphs 0046-0047).
Cho fails to disclose the wave is a plane wave.
Ni further discloses that the wave is a plane wave (paragraph 0114).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho with the teachings of Ni for the purpose of enabling integration of a chip (paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses the first phase delay exceeding each of the second phase delay and the third phase delay (paragraph 0047 discloses optimizing the phase delay for each wavelength).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses the first phase delay being less than each of the second phase delay and the third phase delay (paragraph 0047 discloses optimizing the phase delay for each wavelength).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (2021/0118932), hereinafter Cho in view of Ni et al. (2021/0382371), hereinafter Ni in further view of Chen et al. (2020/0103640), hereinafter Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lenef et al. (2022/0109287), hereinafter Lenef.
Regarding claim 9, Cho in view of Ni and Chen disclose all the limitations in common with claim 3, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho in view of Ni and Chen are related as metalens.
Cho in view of Ni and Chen do not disclose the first height being between 0.4λ0/n1 and 0.9 λ0/n1, the second height being between 0.4λ0/n2 and 0.9λ0/n2, and where λ0, n1, and n2 are, respectively, the design wavelength, the refractive index of the first antenna at the design wavelength, the refractive index of the second antenna at the design wavelength.
Lenef discloses disclose the first height being between 0.4λ0/n1 and 0.9 λ0/n1, the second height being between 0.4λ0/n2 and 0.9λ0/n2, and where λ0, n1, and n2 are, respectively, the design wavelength, the refractive index of the first antenna at the design wavelength, the refractive index of the second antenna at the design wavelength (paragraph 0047 discloses optimizing the height and the width based on the index of refraction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho in view of Ni and Chen with the first and second height of Lenef for the purpose of enhancing transmission (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 10, Cho in view of Ni and Chen do not disclose that the first width being between 0.3λ0/n1 and 1.5λ0/n1, the second width being between 0.3λ0/n2 and 1.5λ0/n2, and where λ0, n1, and n2 are, respectively, the design wavelength, the refractive index of the first antenna at the design wavelength, the refractive index of the second antenna at the design wavelength.
Lenef discloses that the first width being between 0.3λ0/n1 and 1.5λ0/n1, the second width being between 0.3λ0/n2 and 1.5λ0/n2, and where λ0, n1, and n2 are, respectively, the design wavelength, the refractive index of the first antenna at the design wavelength, the refractive index of the second antenna at the design wavelength (paragraph 0047 discloses optimizing the height and the width (diameter) based on the index of refraction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho in view of Ni and Chen with the first and second width of Lenef for the purpose of enhancing transmission (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 16, Cho in view of Ni and Chen do not disclose an encapsulating layer on the substrate and encapsulating each of the first pixel and the second pixel.
Lenef discloses an encapsulating layer on the substrate and encapsulating each of the first pixel and the second pixel (paragraph 0007).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (2021/0118932), hereinafter Cho in view of Ni et al. (2021/0382371), hereinafter Ni in further view of Chen et al. (2020/0103640), hereinafter Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kress et al. (2021/0405255), hereinafter Kress.
Regarding claim 20, Cho in view of Ni and Chen disclose all the limitations in common with claim 3, and such is hereby incorporated.
Cho in view of Ni and Chen and Kress are related as metalens.
Cho discloses a first metalens, its design wavelength λ0 equaling a first wavelength; and a second metalens of claim 1, its design wavelength λ0 equaling a second wavelength that differs from the first wavelength (paragraph 0048).
Cho does not disclose the second metalens stacked on the first metalens.
Kress discloses the second metalens stacked on the first metalens (paragraph 0076).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metalens of Cho with the teachings of Kress for the purpose of providing enhanced functionality (paragraph 0076).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 and 17-19 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in conjunction with all the other claimed limitation, an optical switch that switches an optical path of signal light from one to another having all the claimed features of applicant's instant invention, specifically including: in claim 8, the fourth pixel including a fourth periodic array of fourth antennae each having a fourth width and a fourth height, a fourth electric-dipole resonance, and a fourth magnetic-dipole resonance, the fourth periodic array having a fourth period, at least one of (i) the second and the fourth widths are unequal, (ii) the second and the fourth heights are unequal, and (iii) the second and the fourth periods are unequal; the fifth pixel including a fifth periodic array of fifth antennae each having a fifth width and a fifth height, a fifth electric-dipole resonance, and a fifth magnetic-dipole resonance, the fifth periodic array having a fifth period, at least one of (i) the third and the fifth widths are unequal, (ii) the third and the fifth heights are unequal, and (iii) the third and the fifth periods are unequal; and a center wavelength of the fourth electric-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the fourth electric-dipole resonance; a center wavelength of the fifth magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the fifth magnetic-dipole resonance; a center wavelength of the fifth electric-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the fifth electric-dipole resonance; a center wavelength of the fifth magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the fifth magnetic-dipole resonance; in claim 17, each of the first and the second antennae being formed of a phase-change material having a crystalline refractive index and an amorphous refractive index, the first electric and the first magnetic-dipole resonance being respective electric and magnetic-dipole resonances of the first antenna in its amorphous phase, the second electric and the second magnetic-dipole resonance being respective electric and magnetic-dipole resonances of the second antenna in its amorphous phase, each first antenna having, in its crystalline phase, a first-crystalline electric- dipole resonance and a first-crystalline magnetic-dipole resonance that differ from the first electric-dipole resonance and the first magnetic- dipole resonance, respectively; and each second antenna having, in its crystalline phase, a second-crystalline electric-dipole resonance and a second-crystalline magnetic-dipole resonance that differ from the second electric-dipole resonance and the second magnetic-dipole resonance, respectively, as set forth in the claims.
Sun, Shang (WO2022088152) discloses a reflective display device including dielectric material array that supports electric dipole resonance and magnetic dipole resonance modes in the visible light band and forms a reflection with a limited bandwidth at a specific spectral wavelength position. However, Sun is silent in regards to independent a second electric dipole resonance and a second magnetic dipole resonance. Sun is also silent in regards to a center wavelength of the fifth magnetic-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the fifth magnetic-dipole resonance and a center wavelength of the fifth electric-dipole resonance differing from the design wavelength by less than four times a linewidth of the fifth electric-dipole resonance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights