DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes (U.S. 9,939,129) in view of Okubo (U.S. 2026/0202034, effectively filed as JP 2022-198068 on 12/12/2022, all references made to the US publication for ease of reference) and Hamamoto (U.S. 2023/0041578).
Regarding claim 1, Byrnes teaches a vehicle headlight (see col. 15 lines 15-25, may be used as a headlamp, see fig. 4) comprising:
a light source (light source 402);
a meta-lens (metalens 401) including a meta-region (region with nanostructures) in which a plurality of nanostructures each having a width smaller (see col. 7 lines 24-49, for visible light applications has width less than or equal to 500 nm) than a largest wavelength (largest wavelength is about 700 nanometers, see col. 6 lines 1-12) of light emitted from the light source is arranged and through which the light emitted from the light source is transmitted; and
a projection lens (optics 423, such as projection optics see col. 13 line 64) through which the light emitted from the meta-lens is transmitted,
wherein the meta-lens reduces a divergence angle of the light incident on the meta-region from the light source and emits the light (see fig. 4, reduces divergence from 409 and collimates the light, see col. 24 lines 52-55, results in 1.1 degree FWHM, i.e. not fully collimated), and
when the light source is viewed from a side of the projection lens via the meta region, a virtual image of the light source that is emitted through the projection lens via the meta-region is located rearward of an actual position of the light source (see fig. 4, meta lens reduces divergence which moves virtual image backwards, near infinite for collimated light, projection lens projects enlarged image).
Byrnes does not teach an external casing that surrounds the light source, the meta-lens, and the projection lens; and
an internal casing that surrounds the light source, wherein the meta-lens is a part of the internal casing,
the internal casing is spaced apart from the external casing.
Okubo teaches an external casing (lamp housing 100, see fig. 9) that surrounds the light source, the meta-lens, and the projection lens; and
an internal casing (projecting lens 40) that surrounds the light source, wherein the meta-lens (meta-lens 80, see fig. 1) is a part of the internal casing (central portion of the projecting lens portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an internal casing as taught by Okubo to enable secure mounting of the meta lens and reduce the time of assembly, see p. 0033 of Okubo.
Okubo and Byrnes does not specifically teach the internal casing is spaced apart from the external casing.
Hamamoto teaches that the internal casing is spaced apart from the external casing (see fig. 8, projection module 25 within outer housing 45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an outer casing as taught by Hamamoto to provide a seal and mounting structure for the projection module of Okubo and Byrnes to prevent damage and extend the life of the device as is commonly known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Byrnes does not specifically teach that in the case where the light source is viewed from the side of the projection lens via the meta-region, the image of the light source appears equal in size to the light source at the position farther than the position of the light source.
Byrnes teaches that the image of light source appears farther and of some size larger than the actual light source (as the metalens reduces divergence similarly to Applicant’s). It is unclear if the structure of Byrnes teaches that the image of the light source is the same size as the appearance of the light source.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to have optimized the image size of the light source. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456. Optimizing the image size of the light source is an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to comply with headlight requirements for vehicles (i.e. emission area standards) and to align with projection optics to properly project a low beam light distribution.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Byrnes and Okbuo teaches that the nanostructure is formed on an internal space side of the internal casing (nanostructures are formed on the interior side of 401, i.e. facing 409; which when placed in the internal casing of Okubo is the interior side).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes in view of Okubo and Hamamot, further in view of Lin (U.S. 11,057,115).
Regarding claim 3, Byrnes does not teach wherein a change in respective heights of the nanostructures an amount of change in a structure of the nanostructure increases from a center side toward an outer peripheral side of the meta-region.
Lin teaches a change in respective heights of the nanostructures an amount of change in a structure of the nanostructure increases from a center side toward an outer peripheral side of the meta-region (see fig. 4, metalenses 414-1 and 404-1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used different height nanostructures as taught by Lin for the metalens of Byrnes to enable finetuning of the refraction angles and the resulting beam profile, see col. Line 25-49).
The Examiner notes that Byrnes specifically teaches that it would be obvious to use different height nanostructures, see col. 8 lines 19-30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J PEERCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6570. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm 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, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Matthew J. Peerce/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights