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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-25, received 3/12/2025, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Priority
U.S. application 19/078090 filed on 3/12/2025 is the earliest filed application that discloses all of the limitations in claim 18 and therefore is the earliest priority date given for claim 18. For example, it appears that at least figures 11B and 11C disclose the limitations of claim 16, but no figures or description in the priority documents appear to support claim 18, wherein the plurality of metasurface lenslets are attached to the image sensor with a spacer layer, wherein the limitations of claims 1 and 16 also require a microlens array wherein the microlens array and the plurality of metasurface lenslets are positioned on a single substrate. If applicant is aware of explicit support for the limitations of claim 18, dependent from claims 1 and 16, then they are encouraged to point to those specifics in the disclosures of the priority documents.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/29/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 1/19/2026 were considered, though it appears that several citations are to entire textbooks.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18, in combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deneuville, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0201015 A1 (hereafter Deneuville). It is noted that the foreign priority reference FR 2213920, filed 12/20/2022, is relied upon for Deneuville being prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to claim 18. However, this date does not appear to apply to the other claims due to the support found in US provisional application 63/362285, filed 3/31/2022, which appears to provide support for the other limitations of the instant application.
Regarding claim 18, Deneuville discloses a polarization imaging device comprising:
a metasurface receiving an image light (see at least elements 117 and MS, paras. [0104]-[0105], [0124]-[0127]);
wherein the metasurface comprises:
a plurality of metasurface lenslets, wherein the plurality of metasurface lenslets comprise a plurality of first metasurface lenslets configured to diffract the image light with intensity proportional with a first polarization light in a first direction and intensity proportionality with a second polarization in a second direction (see at least elements MS(1), MS(2), MS(3) and MS(4), paras. [0104]-[0105], [0124]-[0127]); and
a microlens array (see at least element 401); and
wherein the microlens array and the plurality of metasurface lenslets are positioned on a single substrate (see at least figure 4B, elements 401 and 117/MS; and/or figure 6B, elements 401 and 117/MS; and/or figure 8 wherein element 401 is on one surface of substrate 115 and element 117/MS is on the other surface; and/or figure 9 wherein element 901 and/or element 401 are on surface(s) of substrate 115 while element 117/MS is embedded in the substrate 115); and
an image sensor positioned in an optical path of the first polarization and the second polarization from the metasurface, and wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of image sensing units including a first image sensing unit positioned to sense the first polarization and a second image sensing unit positioned to sense the second polarization (see at least element 107);
wherein the plurality of metasurface lenslets are fixedly attached to the image sensor (see at least figure 4B and/or 6B and/or 8 and/or 9 wherein elements 109 join the images sensor unit to the metasurface lenslets); and
wherein the plurality of metasurface lenslets are attached to the image sensor with a spacer layer separating the plurality of metasurface lenslets from the image sensor see at least figure 4B and/or 6B and/or 8 and/or 9 wherein spacer elements 109 join the images sensor unit to the metasurface lenslets, and/or element 115 which may be considered a spacer layer).
Other Related Art
Similar to the Deneuville reference set forth above, this prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Deneuville, US 2024/0201016 A1, discloses a similar polarization imaging device as claim 18 (fig. 4B);
Deneuville et al., US 2024/0204021 A1, discloses a similar polarization imaging device as claim 18 (fig. 4B);
Morita et al., US 2025/0362522 A1, discloses a similar polarization imaging device as claim 18 (fig. 26A, paras. [0099]-[0100]);
Vaillant et al., US 2024/0053202 A1, discloses a similar polarization imaging device as claim 18 (fig. 1, paras. [0093]-[0095], [0100]); and
Wang et al., US 2024/0125995 A1, discloses a similar polarization imaging device as claim 18 (fig. 1A, para. [0025]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,927,769 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader than or an obvious variation of claims 1, 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,927,769 B2.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, see the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,927,769 B2.
Regarding claim 6 of the instant application, see the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,927,769 B2 wherein claim 1 contains the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,807 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader than or an obvious variation of claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,807 B2.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, see the limitations of claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,807 B2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-17 and 19-25 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/22/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights