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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract states the word “disclosed” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. The claim limitation states there are sampling points depending on pattern complexity. It is unclear on what determines the complexity and how to define the sampling points in the region. It is also unclear on how “more refined light spots” are defined (intensity, size, shape, etc.). In addition, the limitation of “increasing the number of sampling points results in a thinner processing line width, which facilitates the optimization and minimization of stray spots” is also unclear. No guidance or definition is provided as to what determines the processing line width and what is defined as an optimal and minimal number of stray spots. Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purposes, the limitations of “wherein the patterned region of the diffractive optical element is configured with 100 to 1000 sampling points, depending on the patterning complexity, a higher number of sampling points leads to more refined light spots, and in the case where the dimension of the patterned region is fixed, increasing the number of sampling points results in a thinner processing line width, which facilitates the optimization and minimization of stray spots” will not be considered.
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, 3-6, and 8 -10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al., (Shi hereafter) (US 2023/0101633 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Shi discloses a diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A), wherein the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) is arrangeable at a camera head (removing optical elements from display optics, ¶[0065]) of a camera (display optics, ¶[0065]) for assisting the camera (display optics, ¶[0065]) in imaging (¶[0156]); the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) is configured by inverse design (¶[0159]); the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) is inversely designed (¶[0159]) to minimize stray spots (spectral dispersion, ¶[0158]) during image capture and to enhance its light transmission capability (¶[0156]); the inverse design (¶[0159]) is applied to reduce an etching depth of a patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A), thereby lowering primary and secondary diffraction efficiency (¶[0156]), increasing light transmission capacity (¶[0156]), and minimizing stray spots (spectral dispersion, ¶[0158]) in captured images; and the inverse design (¶[0159]) is further applied to narrow the patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A), thereby lowering diffraction efficiency (¶[0156]) and increasing light intake (¶[0156]) through a light transmissive region (area where light transmits in 1610, Figure 16A), which enables a camera aperture (aperture, ¶[0068]) to obtain more light (it is well known in the art increased light intake for lower aperture(s)), enhancing background light intake (¶[0156]), shutter response speed, and overall quality in imaged background (one or more imaging parameters (e.g., focal length, focus, frame rate, sensor temperature, shutter speed, aperture, etc.), ¶[0068]).
With respect to Claim 3, Shi further discloses wherein the patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) has a dimension less than or equal to a spacing dimension between (Examiner takes various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes to have varying dimensions and may be less than or equal, ¶[0155]) adjacent patterned regions (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A).
With respect to Claim 4, Shi further discloses wherein the inverse design (multi-order grating design. ¶[0159]) is further applied to enlarge the light transmissive region (area where light transmits in 1610, Figure 16A) in the diffractive optical element (grating 1610, Figure 16A) in order to enable the camera aperture (aperture, ¶[0068]) to obtain more light (adjust one or more imaging parameters (aperture), ¶[0068]).
With respect to Claim 5, Shi further discloses wherein the light transmissive region (area where light transmits in 1610, Figure 16A) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) has a dimension greater than or equal to (Examiner takes various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes to have varying dimensions and may be greater than or equal, ¶[0155]) the dimension of the patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]).
With respect to Claim 6, Shi further discloses, as best understood, wherein the patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) of the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A).
Moreover, the further limitations of claim “wherein the patterned region of the diffractive optical element is configured with 100 to 1000 sampling points, depending on the patterning complexity, a higher number of sampling points leads to more refined light spots, and in the case where the dimension of the patterned region is fixed, increasing the number of sampling points results in a thinner processing line width, which facilitates the optimization and minimization of stray spots" do not result in a structural difference to the optical element and is therefore not germane to patentability.
With respect to Claim 8, Shi further discloses wherein a pattern is required in the patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) of the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A).
Moreover, the further limitations of claim “wherein if a symmetrical pattern is required in the patterned region of the diffractive optical element, the pattern is prepared in 2 orders by a single etching; or If an asymmetrical pattern is required in the patterned region of the diffractive optical element, the pattern is prepared in 4 orders by double etching” are directed to method steps of making the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition technique (PECVD) and bi-layer lift-off. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'[E]ven 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.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
With respect to Claim 9, Shi further discloses wherein as the camera aperture (aperture, ¶[0068]) varies from larger to smaller, a corresponding amount of light intake changes from more to less; as the dimension of the patterned region (meta-elements, nanopillars, nanorods, etched holes of various sizes and (regular or irregular) shapes, or any combination thereof, ¶[0155]) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) varies from smaller to larger, corresponding occlusion of the aperture increases from less to more, leading to a reduction in the amount of light intake from more to less; an increased amount of light intake shortens shutter time, achieving the same exposure in a shorter duration, thereby preventing image blurring when photographing fast-moving objects; the dimension of the light transmissive region (area where light transmits in 1610, Figure 16A) in the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) is enlarged in a dark environment, allowing for an increased amount of light intake to achieve the same exposure duration with lower sensitivity, resulting in cleaner, high signal-to-noise ratio images (¶[0068]).
With respect to Claim 10, Shi further discloses a camera (¶[0065]), comprising a diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) according to claim 1, wherein the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A) is detachably attached to a camera head (removing optical elements from display optics, ¶[0065]) of a camera (¶[0065]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2023/0101633 A1) in further view of Zhou et al., (Zhou hereafter) (Zhou, P., & Burge, J. H. (2007). Optimal design of computer-generated holograms to minimize sensitivity to fabrication errors. Optics Express, 15(23), 15410–15417. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.15.015410).
With respect to Claim 2, Shi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 1 and the diffractive optical element (1610, Figure 16A).
Shi fails to teach wherein an etching depth value is determined via auxiliary software design for the diffractive optical element.
Shi teaches a beam deflector for light-efficient display panel and Zhou teaches a method to generate holograms which can be used in the panel.
Zhou teaches an etching depth value (etching depth, ¶[0005]) is determined via auxiliary software design (computer-generated, abstract) for the diffractive optical element (¶[0001])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shi having the diffractive optical element with the teachings of Zhou having an etching depth value is determined via auxiliary software design for the diffractive optical element for the purpose of lowering large wavefront error and lowering diffraction efficiency, ¶[0024].
The limitation “an actual etching depth is reduced to a range between 20% and 80% of the designed etching depth value depending on patterning complexity, in order to lower the diffraction efficiency of the diffractive optical element” does not result in a structural difference to the optical element and is therefore not germane to patentability.
With respect to Claim 7, Shi teaches the diffractive optical element according to claim 7.
Shi fails to teach wherein the etching depth of the patterned region affects its light transmittance.
Shi teaches a beam deflector for light-efficient display panel and Zhou teaches a method to generate holograms which can be used in the panel.
Zhou teaches wherein the etching depth (etching depth, ¶[0005]) of the patterned region (¶[0002]) affects its light transmittance (¶[0005]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shi having the diffractive optical element with the teachings of Zhou wherein the etching depth of the patterned region affects its light transmittance, and the actual etching depth is reduced to a range between 20% and 80% of the designed etching depth value in order to improve the light transmittance of the patterned region for the purpose of lowering large wavefront error and lowering diffraction efficiency, ¶[0024].
The limitation “the actual etching depth is reduced to a range between 20% and 80% of the designed etching depth value in order to improve the light transmittance of the patterned region” does not result in a structural difference to the optical element and is therefore not germane to patentability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights