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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 depends from claim 12. Both claims have identical limitations of “wherein the optical system works at a near-infrared narrowband.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 7-8, 10-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (PGPUB 20210307608).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses an optical system for ToF, the optical system comprising two optical elements, wherein the two optical elements along the optical axis in order from an object side to an image side comprise (Fig. 1 and [0030] where 180 may be an emitter or detector):
a filter (132, [0033]) and a metalens (120, [0030]);
each of two optical elements comprises an object-side surface facing towards the object side and an image-side surface facing towards the image side (Fig. 1);
the metalens comprises a substrate and a plurality of unit cells ([0037]); and
a plurality of nanostructures are set on a vertex or center of the unit cells of the metalens (Fig. 2A);
the optical system comprises an aperture slot (at 132, Fig. 1), and the aperture slot is set on an incident direction of an optical path of the metalens (Fig. 1);
the optical system satisfies the following condition:
f/d ≤ 1.2 ([0061] where the f number may be set to 0.5)
wherein, f is a focal length of the optical system, and D is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system.
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
f/d ≤ 1.18 ([0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.7 ≤ L/f ≤ 1.2 ([0047] where 50/50 = 1)
wherein L is a paraxial distance between the aperture slot and the image-side surface of the metalens; f is a focal length of the optical system.
Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.8 ≤ L/f ≤ 1.1 ([0047] where 50/50 = 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hu discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.75 ≤ DW/D ≤ 1 (at the entrance pupil the light is blocked such that any light that is incident on the periphery does not enter and therefore the ratio of Dw/D is no more than 1)
wherein Dw is a beam width of the light with a maximum incident angle of the optical system; D is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system.
Regarding claim 8, Hu discloses wherein the maximum incident angle is greater than or equal to 36.5° ([0066]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Hu discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.7mm ≤ BFL ≤ 1mm and 0.7mm ≤ BFL ≤ 1mm
wherein BFL is a back focal length of the optical system ([0048] where the distance is from 0.1 to 50 mm).
Regarding claims 12 and 15 (see above with respect to claim 15), Hu discloses wherein the optical system works at a near-infrared waveband ([0073]).
Regarding claim 14, Hu discloses wherein a FOV of the optical system is greater than or equal to 73° ([0048]).
Regarding claim 16, Hu discloses wherein a paraxial distance between the aperture slot and a nanostructure surface of the metalens is less than 1.5mm (See below); and the nanostructure surface of the metalens is a surface of the metalens that has the plurality of nanostructures ([0036]).
From [0032] we can infer the distance between the aperture slot and the nanostructures using tsub:
D
i
n
=
D
m
e
t
a
-
2
t
s
u
b
t
a
n
[
sin
-
1
(
1
n
s
u
b
)
]
Solving for tsub:
t
s
u
b
=
(
D
m
e
t
a
-
D
i
n
)
2
t
a
n
[
sin
-
1
(
1
n
s
u
b
)
]
Table 1 provides Dmeta values ranging from 90nm to 185 nm. Further, [0031] provides example substrate materials from which nsub can be derived (such as sapphire having an index of 1.76 at 680 nm). Further, since tsub must be positive, it should be assumed that Dmeta > Din.
Therefore:
0
<
(
D
m
e
t
a
-
D
i
n
)
<
185
n
m
2
t
a
n
[
sin
-
1
(
1
1.76
)
]
=
1.38
185
n
m
1.38
<
1.5
m
m
.
Regarding claim 17, Hu discloses wherein a focal length of the optical system is less than 1.5mm ([0047] where f may be as small as 0.1 mm).
Regarding claim 18, Hu discloses wherein an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system is less than 1.3 mm (see the rejection of claim 16 above where Din is the pupil diameter shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Hu discloses a depth camera of ToF, wherein the depth camera (Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the metalens system alone and Fig. 8 shows a pair of metalenses used together) comprises a light emitting device (820) and a light receiving device (830);
the receiving device for light comprises the optical system claimed as claim 1 and an imaging detector; and
the imaging detector is set on the image plane (150 as shown in Fig. 1);
the emitting device for light is used to emit lights to a target ([0073] and Fig. 8);
the optical system is used to receive and collimate the lights reflected by the imaging detector ([0030]), and
the imaging detector is used to obtain the image of the target, so as to obtain data of depth of field according to the image of the target ([0078] multiple different depths).
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.
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:
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.
Claims 5-6. 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical system satisfies the condition:
3.1 ≤ TTL/ImgH ≤ 3.5 or 3.3 ≤ TTL/ImgH ≤ 3.4.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of lens design includes manipulation of known result effective variables such as index or refraction, focal length, lens surface radii and other optical variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust TTL and/or ImgH to satisfy the expression above, since 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted TTL and/or ImgH to satisfy the claimed expression motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Hu does not disclose wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.81 ≤ DW/D < 1.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of lens design includes manipulation of known result effective variables such as index or refraction, focal length, lens surface radii and other optical variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust DW and/or D to satisfy the expression above, since 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted DW and/or D to satisfy the claimed expression motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein a total track length of the optical system is less than 3mm. Hu states in [0061] that the total thickness of the system is 5 mm – 50 mm, but this is not a TTL. Hu does not provide an explicit TTL but does state that the EFL and BFL may be as low as 0.1 ([0048]), which suggests a sub 5 mm TTL given tsub.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of lens design includes manipulation of known result effective variables such as index or refraction, focal length, lens surface radii and other optical variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust TTL to satisfy the limitation above, since 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted TTL to be less than 3 mm motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights