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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement Group I and Group II as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/17/2026, has been reconsidered and further reviewed in view of the actual search. Previously withdrawn claims from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/17/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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)(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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Majumdar et al. (US 20240334034 A1, hereinafter “Majumdar”).
Regarding claim 8, Majumdar teaches a method of designing an array over an image sensor (Figs. 2, 3&7, [0055]: design, simulation, and fabrication of ultrathin meta-optic) comprising:
applying a differentiable optimization method that continuously samples over a visible spectrum (Figs. 3&7, [0055]-[0059]: differentiable metasurface image formation model);
factorizing an optical modulation for different incident fields into individual lenses of a nanophotonic imager having a learned array of metalenses for capturing a scene (Figs. 2, 3&7, [0053]-[0059]: differentiable metasurface formed by metalens' nanoposts);
measuring an array of images, each having a different field of view (FoV) (Figs. 2, 3&7, [0013]&[0060]-[0061]: phase distributions that are differentiably determined from the nano-scatterers allow us to then calculate the point spread function (PSF) as a function of wavelength and field angle to efficiently model full color image (400 nm to 700 nm) formation over the whole field of view (FOV));
and deconvolving the array of images and merging them together to form a wider FoV image (Figs. 3&7, [0057]-[0061]&[0074]: From the optimizable phase profile our differentiable model produces spatially-variant point spread functions (PSFs), which are then patch-wise convolved with the input image to form the sensor measurement. The sensor 180 reading is then deconvolved using our algorithm to produce the final image. The inventive learned design maintains consistent PSF shape across the visible spectrum and for all field angles across the FOV, facilitating downstream deconvolution and the final image reconstruction.).
Regarding claim 9, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 8, in addition Majumdar discloses further comprising: configuring a computational reconstruction module to recover a single megapixel image from an array of measurements ([0012]&[0064]: co-optimizes the metasurface and deconvolution algorithm with an end-to-end differentiable model of image formation and computational reconstruction .The inventive learned design maintains consistent PSF shape across the visible spectrum and for all field angles across the FOV, facilitating downstream deconvolution and the final image reconstruction).
Regarding claim 10, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 8, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein a training for the deconvolving is performed iteratively and progressively to sample over a plausible manifold of latent images from sensor measurements ([0012], [0014]&[0064]: co-optimizes the metasurface and deconvolution algorithm with an end-to-end differentiable model of image formation and computational reconstruction .The inventive learned design maintains consistent PSF shape across the visible spectrum and for all field angles across the FOV, facilitating downstream deconvolution and the final image reconstruction. Examiner notes that fully differentiable learning method that combines a metasurface physical structure in conjunction with a novel, neural feature-based image reconstruction algorithm are iterative and uses multiple sampling images.).
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (US 20150116526 A1, hereinafter “Meng”), in view of Majumdar et al. (US 20240334034 A1, hereinafter “Majumdar”), and in view of Case Law In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 1, Meng teaches an imaging system (Fig. 4) comprising:
a Fig. 4: plenoptic sensor module with microimaging arrays 114 include microlens arrays);
a reference camera having a reference camera sensor (Fig. 4: conventional camera 210 includes a sensor array 280);
and a beam splitter, wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths as illustrated by Fig. 4: beamsplitting device 430, at 45°, splits the optical path downstream of the shared imaging optics 512. Part of the light travels to the plenoptic sensor module 114,180, and the other part travels to the sensor array 280.),
wherein an optical center and an optical axis of the central element of the metalens array camera is aligned to an optical center and an optical axis of the reference camera (as illustrated by Fig. 4, [0038]-[0040]: The two cameras are optically aligned, for example by a beamsplitter 430.),
wherein the metalens array camera and the reference camera are synchronized to capture scenes with a same timestamps (as illustrated by Fig. 4, [0038]-[0040]: The two cameras are optically aligned, for example by a beamsplitter 430, to receive the incoming light simultaneously).
Meng does not disclose wherein the lens array is a metalens array.
However, Majumdar discloses wherein the lens array is a metalens array (Fig. 1, [0051]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures (also referred to as “nanoposts” or “scatterers”) 110 that are carried by a substrate (also referred to as a “carrier”) 115.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the lens array is a metalens array as taught by Majumdar into Meng image device. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to provide higher spatial resolution, wider angular acceptance, shorter focal lengths, and superior miniaturization for AR/VR, sensors, and 3D imaging.
Furthermore, the Meng and Majumdar combination does not teach wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths by 70% transmission and 30% reflection. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths by 70% transmission and 30% reflection, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Meng and Majumdar combination teaches the imaging system of claim 1, in addition discloses Majumdar wherein the metalens array camera comprises a flat on-sensor nanophotonic array lens (as illustrated by Fig. 1, [0051]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures (also referred to as “nanoposts” or “scatterers”) 110 that are carried by a substrate (also referred to as a “carrier”) 115.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng and Majumdar combination as applied above, in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. 207634945 U to WANG, FU-LAI employing the provided machine translation and hereafter “WANG”).
Regarding claim 3, Meng and Majumdar combination teaches the imaging system of claim 1, except wherein the imaging system is mounted on a tripod with rollers.
However, WANG discloses wherein the imaging system is mounted on a tripod with rollers (Fig. 1, page 2/10: A camera magnetic affixing type tripod, is provided with a roller wheel 8 under the supporting leg of the tripod, when the device needs to change the placing position, capable of supporting the roller through a connecting rod, and then to change the placing position of the tripod by a roller; without re-dismounting and mounting tripod).
SM, and it is very convenient for people to use, and provided with absorption magnets, can improve the installing stability of the camera on the tripod
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the imaging system is mounted on a tripod with rollers as taught by WANG into the Meng and Majumdar combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to allow a change of the camera placing position (WANG: page 2/10).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng and Majumdar combination as applied above, in view of Imao; Eiji (US 20230054344 A1, hereinafter “Imao”).
Regarding claim 4, Meng and Majumdar combination teaches the imaging system of claim 1, except wherein a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is used to synchronize the metalens array camera and the reference camera.
However, Imao discloses wherein a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is used to synchronize the metalens array camera and the reference camera (Fig. 1, [0053]: plurality of camera devices 200 using a PTP in a synchronous shooting system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is used to synchronize the metalens array camera and the reference camera as taught by Imao into the Meng and Majumdar combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to perform time-synchronous communication (Imao: [0043]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng and Majumdar combination as applied above, in view of TOYODA et al. (US 20080036852 A1, hereinafter “TOYODA”).
Regarding claim 5, Meng and Majumdar combination teaches the imaging system of claim 1, except wherein the imaging system is configured to capture images at slanted field angles at a wide field of view of 100°.
However, TOYODA discloses wherein the imaging system is configured to capture images at slanted field angles at a wide field of view of 100° (as illustrated by Figs. 3-4, [0028]&[0052]: a panoramic imaging device for imaging a panoramic image with a picture angle of at least approximately 180°, which can be formed without using a wide-angle lens having a capture angle larger than 60°and which can combine multiple images into a panoramic image without complex image correction and without causing unnatural transition between adjacent images to remain, and further which can be reduced in volume and thickness in its entirety.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the imaging system is configured to capture images at slanted field angles at a wide field of view of 100° as taught by TOYODA into the Meng and Majumdar combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to provide a panoramic imaging device for imaging a panoramic image with a picture angle of at least approximately 180 (TOYODA: [0007]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng and Majumdar combination as applied above, in view of BAIK et al. (US 20180039102 A1, hereinafter “BAIK”), and further in view of Case Law In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)..
Regarding claim 6, Meng and Majumdar combination teaches the imaging system of claim 1, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the metalens array camera comprises an array of nanophotonic optics, wherein the array of nanophotonic optics are learned for a broadband spectrum (as illustrated by Fig. 1, [0051]&[0077]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures and enables imaging across a full visible spectrum of 400 nm-700 nm );
wherein the imaging system further comprises a computational reconstruction module that is configured to recover a single megapixel image from an array of measurements ([0071]: the nano-optic imager achieves an image-side spatial resolution of 214 lp/mm across all color channels at 120 mm object distance; and produce a final image with improve spatial resolution by an order of magnitude over the previous state-of-the-art, which achieved 30 lp/mm.);
a metalens array camera sensor (as illustrated by Fig. 1, [0051]&[0077]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures).
Meng and Majumdar combination does not teach a sensor cover glass; and a single flat optical layer disposed on top of the sensor cover glass at approximately 2.5 mm focal distance from the metalens array camera sensor.
However, BAIK discloses a sensor cover glass; and a single flat optical layer disposed on top of the sensor cover glass (Fig. 26, [0131]-[0132]: a meta optical device 110 may include a support layer SU, a nanostructure NS, a cover layer 16, and an upper dielectric layer 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a sensor cover glass; and a single flat optical layer disposed on top of the sensor cover glass as taught by BAIK into the Meng and Majumdar combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to provide a meta optical device that can be implemented to have a flat plate shape, it is advantageously applicable to various optical devices (BAIK: [0149]).
Furthermore, Meng, Majumdar and BAIK combination does not teach disposed on top of the sensor cover glass at approximately 2.5 mm focal distance from the metalens array camera sensor. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to disposed on top of the sensor cover glass at approximately 2.5 mm focal distance from the metalens array camera sensor, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Meng, Majumdar and BAIK combination teaches the imaging system claim 6, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the array of nanophotonic optics comprises lenses, wherein each lens is a flat metasurface area of nano-antennas designed to focus light across a visible spectrum (as illustrated by Fig. 1, [0051]&[0077]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures(also referred to as “nanoposts” or “scatterers”) and enables imaging across a full visible spectrum of 400 nm-700 nm ).
Claims 11-12, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar et al. (US 20240334034 A1, hereinafter “Majumdar”), in view of Case Law In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 10, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein a dataset with groundtruth images [0070]&[0094]: Ground truth images are acquired using a six-element compound optic that is 550000× larger in volume than the meta-optics. divide up the raw sensor capture into an M×M grid of overlapping patches and we assign one PSF to each patch).
In addition Examiner notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to images of 800×800 resolution and 9 patches of 420×420 sub-images, 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.
Regarding claim 12, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 11, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the training utilizes the paired groundtruth and metalens array measurements acquired from a paired-camera setup ([0070]&[0094]: Ground truth images are acquired using a six-element compound optic that is 550000× larger in volume than the meta-optics. divide up the raw sensor capture into an M×M grid of overlapping patches and we assign one PSF to each patch).
Regarding claim 14, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 12, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the metalens array camera comprises a flat on-sensor nanophotonic array lens (as illustrated by Fig. 1, [0051]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures (also referred to as “nanoposts” or “scatterers”) 110 that are carried by a substrate (also referred to as a “carrier”) 115.).
Regarding claim 17, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 11, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the dataset for training consists of simulated data and captured paired image data ([0022]: calibrating the metalens based on the PSF is based on artificial images).
Regarding claim 18, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 11, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the simulated data is produced by simulating a nanophototonic array camera with corresponding metalens design parameters to generate a synthetic dataset of paired on-sensor ([0022]: calibrating the metalens based on the PSF is based on artificial images) and groundtruth measurements ([0070]: Ground truth images are acquired using a six-element compound optic that is 550000× larger in volume than the meta-optics.).
Regarding claim 19, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 18, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the synthetic dataset is utilized for training alongside a dataset for fine-tuning ([0022]&[0070]: calibrating the metalens based on the PSF is based on artificial images. Ground truth images are acquired using a six-element compound optic that is 550000× larger in volume than the meta-optics).
Regarding claim 20, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the synthetic dataset is comparatively larger than the dataset ([0022]&[0070]: calibrating the metalens based on the PSF is based on artificial images. Ground truth images are acquired using a six-element compound optic that is 550000× larger in volume than the meta-optics).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar et al. (US 20240334034 A1, hereinafter “Majumdar”), in view of Meng et al. (US 20150116526 A1, hereinafter “Meng”), and further in view of Case Law In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Majumdar teaches the method of claim 12, in addition Majumdar discloses wherein the paired-camera setup comprises: a metalens array camera having a central element (Fig. 1, [0051]: metalens 100 includes a number of nanostructures (also referred to as “nanoposts” or “scatterers”) 110 that are carried by a substrate (also referred to as a “carrier”) 115.); except a reference camera having a reference camera sensor; and a beam splitter, wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths by 70% transmission and 30% reflection, wherein the beam splitter is positioned at a 45° tilting angle, wherein the transmission path is incident of a center of the central element, wherein a center of the reference camera is positioned in the reflection path and a distance between the beam splitter and the reference camera sensor is adjusted to the same as that between the beam splitter and the metalens array camera, wherein an optical center and an optical axis of the central element of the metalens array camera is aligned to an optical center and an optical axis of the reference camera, wherein the metalens array camera and the reference camera are synchronized to capture scenes with a same timestamps
However, Meng discloses wherein the paired-camera setup (Fig. 4) comprises:
a reference camera having a reference camera sensor (Fig. 4: conventional camera 210 includes a sensor array 280);
and a beam splitter, wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths as illustrated by Fig. 4: beamsplitting device 430, at 45°, splits the optical path downstream of the shared imaging optics 512. Part of the light travels to the plenoptic sensor module 114,180, and the other part travels to the sensor array 280.),
wherein an optical center and an optical axis of the central element of the metalens array camera is aligned to an optical center and an optical axis of the reference camera (as illustrated by Fig. 4, [0038]-[0040]: The two cameras are optically aligned, for example by a beamsplitter 430.),
wherein the metalens array camera and the reference camera are synchronized to capture scenes with a same timestamps (as illustrated by Fig. 4, [0038]-[0040]: The two cameras are optically aligned, for example by a beamsplitter 430, to receive the incoming light simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a reference camera having a reference camera sensor; and a beam splitter, wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths as taught by Meng into Majumdar image device. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to a dual-mode system using separate imaging systems (Majumdar: [0038]).
Furthermore, the Majumdar and Meng combination does not teach wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths by 70% transmission and 30% reflection. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to wherein the beam splitter splits light into two optical paths by 70% transmission and 30% reflection, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar and Meng combination as applied above, in view of Imao; Eiji (US 20230054344 A1, hereinafter “Imao”).
Regarding claim 15, Majumdar and Meng combination teaches the method of claim 12, except wherein a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is used to synchronize the metalens array camera and the reference camera.
However, Imao discloses wherein a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is used to synchronize the metalens array camera and the reference camera (Fig. 1, [0053]: plurality of camera devices 200 using a PTP in a synchronous shooting system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein a Precision Time Protocol (PTP) is used to synchronize the metalens array camera and the reference camera as taught by Imao into the Majumdar and Meng combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to perform time-synchronous communication (Imao: [0043]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majumdar and Meng combination as applied above, in view of TOYODA et al. (US 20080036852 A1, hereinafter “TOYODA”).
Regarding claim 16, Majumdar and Meng combination teaches the method of claim 12, except wherein the imaging system is configured to capture images at slanted field angles at a wide field of view of 100°.
However, TOYODA discloses wherein the imaging system is configured to capture images at slanted field angles at a wide field of view of 100° (as illustrated by Figs. 3-4, [0028]&[0052]: a panoramic imaging device for imaging a panoramic image with a picture angle of at least approximately 180°, which can be formed without using a wide-angle lens having a capture angle larger than 60°and which can combine multiple images into a panoramic image without complex image correction and without causing unnatural transition between adjacent images to remain, and further which can be reduced in volume and thickness in its entirety.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the imaging system is configured to capture images at slanted field angles at a wide field of view of 100° as taught by TOYODA into the Majumdar and Meng combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to provide a panoramic imaging device for imaging a panoramic image with a picture angle of at least approximately 180 (TOYODA: [0007]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELAAZIZ TISSIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, Ye Lin can be reached on 571-272-7372. 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.
/ABDELAAZIZ TISSIRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights