DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a filing of 6/12/2026.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 15, 21, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (US 20070279745) in a view of Devlin et al, “Broadband high-efficiency dielectric metasurfaces for the visible spectrum”, PNAS, vol. 113, no.38, September 20, 2016; further in a view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2008032794, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 15, Klemann teaches a method of manufacturing an optical device (abstract; figs. 2-3) comprising:
providing a substrate having a polymeric layer on a surface of the substrate (¶[0019], line 1, Providing a substrate having a planar surface; ¶[0020], line 1-6, Coating the planar surface of the substrate with a first polymer having a first refractive index to form a first polymer layer having first and second planar surfaces),
forming openings in the polymeric layer (see fig. 2A; ¶[0022], line 1-2, Forming a microstructure in the first polymer layer from the second polymer of the second polymer layer; ¶[0039], line 1-23, In the context of this invention, typically a grating line or pattern of grating lines is formed by one of three methods, i.e., photolithography, embossing, or printing; a stack of many planes may be etched all the way down to the surface of the substrate);
depositing a material in the openings to form meta-atoms of a first metastructure (¶[0040], line 1-15, embossing; Solid polymer layers may be embossed by the application of a microstructured tool under heat and pressure. If a low refractive index layer is embossed in this fashion, the high refractive index polymer may be coated on top of it, so as to fill in the indentations created in the low refractive index layer),
wherein adjacent ones of the meta-atoms are separated from one another by polymeric material of the first polymeric layer (see figs. 2A-2D and fig. 3; ¶[0039], line 1-23, Over-coating with a layer of low refractive index polymer fills in the spaces between the grating lines and encapsulates them); and
providing a protective layer over the first metastructure (¶[0040], line 1-15, a low refractive index layer may be coated on top of it to fill in the indentations and possibly to
cover the entire surface to serve as a protective coating).
But Klemann does not specifically disclose that wherein depositing a material in the openings by atomic layer deposition (ALD).
However, Devlin teaches metasurfaces (abstract, fig. 2), wherein depositing a material in the openings by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (fig. 2, C-Initial ALD, D-Completed ALD; page 10473, right col., line 15-42, We deposit TiO2 by atomic layer deposition (ALD); As the basis of our metasurfaces, we used a common material, titanium dioxide, and a fabrication method based an atomic layer deposition that creates highly anisotropic nanostructures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Klemann by the metasurfaces of Devlin for a purpose of capable of realizing any high-efficiency metasurface optical element (abstract; line 13-18).
But Klemann - Devlin combination does not specifically disclose that wherein the protective layer having hydrophilic surface.
However, Yamamoto teaches color filter protective films (abstract), wherein the protective layer having hydrophilic surface (abstract; line 1-9, to provide a photosensitive resin composition for color filter protective films; The photosensitive resin composition (Q) for color filter protective films comprises a hydrophilic resin (A); ¶[0007], line 1-9, the present invention relates to a photosensitive resin composition for a color filter protective film, which is composed of a hydrophilic resin (A),….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Klemann - Devlin combination by the color filter protective films of Yamamoto for a purpose of providing of a color filter protective film that is excellent in heat resistance and transparency (¶[0006], line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 21, Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto combination teaches the method of claim 15, wherein a thickness of the protective layer is at least two times the wavelength of light for applications in which the first metastructure is to be used (¶[0069], line 1-12, a 2.8 µm-thick cured coating film made of the photosensitive resin, he transmittance of light with wavelengths of 400 nm and 540 nm is preferably 95% or more; claim 4, line 1-4, wherein a 2.8 µm thick cured coating film made of the photosensitive resin composition has a transmittance of 95% or more for light of wavelengths of 400 nm and 540 nm, as disclosed in Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 24, Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto combination teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the meta-atoms are composed of an oxide, a nitride, or a metal (¶[0058], line 1-9, The high-refractive index may also comprise a filled polymer, e.g., a polymer filled with microspheres of a ceramic material with a high-refractive index. Typical ceramic fillers include rutile titanium dioxide, anatase titanium dioxide, organotitanates, zinc sulfide and zirconium oxide, as disclosed in Klemann).
Regarding Claim 29, Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto combination teaches the method of claim 15, wherein forming openings in the polymeric layer comprises pressing a stamp having an arrangement of features into the polymeric layer (see fig. 2A-D; ¶[0022], line 1-2, Forming a microstructure in the first polymer layer from the second polymer of the second polymer layer; ¶[0039], line 1-23, In the context of this invention, typically a grating line or pattern of grating lines is formed by one of three methods, i.e., photolithography, embossing, or printing; a stack of many planes may be etched all the way down to the surface of the substrate; ¶[0040], line 1-15, embossing; Solid polymer layers may be embossed by the application of a microstructured tool under heat and pressure. If a low refractive index layer is embossed in this fashion, the high refractive index polymer may be coated on top of it, so as to fill in the indentations created in the low refractive index layer as disclosed in Klemann).
Claims 16-17, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (US 20070279745) in a view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2008032794, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 16, Klemann teaches an optical device (abstract; figs. 2-3) comprising:
a substrate (¶[0019], line 1, Providing a substrate having a planar surface; ¶[0020], line 1-6, Coating the planar surface of the substrate with a first polymer having a first refractive index to form a first polymer layer having first and second planar surfaces; --- a first polymer on the substrate);
a first metastructure disposed on the substrate (see fig. 2A; ¶[0022], line 1-2, Forming a microstructure in the first polymer layer from the second polymer of the second polymer layer; ¶[0039], line 1-23, In the context of this invention, typically a grating line or pattern of grating lines is formed by one of three methods, i.e., photolithography, embossing, or printing; a stack of many planes may be etched all the way down to the surface of the substrate; ¶[0040], line 1-15, embossing; Solid polymer layers may be embossed by the application of a microstructured tool under heat and pressure. If a low refractive index layer is embossed in this fashion, the high refractive index polymer may be coated on top of it, so as to fill in the indentations created in the low refractive index layer),
wherein the first metastructure includes a plurality of meta-atoms separated from one another by polymeric material (see figs. 2A-2D and fig. 3; ¶[0039], line 1-23, Over-coating with a layer of low refractive index polymer fills in the spaces between the grating lines and encapsulates them);
wherein a thin layer of the polymeric material is disposed between a surface of the substrate and the plurality of meta- atoms (see fig. 2A of Klemann below, the element of fig. 2A is on a substrate, see above and ¶[0019] --¶[0020]; fig. 2A showing that there is a thin layer of the polymer below the metastructure (plurality of meta- atoms), that is, there is a thin layer of the polymer between the metastructure and substrate); and
a protective layer over the first metastructure (¶[0040], line 1-15, a low refractive index layer may be coated on top of it to fill in the indentations and possibly to cover the entire surface to serve as a protective coating).
But Klemann does not specifically disclose that wherein the protective layer has hydrophilic surface.
However, Yamamoto teaches color filter protective films (abstract), wherein the protective layer having hydrophilic surface (abstract; line 1-9, to provide a photosensitive resin composition for color filter protective films; The photosensitive resin composition (Q) for color filter protective films comprises a hydrophilic resin (A); ¶[0007], line 1-9, the present invention relates to a photosensitive resin composition for a color filter protective film, which is composed of a hydrophilic resin (A),….).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Klemann by the color filter protective films of Yamamoto for a purpose of providing of a color filter protective film that is excellent in heat resistance and transparency (¶[0006], line 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
1106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Klemann – Yamamoto combination teaches the optical device of claim 16 wherein the plurality of meta-atoms of the first metastructure are composed of titanium dioxide (¶[0058], line 1-9, a polymer filled with microspheres of a ceramic material with a high-refractive index; rutile titanium dioxide, anatase titanium dioxide, as disclosed in Klemann).
Regarding Claim 26, Klemann – Yamamoto combination teaches the optical device of claim 16, wherein a thickness of the protective layer is at least two times the wavelength of light for applications in which the first metastructure is to be used (¶[0069], line 1-12, a 2.8 µm-thick cured coating film made of the photosensitive resin, he transmittance of light with wavelengths of 400 nm and 540 nm is preferably 95% or more; claim 4, line 1-4, wherein a 2.8 µm thick cured coating film made of the photosensitive resin composition has a transmittance of 95% or more for light of wavelengths of 400 nm and 540 nm, as disclosed in Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 28, Klemann – Yamamoto combination teaches the optical device of claim 16, wherein the meta-atoms are composed of an oxide, a nitride, or a metal (¶[0058], line 1-9, The high-refractive index may also comprise a filled polymer, e.g., a polymer filled with microspheres of a ceramic material with a high-refractive index. Typical ceramic fillers include rutile titanium dioxide, anatase titanium dioxide, organotitanates, zinc sulfide and zirconium oxide, as disclosed in Klemann).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (US 20070279745) a view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2008032794), further in a view of Han et al (US 20170030773).
Regarding Claim 19, Klemann – Yamamoto combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that wherein a housing; an optoelectronic component operable to emit or sense light, wherein the optoelectronic component is disposed within the housing; and an optical device according to claim 16, wherein the optical device is disposed over the optoelectronic component.
However, Han teaches an optical device including metasurfaces (abstract; figs. 1-9), wherein an apparatus (fig. 1, 100) comprising:
a housing (fig. 1, 142, 144, 146, 148);
an optoelectronic component operable to emit or sense light (fig. 1, 120),
wherein the optoelectronic component is disposed within the housing (fig. 1, 120); and
an optical device (fig. 1, 110) according to claim 16,
wherein the optical device is disposed over the optoelectronic component (fig. 1, 110, 120; fig. 12, 512, 521; 513, 522).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Klemann – Yamamoto combination by the optical device including metasurfaces of Han for the purpose to miniaturize a structure of the optical device and improve the performance of the optical device. (¶[0005], line 6-10).
Claim 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (US 20070279745) in a view of Devlin et al, “Broadband high-efficiency dielectric metasurfaces for the visible spectrum”, PNAS, vol. 113, no.38, September 20, 2016 and Yamamoto et al (JP 2008032794), further in a view of Riley, JR. et al (US 20190064532).
Regarding Claim 20, Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the method of claim 15, wherein each meta-atoms has a height that is on the order of ten times greater than its width.
However, Riley, JR. teaches metasurface elements (abstract; figs. 1-3), wherein each meta-atoms has a height that is on the order of ten times greater than its width (¶[0167], line 1-3, amorphous-Si metasurface features embedded in SiO2 having a pillar height from 500 to 1000 nm and a pillar diameter from 100 to 300 nm; ¶[0269], line 1-26, In many embodiments, the pillar height may vary from 300 to 1000 nm and the pillar diameter from 100 to 350 nm. In various other embodiments, the pillar diameter may vary from 100 to 300 nm, and the pillar height from 300 to 400 nm and/or 700 to 1000 nm; -- the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto combination by the metasurface elements of Riley, JR. for the purpose to shape output light from an illumination source (abstract, line 1-15).
Regarding Claim 22, Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto - Riley, JR. combination teaches the method of claim 15, comprising forming an antireflective on a surface of the protective layer (fig. 2A, 26’, 24; ¶[0222], line 1-50, an embedding medium (24) typically having a lower-index of refraction; the low-index medium may act as a protective barrier to the metasurface elements; The combined element (metasurface, embedding medium and substrate) may also be coated with a suitable anti-reflection coating on the side of the substrate containing the metasurface (26') and/or on the backside of the substrate (26), as disclosed in Riley, JR.).
Regarding Claim 23, Klemann - Devlin – Yamamoto - Riley, JR. combination teaches the method of claim 15, comprising:
forming an antireflective surface on the substrate (fig. 2A, 10, 26; ¶[0222], line 1-50, The combined element (metasurface, embedding medium and substrate) may also be coated with a suitable anti-reflection coating on the side of the substrate containing the metasurface (26') and/or on the backside of the substrate (26); Optional anti-reflection coatings may also be included on either the bare substrate surface (26) or on the patterned metasurface side, as disclosed in Riley, JR.); and
forming the polymeric layer on the antireflective surface (fig. 6, 46, 50/54; ¶[0120], line 1-5, the at least one first metasurface element and at least one second metasurface elements are disposed on opposite sides of the same substrate, as disclosed in Riley, JR.).
Claim 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann (US 20070279745) a view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2008032794), further in a view of Riley, JR. et al (US 20190064532).
Regarding Claim 25, , Klemann – Yamamoto combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the optical device of claim 16, wherein each meta-atoms has a height that is on the order of ten times greater than its width.
However, Riley, JR. teaches metasurface elements (abstract; figs. 1-3), wherein each meta-atoms has a height that is on the order of ten times greater than its width (¶[0167], line 1-3, amorphous-Si metasurface features embedded in SiO2 having a pillar height from 500 to 1000 nm and a pillar diameter from 100 to 300 nm; ¶[0269], line 1-26, In many embodiments, the pillar height may vary from 300 to 1000 nm and the pillar diameter from 100 to 350 nm. In various other embodiments, the pillar diameter may vary from 100 to 300 nm, and the pillar height from 300 to 400 nm and/or 700 to 1000 nm; -- the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Klemann – Yamamoto combination by the metasurface elements of Riley, JR. for the purpose to shape output light from an illumination source (abstract, line 1-15).
Regarding Claim 27, Klemann – Yamamoto - Riley, JR. combination teaches the optical device of claim 16, comprising an antireflective on a surface of the protective layer (fig. 2A, 26’, 24; ¶[0222], line 1-50, an embedding medium (24) typically having a lower-index of refraction; the low-index medium may act as a protective barrier to the metasurface elements; The combined element (metasurface, embedding medium and substrate) may also be coated with a suitable anti-reflection coating on the side of the substrate containing the metasurface (26') and/or on the backside of the substrate (26), as disclosed in Riley, JR.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/12/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
(A) Klemann and Yamamoto, either alone or in combination, do not disclose does not disclose or suggest "depositing a material in the openings by atomic layer deposition (ALD)", as recited by amended claim 15.
(B) Klemann and Yamamoto, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest a "thin layer of the polymeric material [being] disposed between the surface of the substrate and the plurality of meta-atoms," as recited by amended claim 16.
In response to applicant's argument(s):
(A) new cited prior of Devlin teaches limitation term of “depositing a material in the openings by atomic layer deposition (ALD)”, please see above.
(B) Klemann teaches in ¶[0019] --¶[0020 that the element of fig. 2A is on a substrate. Please see fig. 2A of Klemann reproduced above, fig. 2A showing that there is a thin layer of the polymer below the metastructure (plurality of meta- atoms), that is, there is a thin layer of the polymer between the metastructure and the substrate.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights