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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10/28/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the limitations of amended claim 1, specifically, “a shape distribution of the first nanostructures and the second nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a first wavelength bandwidth, on the first photo-sensing cell, a shape distribution of the third nanostructures and the fourth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a second wavelength bandwidth on the second photo-sensing cell, and a shape distribution of the fifth nanostructures and the sixth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a third wavelength bandwidth on the third photo-sensing cell”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner notes in the instant case, the prior art of Han (US 2017/0059777) in view of Riley JR (US 2019/0064532) and Arbabi (US 2017/0034500) disclose the limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, Han in view of Riley JR. disclose the use of “first/third/fifth nanostructures and second/fourth/sixth nanostructures” as seen in Figs 1 and 6 and Para [0048, 0056] wherein the plurality of first reflectors 1111-1113 are used with a plurality of second reflectors 1211-1213 to shape light to the design wavelength. Arbabi, in turn, discloses in Fig 1 and Para [0068] light scatterers 122a-c configured to focus light onto light-sensitive cells 130a-c. For these reasons examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 USC § 103.
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 (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 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, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Han (US 2017/0059777, of record) in view of Riley JR (US 2019/0064532, of record) and Arbabi (US 2017/0034500, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses an image sensor (see Fig 6) comprising: a sensor substrate (see Fig 6; Para [0084]; sensor layer 3500) including a first photo-sensing cell, second photo-sensing cell and a third photo-sensing cell (see Fig 6; Para [0084]; a plurality of sensors 3510, 3520, 3530); a first meta-lens arranged to face the first photo-sensing cells, on the sensor substrate (see Fig 6; Para [0084]; A first Fabri-Perot resonator R1 is interpreted as a first meta-lens since it comprises nanoscale structures controlling the type of transmitted light); a second meta-lens arranged to face the second photo-sensing cells, on the sensor substrate (see Fig 6; Para [0084]; A second Fabri-Perot resonator R2 is interpreted as a second meta-lens since it comprises nanoscale structures controlling the type of transmitted light); and a third meta-lens arranged to face the third photo-sensing cells, on the sensor substrate (see Fig 6; Para [0084]; A third Fabri-Perot resonator R3 is interpreted as a third meta-lens since it comprises nanoscale structures controlling the type of transmitted light); wherein the first meta-lens comprises a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the first nanostructure (see Figs 1 and 6; Para [0048, 0056]; a plurality of first reflectors 1111-1113 are interpreted as the first nanostructures and a plurality of second reflectors 1211-1213 are interpreted as the second nanostructures formed in two distinct layers 1100 and 1200; reflectors interpreted as nanostructures since when in a waveband of 1500nm to 1580nm a height of the reflectors is around 100nm – 1000nm well within the nano range, according to Para [0014, 0095]), wherein the second meta-lens comprises a plurality of third nanostructures and a plurality of fourth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the third nanostructure (see Figs 1 and 6; Para [0048, 0056]; a plurality of first reflectors 1121-1123 are interpreted as the third nanostructures and a plurality of second reflectors 1221-1223 are interpreted as the fourth nanostructures formed in two distinct layers 1100 and 1200; reflectors interpreted as nanostructures since when in a waveband of 1500nm to 1580nm a height of the reflectors is around 100nm – 1000nm well within the nano range, according to Para [0014, 0095]), wherein the third meta-lens comprises a plurality of fifth nanostructures and a plurality of sixth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the fifth nanostructure (see Figs 1 and 6; Para [0048, 0056]; a plurality of first reflectors 1131-1133 are interpreted as the fifth nanostructures and a plurality of second reflectors 1231-1233 are interpreted as the sixth nanostructures formed in two distinct layers 1100 and 1200; reflectors interpreted as nanostructures since when in a waveband of 1500nm to 1580nm a height of the reflectors is around 100nm – 1000nm well within the nano range, according to Para [0014, 0095]).
Han may not teach meta-lenses comprising a plurality of first/third/fifth nanostructures and a plurality of second/fourth/sixth nanostructures; wherein a shape distribution of the first nanostructures and the second nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a first wavelength bandwidth, on the first photo-sensing cell, wherein a shape distribution of the third nanostructures and the fourth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a second wavelength bandwidth on the second photo-sensing cell, and wherein a shape distribution of the fifth nanostructures and the sixth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a third wavelength bandwidth on the third photo-sensing cell. Han and Riley are related because both disclose optical devices for transmitting light.
Riley discloses an image sensor (see Fig 9) comprising a meta-lens comprising a plurality of first/third/fifth nanostructures and a plurality of second/fourth/sixth nanostructures (see Fig 9; Para [0035, 0215, 0237]; a meta-lens as seen in Fig 9 may comprise a first meta surface of a patterned nanometer material and a second meta surface of patterned nanometer material)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han with comprising a meta-lens comprising a plurality of first/third/fifth nanostructures and a plurality of second/fourth/sixth nanostructures of Riley JR for the purpose of reducing the size and allowing for miniaturization of optical components (Para [0003])
Han in view of Riley JR does not disclose wherein a shape distribution of the first nanostructures and the second nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a first wavelength bandwidth, on the first photo-sensing cell, wherein a shape distribution of the third nanostructures and the fourth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a second wavelength bandwidth on the second photo-sensing cell, and wherein a shape distribution of the fifth nanostructures and the sixth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a third wavelength bandwidth on the third photo-sensing cell. Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi are related because both disclose image sensors.
Arbabi discloses an image sensor (see Fig 1) wherein a shape distribution of the first nanostructures and the second nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a first wavelength bandwidth, on the first photo-sensing cell (see Fig 1; Para [0068]; shape distribution of the scatterers 122a is configured to focus light of a wavelength band onto light-sensitive cells 130a; Han discloses the use of first and second nanostructures), wherein a shape distribution of the third nanostructures and the fourth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a second wavelength bandwidth on the second photo-sensing cell (see Fig 1; Para [0071]; shape distribution of the scatterers 122b is configured to focus light of a different wavelength band onto light-sensitive cells 130b; Han discloses the use of third and fourth nanostructures), and wherein a shape distribution of the fifth nanostructures and the sixth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a third wavelength bandwidth on the third photo-sensing cell (see Fig 1; Para [0071]; shape distribution of the scatterers 122c is configured to focus light of a different wavelength band onto light-sensitive cells 130c; Han discloses the use of fifth and sixth nanostructures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han in view of Riley JR with wherein a shape distribution of the first nanostructures and the second nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a first wavelength bandwidth, on the first photo-sensing cell, wherein a shape distribution of the third nanostructures and the fourth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a second wavelength bandwidth on the second photo-sensing cell, and wherein a shape distribution of the fifth nanostructures and the sixth nanostructures is configured to focus lights of different wavelengths in a third wavelength bandwidth on the third photo-sensing cell of Arbabi for the purpose of improving the capabilities of an image sensor while maintaining the easy of manufacturing (Para [0110])
Regarding claim 4, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 1 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses further comprises: a substrate supporting a plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0050]; a first surrounding unit 1150 provides a substrate that supports the reflectors 1111-1113, 1121-1123, 1131-1133); and a spacer layer covering the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures and supporting the plurality of second, fourth, and sixth nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0050]; a cavity layer 1300 acts as a spacer layer covering the reflectors, 1111-1113, 1121-1123, 1131-1133, and supporting the reflectors 1211-1213, 1221-1223, 1231-1233).
Regarding claim 5, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 4 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein the substrate comprising a material having a refractive index different form the refractive index of the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0050]; refractive index of first surrounding unit 1150 is less than refractive index of first/third/fifth second reflectors 1211-1213), and wherein the spacer layer comprising a material having a refractive index different from the refractive index of the plurality of first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0050, 0059]; refractive index of cavity layer 1300 is less than that of the first and second reflectors).
Regarding claim 6, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 4 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein the refractive index of the substrate is less than the refractive index of the plurality of first, third and fifth nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0050]; the refractive index of the first set of reflectors is greater than that of the surrounding unit 1150), and wherein the refractive index of the spacer layer is less than the refractive index of the plurality of first second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0050, 0059]; the refractive index of the first/second reflectors is greater than that of the cavity layer 1300).
Regarding claim 7, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 4 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein a difference between the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the plurality of first nanostructures is 0.5 or greater (see Fig 6; Para [0055]; first reflectors 1111, 1112, and 1113 may be formed of TiO2 with a refractive index of 2.9 while first surrounding unit 1150 may be formed of SiO2 that may have a refractive index of 1.46 thus a different of greater than 1.0).
Regarding claim 8, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 4 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein a difference between the refractive index of the plurality of first nanostructures and the refractive index of the spacer layer is 0.5 or greater (see Fig 6; Para [0055, 0064]; the cavity layer 1300 may be formed of the same material as the surrounding units 1150, SiO2 with a refractive index of 1.46, compared to a refractive index of TiO2 of the first reflectors the difference is of greater than 1.0).
Regarding claim 9, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 4 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses further comprising: a protection layer covering the plurality of second, fourth and sixth nanostructures (see Fig 1; Para [0059, 0063]; a second surrounding unit 1250 covers second reflectors 1211-1213).
Regarding claim 10, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 9 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein a difference between a refractive index of the protection layer and the refractive index of the plurality of second nanostructures is 0.5 or greater (see Fig 6; Para [0059, 0063]; difference between second reflectors and second surrounding unit wherein reflectors may be made of TiO2 and surrounding unit is made of SiO2 is greater than 1 as refractive index of TiO2 is 2.9 and refractive index of SiO2 is 1.46).
Regarding claim 11, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 1 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein a height of the plurality of first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures are in a range from λ/3 to (3λ)/2, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength, wherein a direction of the height is a direction of stacking the layer of the plurality of first nanostructures and the layer of the plurality of second nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0061, 0053]; thickness of first and second reflectors may be between 2λ/3 and λ/15; wavelength may be longer resonant wavelength of the as seen in Fig 8).
As Han’s height range is similar to the claimed range (i.e., λ/3 to (3λ)/2 to of
the prior art encompasses 2λ/3 to λ/15), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han with wherein a height of the plurality of first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures are in a range from λ/3 to (3λ)/2, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength, wherein a direction of the height is a direction of stacking the layer of the plurality of first nanostructures and the layer of the plurality of second nanostructures of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005])
Regarding claim 12, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 1 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein a separation distance between the plurality of first nanostructures and the plurality of second nanostructures, a separation distance between the plurality of third nanostructures and the plurality of fourth nanostructures, and a separation distance between the plurality of fifth nanostructures and the plurality of sixth nanostructures in the stacking direction are in a range from λ/4 to 2λ, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Fig 6; Para [0061, 0053]; thickness of cavity di may is greater than λi/2; wherein thickness is the height of the cavity layer in a vertical or stacking direction; wavelength may be longer resonant wavelength of the as seen in Fig 8)
As Han’s height range is similar to the claimed range (i.e., λ/4 to 2λ to of
the prior art encompasses d < λ/2), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han with wherein a separation distance between the plurality of first nanostructures and the plurality of second nanostructures, a separation distance between the plurality of third nanostructures and the plurality of fourth nanostructures, and a separation distance between the plurality of fifth nanostructures and the plurality of sixth nanostructures in the stacking direction are in a range from λ/4 to 2λ, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005])
Regarding claim 13, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 1 (see Fig 6). Han further discloses wherein the first meta-lens, the second meta-lens and the third meta-lens are monolithically formed on the sensor substrate (see Fig 6; Para [0084]; Examiner is interpreting this to be equivalent to R1-R3 being formed as a single unit on sensor substrate 3500).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2017/0059777, of record) in view of Riley JR (US 2019/0064532, of record) and Arbabi (US 2017/0034500, of record) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Han S. (US 2016/0316180, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi discloses the image sensor of claim 1. Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi does not disclose wherein the first wavelength bandwidth, the second wavelength bandwidth, and the third wavelength bandwidth is a red wavelength bandwidth, a green wavelength bandwidth and a blue wavelength bandwidth, respectively. Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi and Han S. are related because both disclose image sensors.
Han S. discloses an image sensor (see Fig 15) wherein the first wavelength bandwidth, the second wavelength bandwidth, and the third wavelength bandwidth is a red wavelength bandwidth, a green wavelength bandwidth and a blue wavelength bandwidth, respectively (see Fig 15; Para [0111]; image sensor 1000 may focus light of red, blue, and green wavelengths that have passed through imaging apparatuses 100a-c, respectively)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han in view of Riley JR and Arbabi with wherein the first wavelength bandwidth, the second wavelength bandwidth, and the third wavelength bandwidth is a red wavelength bandwidth, a green wavelength bandwidth and a blue wavelength bandwidth, respectively for the purpose of reducing the thickness of optical devices within the apparatus (Para [0007])
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Han S. (US 2016/0316180, of record) in view of Han (US 2017/0059777, of record) and Riley JR (US 2019/0064532, of record)
Regarding claim 14, Han S. discloses an imaging lens (see Fig 2) comprising: a first meta-lens (see Fig 2; Para [0061]; first optical device 110 is a lens with nanostructures 112; Examiner is taking meta-lens to be a meta-surface with nano-structures to be a meta-lens); a second meta-lens (see Fig 2; Para [0066]; second optical device 120 is a lens with nanostructures 122; Examiner is taking meta-lens to be a meta-surface with nano-structures to be a meta-lens); and a third meta-lens (see Fig 2; Para [0072]; third optical device 130 is a lens with nanostructures 132; Examiner is taking meta-lens to be a meta-surface with nano-structures to be a meta-lens); wherein the imaging lens is configured to form an optical image of an object on an imaging surface (see Fig 2; Para [0067]; imaging apparatus forms optical image on an image surface S1) and the first meta-lens, the second meta-lens, and the third meta-lens are arranged along an optical path from an object to the imaging surface (see Fig 2; Para [0075]; lenses 110-130 are arranged on an optical path from a left/object side to a right/image side), and wherein at least one of the first, second, third meta-lens have a positive refractive power (see Fig 2; Para [0061]; the first optical device 110 may have a positive refractive power), and at least one of the first meta-lens, the second meta-lens, and the third meta-lens have a negative refractive power (see Fig 2; Para [0066]; the second optical device 120 may have a negative refractive power); wherein a shape distribution of the nanostructures is configured to focus light of a wavelength bandwidth including the first wavelength and the second wavelength with a first focal length (see Fig 6; Para [0095]; light of wavelengths of red, green, and blue light can be focused onto the image plane by optical device 110; Han discloses the use of first and second nanostructures), a shape distribution of the nanostructures is configured to focus light of a wavelength bandwidth including the first wavelength and the second wavelength with a second focal length (see Fig 6; Para [0095]; light of wavelengths of red, green, and blue light can be focused onto the image plane by optical device 120; Han discloses the use of third and fourth nanostructures), a shape distribution of the nanostructures is configured to focus light of a wavelength bandwidth including the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Fig 6; Para [0095]; light of wavelengths of red, green, and blue light can be focused onto the image plane by optical device 130; Han discloses the use of fifth and sixth nanostructures)
Han S. does not disclose wherein the first meta-lens comprises a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the first nanostructure; wherein the second meta-lens comprises a plurality of third nanostructures and a plurality of fourth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the third nanostructure; and wherein the third meta-lens comprises a plurality of fifth nanostructures and a plurality of sixth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the fifth nanostructure.
Han S. and Han are related because both disclose optical imaging devices.
Han discloses an optical imaging device (see Fig 6) wherein the first meta-lens comprises a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the first nanostructure (see Fig 6; Para [0065]; a first resonator R1 comprises a plurality of first reflecting units 1110 and second reflecting units 1210 that are formed on a different layer; Examiner is taking meta-lens to be a surface with nano-structures as interpreted in claim 1 above); wherein the second meta-lens comprises a plurality of third nanostructures and a plurality of fourth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the third nanostructure (see Fig 6; Para [0065]; a second resonator R2 comprises a plurality of first reflecting units 1120 and second reflecting units 1220 that are formed on a different layer; Examiner is taking meta-lens to be a surface with nano-structures as interpreted in claim 1 above); and wherein the third meta-lens comprises a plurality of fifth nanostructures and a plurality of sixth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the fifth nanostructure (see Fig 6; Para [0065]; a third resonator R3 comprises a plurality of first reflecting units 1130 and second reflecting units 1230 that are formed on a different layer; Examiner is taking meta-lens to be a surface with nano-structures as interpreted in claim 1 above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han S. with wherein the first meta-lens comprises a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the first nanostructure; wherein the second meta-lens comprises a plurality of third nanostructures and a plurality of fourth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the third nanostructure; and wherein the third meta-lens comprises a plurality of fifth nanostructures and a plurality of sixth nanostructures that form a layer different from a layer of the plurality of the fifth nanostructure of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005]).
Han S. in view of Han may not teach meta-lenses comprising a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures.
Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR are related because both disclose optical devices for transmitting light.
Riley JR discloses an imaging lens (see Fig 9) comprising a meta-lens comprising a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures (see Fig 9; Para [0035, 0215, 0237]; a meta-lens as seen in Fig 9 may comprise a first meta surface of a patterned nanometer material and a second meta surface of patterned nanometer material)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han S in view of Han with comprising a meta-lens comprising a plurality of first nanostructures and a plurality of second nanostructures of Riley JR for the purpose of reducing the size and allowing for miniaturization of optical components (Para [0003])
Han S.
Regarding claim 15, Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR discloses the imaging lens of claim 14 (see Fig 2). Han S. further discloses wherein the wavelength bandwidth comprises one from among a red wavelength bandwidth, a green wavelength bandwidth, and a blue wavelength bandwidth (see Fig 6; Para [0095]; operating wavelength may be of a red, blue, green, or infrared light).
Regarding claim 16, Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR discloses the imaging lens of claim 15. Han S. further discloses wherein the wavelength bandwidth comprises a red wavelength bandwidth, a green wavelength bandwidth, and a blue wavelength bandwidth (see Fig 6; Para [0095]; operating wavelength may be of a red, blue, green, or infrared light).
Regarding claim 17, Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR discloses the imaging lens of claim 14. Han S. does not disclose wherein the first meta-lens, second meta-lens, and the third meta-lens further comprises respectively: a first, a second, a third substrate each supporting the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures, respectively; a first, a second, a third spacer layer each covering the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures and supporting the plurality of second, fourth, sixth nanostructures, respectively; and a first, a second, a third protection layer each covering the plurality of second, fourth, sixth nanostructures, respectively.
Han discloses wherein the first meta-lens, second meta-lens, and the third meta-lens further comprises respectively: a first, a second, a third substrate each supporting the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures, respectively (see Fig 6; Para [0050]; a first surrounding unit 1150 supports the first reflectors 1111, 1112, and 1113 at each resonator R1-R3); a first, a second, a third spacer layer each covering the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures and supporting the plurality of second, fourth, sixth nanostructures, respectively (see Fig 6; Para [0064]; a cavity layer 1300 covers the first reflectors 1111, 1112, and 1113 at each resonator R1-R3); and a first, a second, a third protection layer each covering the plurality of second, fourth, sixth nanostructures, respectively (see Fig 6; Para [0059]; a second surrounding unit 1250 protects the second reflectors 1211, 1212, and 1213 at each resonator R1-R3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han S. with wherein the first meta-lens, second meta-lens, and the third meta-lens further comprises respectively: a first, a second, a third substrate each supporting the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures, respectively; a first, a second, a third spacer layer each covering the plurality of first, third, fifth nanostructures and supporting the plurality of second, fourth, sixth nanostructures, respectively; and a first, a second, a third protection layer each covering the plurality of second, fourth, sixth nanostructures, respectively of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005])
Regarding claim 18, Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR discloses the imaging lens of claim 17. Han S. does not disclose wherein a difference between a refractive index of the first substrate and a refractive index of the plurality of first nanostructures is 0.5 or greater, a difference between a refractive index of the first nanostructures and a refractive index of the first spacer is 0.5 or greater, and a difference between a refractive index of the second nanostructures and a refractive index of the first protection layer is 0.5 or greater.
Han discloses wherein a difference between a refractive index of the first substrate and a refractive index of the plurality of first nanostructures is 0.5 or greater (see Fig 6; Para [0055]; first reflectors 1111, 1112, and 1113 may be formed of TiO2 with a refractive index of 2.9 while first surrounding unit 1150 may be formed of SiO2 that may have a refractive index of 1.46 thus a different of greater than 1.0), a difference between a refractive index of the first nanostructures and a refractive index of the first spacer is 0.5 or greater (see Fig 6; Para [0055, 0064]; the cavity layer 1300 may be formed of the same material as the surrounding units 1150, SiO2 with a refractive index of 1.46, compared to a refractive index of TiO2 of the first reflectors the difference is of greater than 1.0 ), and a difference between a refractive index of the second nanostructures and a refractive index of the first protection layer is 0.5 or greater (see Fig 6; Para [0059, 0063]; difference between second reflectors and second surrounding unit wherein reflectors may be made of TiO2 and surrounding unit is made of SiO2 is greater than 1 as refractive index of TiO2 is 2.9 and refractive index of SiO2 is 1.46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han S. with wherein a difference between a refractive index of the first substrate and a refractive index of the plurality of first nanostructures is 0.5 or greater, a difference between a refractive index of the first nanostructures and a refractive index of the first spacer is 0.5 or greater, and a difference between a refractive index of the second nanostructures and a refractive index of the first protection layer is 0.5 or greater of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005])
Regarding claim 19, Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR discloses the imaging lens of claim 14. Han S. does not disclose wherein a height of the plurality of first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures are in a range from λ/3 to (3λ)/2, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength, wherein a direction of the height is a direction of stacking the layer of the plurality of first nanostructures and the layer of the plurality of second nanostructures.
Han discloses wherein a height of the plurality of first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures are in a range from λ/3 to (3λ)/2, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength, wherein a direction of the height is a direction of stacking the layer of the plurality of first nanostructures and the layer of the plurality of second nanostructures (see Fig 6; Para [0061, 0053]; thickness of first and second reflectors may be between 2λ/3 and λ/15; wherein thickness is the height of the nanostructures in a vertical or stacking direction; wavelength may be the wavelength of the meta lens disclosed by Han S.).
As Han’s height range is similar to the claimed range (i.e., λ/3 to (3λ)/2 to of
the prior art encompasses 2λ/3 to λ/15), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han S. with wherein a height of the plurality of first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth nanostructures are in a range from λ/3 to (3λ)/2, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength, wherein a direction of the height is a direction of stacking the layer of the plurality of first nanostructures and the layer of the plurality of second nanostructures of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005])
Regarding claim 20, Han S. in view of Han and Riley JR discloses the imaging lens of claim 14. Han S. does not disclose wherein a separation distance between the plurality of first nanostructures and the plurality of second nanostructures, a separation distance between the plurality of third nanostructures and the plurality of fourth nanostructures, and a separation distance between the plurality of fifth nanostructures and the plurality of sixth nanostructures in the stacking direction are in a range from λ/4 to 2λ, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength .
Han discloses wherein a separation distance between the plurality of first nanostructures and the plurality of second nanostructures, a separation distance between the plurality of third nanostructures and the plurality of fourth nanostructures, and a separation distance between the plurality of fifth nanostructures and the plurality of sixth nanostructures in the stacking direction are in a range from λ/4 to 2λ, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength (see Fig 6; Para [0061, 0053]; thickness of cavity di may is greater than λi/2; wherein thickness is the height of the cavity layer in a vertical or stacking direction; wavelength may be the resonant wavelength of the meta lens disclosed by Han S.).
As Han’s height range is similar to the claimed range (i.e., λ/4 to 2λ to of
the prior art encompasses d < λ/2), a prima facia case of obviousness exists (see
MPEP 2144.05. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES,
AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or
lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han S. with wherein a separation distance between the plurality of first nanostructures and the plurality of second nanostructures, a separation distance between the plurality of third nanostructures and the plurality of fourth nanostructures, and a separation distance between the plurality of fifth nanostructures and the plurality of sixth nanostructures in the stacking direction are in a range from λ/4 to 2λ, where λ is a longer wavelength of the first wavelength and the second wavelength of Han for the purpose of reducing the size of optical components in imaging application so as to fit into wearable devices (Para [0005])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANDRES SANZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am -5:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/G.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872