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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitation as presented in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses an apparatus as claimed including a first substrate comprising a first aperture (12e, 18e, 36, and 20e; figure 7) and a fourth substrate comprising a second aperture (While the above embodiments have focused on hybrid metasurface imaging systems with a single sensor element, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1 to 10B, metasurface elements can also be integrated with an image sensor wafer containing a plurality of image sensor dies. A figure illustrating a schematic for an image sensor wafer is shown in FIG. 11A. As shown, embodiments may comprise an image sensor wafer (60) comprising a set of image sensor dies (62), while this is shown in a periodically spaced 2D array, it will be understood that the array need not be periodically spaced. As shown in FIG. 11B, in turn, each sensor die (62) comprises an image sensor active area (64); see at least paragraphs 0112-0113); and
a second substrate comprising a first meta-lens (24e and 14e) and a fifth substrate comprising a second meta-lens (While the above embodiments have focused on hybrid metasurface imaging systems with a single sensor element, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1 to 10B, metasurface elements can also be integrated with an image sensor wafer containing a plurality of image sensor dies. A figure illustrating a schematic for an image sensor wafer is shown in FIG. 11A. As shown, embodiments may comprise an image sensor wafer (60) comprising a set of image sensor dies (62), while this is shown in a periodically spaced 2D array, it will be understood that the array need not be periodically spaced. As shown in FIG. 11B, in turn, each sensor die (62) comprises an image sensor active area (64); see at least paragraphs 0112-0113); and a third substrate comprising a first optical sensor and a second optical sensor (wafer 60 and image sensor dies 16d, 62; figures 11A-11B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and fourth substrates integral, and the second and fifth substrate integral, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwzn v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In addition, the court stated that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Devlin et al. would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a first surface of the first substrate and a second aperture disposed on the first surface of the first substrate; a second substrate comprising a first meta-lens and a second meta-lens, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
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 1-8, 10-18, 20-21, 23-28, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215).
Regarding claim 1, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first substrate comprising a first aperture (12e, 18e, 36, and 20e; figure 7) and a fourth substrate comprising a second aperture (While the above embodiments have focused on hybrid metasurface imaging systems with a single sensor element, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1 to 10B, metasurface elements can also be integrated with an image sensor wafer containing a plurality of image sensor dies. A figure illustrating a schematic for an image sensor wafer is shown in FIG. 11A. As shown, embodiments may comprise an image sensor wafer (60) comprising a set of image sensor dies (62), while this is shown in a periodically spaced 2D array, it will be understood that the array need not be periodically spaced. As shown in FIG. 11B, in turn, each sensor die (62) comprises an image sensor active area (64); see at least paragraphs 0112-0113); and
a second substrate comprising a first meta-lens (24e and 14e) and a fifth substrate comprising a second meta-lens (While the above embodiments have focused on hybrid metasurface imaging systems with a single sensor element, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1 to 10B, metasurface elements can also be integrated with an image sensor wafer containing a plurality of image sensor dies. A figure illustrating a schematic for an image sensor wafer is shown in FIG. 11A. As shown, embodiments may comprise an image sensor wafer (60) comprising a set of image sensor dies (62), while this is shown in a periodically spaced 2D array, it will be understood that the array need not be periodically spaced. As shown in FIG. 11B, in turn, each sensor die (62) comprises an image sensor active area (64); see at least paragraphs 0112-0113); and
a third substrate comprising a first optical sensor and a second optical sensor (wafer 60 and image sensor dies 16d, 62; figures 11A-11B);
wherein the first substrate, the second substrate and the third substrate are mechanically coupled such that the first aperture, the first meta-lens, and the first optical sensor are aligned relative to a first optical axis and wherein the second aperture, the second meta-lens, and the second optical sensor are aligned relative to a second optical axis, different from the first optical axis (While the above embodiments have focused on hybrid metasurface imaging systems with a single sensor element, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1 to 10B, metasurface elements can also be integrated with an image sensor wafer containing a plurality of image sensor dies. A figure illustrating a schematic for an image sensor wafer is shown in FIG. 11A. As shown, embodiments may comprise an image sensor wafer (60) comprising a set of image sensor dies (62), while this is shown in a periodically spaced 2D array, it will be understood that the array need not be periodically spaced. As shown in FIG. 11B, in turn, each sensor die (62) comprises an image sensor active area (64); see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Devlin et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Devlin et al. is silent regarding a first substrate comprising a first aperture disposed on a first surface of the first substrate and a second aperture disposed on the first surface of the first substrate; a second substrate comprising a first meta-lens and a second meta-lens. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and fourth substrates integral, and the second and fifth substrate integral, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwzn v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. In addition, the court stated that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Devlin et al. would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a first surface of the first substrate and a second aperture disposed on the first surface of the first substrate; a second substrate comprising a first meta-lens and a second meta-lens, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein a first meta-lens module comprises the first aperture and the first meta-lens and wherein a second meta- lens module comprises the second aperture and the second meta-lens (While the above embodiments have focused on hybrid metasurface imaging systems with a single sensor element, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1 to 10B, metasurface elements can also be integrated with an image sensor wafer containing a plurality of image sensor dies. A figure illustrating a schematic for an image sensor wafer is shown in FIG. 11A. As shown, embodiments may comprise an image sensor wafer (60) comprising a set of image sensor dies (62), while this is shown in a periodically spaced 2D array, it will be understood that the array need not be periodically spaced. As shown in FIG. 11B, in turn, each sensor die (62) comprises an image sensor active area (64); see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 4, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a sixth substrate, different from the second substrate, comprising a third meta-lens disposed thereon, wherein at least an eighth portion of the first meta-lens is disposed above at least a ninth portion of the third meta-lens (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 5, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the first meta-lens and the third meta-lens comprise a compound lens (figures 10A-10B).
Regarding claim 6, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein a first meta-lens module comprises the first aperture and the first meta-lens.
Regarding claim 7, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein: the first substrate comprises a first wafer and a plurality of apertures; the plurality of apertures comprises the first aperture; the second substrate comprises a second wafer and a plurality of meta-lenses; and the plurality of meta-lenses comprises the first meta-lens (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 8, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein: the plurality of apertures is disposed on the first substrate with a first pitch; the plurality of meta-lenses is disposed on the second substrate with a second pitch; and the first pitch and the second pitch are equal (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 9, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a third substrate comprising an optical sensor, wherein the first substrate, the second substrate, and the third substrate are mechanically coupled such that: at least the first portion of the first aperture is disposed above at least the second portion of the first meta-lens; at least a third portion of the first meta-lens is spaced apart from at least a fourth portion of the optical sensor; and at least the second portion of the first meta-lens is disposed over at least a fifth portion of the optical sensor (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 10, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein: the third substrate comprises a third wafer and a plurality of optical sensors, wherein the plurality of optical sensors comprises the optical sensor (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 11, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein: the plurality of optical sensors is disposed on the third substrate with a third pitch; and the first pitch, the second pitch, and the third pitch are equal (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 12, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the first meta-lens and the optical sensor are separated by a focal length of the first meta-lens (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 13, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein a fourth substrate comprises a spacer structure disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate and wherein the first substrate, the second substrate, and the fourth substrate are mechanically coupled (figures 11A-11B; see at least paragraphs 0112-0113).
Regarding claim 14, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses an optical filter disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see at least paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 15, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the optical filter is disposed between the first substrate and a spacer structure disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see at least paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 16, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the optical filter is disposed between the second substrate and a spacer structure disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see at least paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 17, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the optical filter comprises a band pass filter (see at least paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 18, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the first substrate comprises a first silicon substrate and the second substrate comprises a second silicon substrate (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 20, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses a spacer structure disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see at least paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 21, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the spacer structure comprises a third silicon substrate (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 22, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the spacer structure comprises a third silicon substrate (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 23, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the spacer structure comprises a structure disposed on the first substrate (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 24, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the structure disposed on the first substrate comprises a plurality of pillars positioned outside of a periphery of the first meta-lens.
Regarding claim 25, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the structure disposed on the first substrate comprises a continuous structure surrounding a periphery of the first meta-lens (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 26, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the structure disposed on the first substrate comprises a dam structure (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 27, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the structure disposed on the first substrate comprises a polyimide material.
Regarding claim 28, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the structure disposed on the first substrate comprises an opening and wherein the first meta-lens is positioned within the opening (see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 42, You et al. (figures 6-13) teaches wherein the first substrate (301) comprises a second surface, and wherein the second surface of the first substrate is nearer to the second substrate than the first surface of the first substrate (200).
Regarding claim 43, Devlin et al. (figures 1-11B) discloses wherein the second substrate (24e) is positioned between the first substrate (12e, 18e, 36) and the third substrate (wafter 60).
Claims 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin et al. in view of Georgiev et al. (US 2021/0028215).
Regarding claim 29, Devlin et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Devlin et al. is silent regarding wherein a fifth substrate is mechanically coupled to the first substrate and the second substrate, the fifth substrate comprising a reconfigurable instruction cell array (RICA). Georgiev et al. (figures 2A-2B) teaches wherein a fifth substrate is mechanically coupled to the first substrate and the second substrate, the fifth substrate comprising a reconfigurable instruction cell array (RICA; see at least paragraph 0054). 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 substrate as taught by Georgiev et al. in order to reduce the manufacturing costs and increase the power requirements for supporting both imaging sensors and their associated electronics simultaneously.
Regarding claim 30, Georgiev et al. (figures 2A-2B) teaches wherein the RICA is configured to receive image data from an optical sensor (see at least paragraphs 0047 and 0054).
Regarding claim 31, Georgiev et al. (figures 2A-2B) teaches wherein the RICA is further configured to perform one or more image processing operations on the image data (see at least paragraphs 0047 and 0054).
Regarding claim 32, Georgiev et al. (figures 2A-2B) teaches wherein the one or more image processing operations comprise generating a depth map, generating a composite image, or stitching together at least a portion of a first image and at least a portion of a second image (see at least paragraphs 0047 and 0054).
The limitation, “wherein the one or more image processing operations comprise generating a depth map, generating a composite image, or stitching together at least a portion of a first image and at least a portion of a second image” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Georgiev et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights