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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim 5 is objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/4/2024 and 10/16/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “Du” and “Dv” (fig. 2) and “QWP” and “LP” (Fig. 3A). The examiner notes that the abbreviations “QWP” and “LP” are not used and thus not spelled out in the Disclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed Jones vectors of the first and second polarization and the claimed Jones matrix, as generally set forth in claim 5, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 5 and claim 1, from which claim 5 depends.
The examiner notes that the limitations of present claim 5 are the same as those deemed allowable in the parent applications.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbabi et al. (US 2016/0077261) made of record in the IDS filed 10/4/2024 (hereafter Arbabi).
Regarding claim 1, Arbabi discloses an optical component, comprising: a metasurface comprising nanoscale elements configured to receive incident light and to generate optical outputs, wherein geometries or orientations of the nanoscale elements provide a first optical output upon receiving a polarized incident light with a first polarization, and provide a second optical output upon receiving a polarized incident light with a second polarization that is different from the first polarization, wherein the nanoscale elements comprise a plurality of pillars (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph [0057]), wherein at least one adjacent pillar of the plurality of pillars has a different angle of rotation and width from the other adjacent pillar (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the at least one adjacent pillar of the plurality of pillars has a different length from the other adjacent pillar (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the first polarization is a linear polarization (see at least paragraph [0032]) or a circular polarization (see at least paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the second polarization is a linear polarization (see at least paragraph [0032]) or a circular polarization (see at least paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the first polarization and the second polarization are orthogonal to each other (see at least paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the second polarization is an elliptical polarization (see at least paragraph [0058], where circular polarization is a special case of elliptical polarization).
Regarding claim 8, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the nanoscale elements comprise linearly birefringent wave plate elements (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the nanoscale elements comprise linearly birefringent wave plate elements (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0050]) comprising dielectric pillars (see at least paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that orientation and dimensions of the nanoscale elements at (x,y) is defined by the angle of the orthogonal linear eigenpolarizations of the Jones matrix J(x,y) (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the plurality of pillars are equal height (see at least paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the plurality of pillars comprise widths and lengths ranging from about 50 nm to about 250 nm (see at least paragraphs [0054] and [0077], where the diameters of the posts range from 65 to 455 nm).
Regarding claim 14, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the plurality of pillars is on a hexagonal grid (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the plurality of pillars is separated by an equal distance (see at least fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that the plurality of pillars are arranged into multiple corresponding unit cells (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph [0045], where the posts are located at the centers of the hexagonal unit cells).
Regarding claim 18, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 17.
Arbabi also discloses that the unit cells are tessellated across the metasurface (see at least Fig. 5, where the hexagonal unit cells cover the entire metasurface).
Regarding claim 19, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Arbabi also discloses that at least three adjacent pillars have different angles and widths from each other (see at least Fig. 5).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi et al. (US 2016/0077261) made of record in the IDS filed 10/4/2024 (hereafter Arbabi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byrnes et al. (US 2017/0082263) (hereafter Byrnes).
Regarding claim 16, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Arbabi also discloses that the pillars are dielectric (see at least paragraph [0044]).
Arbabi does not specifically disclose that the plurality of pillars are TiO2.
However, Byrnes teaches a metasurface comprising pillars that are TiO2 (see at least paragraph [0124]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07). Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component of Arbabi to include the teachings of Byrnes so that the plurality of pillars are TiO2 for the purpose of being obvious to try a known dielectric material in order to obtain predictable results such as refractive index and durability.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi et al. (US 2016/0077261) made of record in the IDS filed 10/4/2024 (hereafter Arbabi) as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 16, Arbabi discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
Arbabi also discloses that the spatial period of the array can be smaller than the desired wavelength of operation of the device (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Arbabi does not specifically disclose that the plurality of pillars has a 420 nm nearest neighbor separation.
The nearest neighbor separation is the same as the spatial period of the array and as such is understood to be a result effective variable of the optical component.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05), In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the plurality of pillars having a 420 nm nearest neighbor separation include operating the device at a desired wavelength for a particular application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component of Arbabi so that the plurality of pillars has a 420 nm nearest neighbor separation for the purpose of operating the device at a desired wavelength for a particular application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,514,296 to Han et al. discloses a metasurface comprising pillars that acts as a polarization splitter (see at least Fig. 12 and Col. 12, lines 20-50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights