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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 12/06/2022, 06/10/2025 and 08/13/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "one pixel" in line 2 and “the one pixel” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the one pixel is referring to the same pixel or two different pixels in different light detection elements. For examination purposes “one pixel” and “the one pixel” will be treated as different pixels to differentiate the light detection elements.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "one pixel" in line 2 and “the one pixel” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the one pixel is referring to the same pixel or two different pixels in different light detection elements. For examination purposes “one pixel” and “the one pixel” will be treated as different pixels to differentiate the light detection elements.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Drolet discloses in at least figures 11 and 13, a light detection element (pixel array 20 includes a light based component 80 that may include light detectors col. 7 lines 32-36) comprising:
A meta-lens that includes nanostructures (layer 24 may be formed from a meta surface formed from patterned nanostructures col. 3 lines 44-46) which are two-dimensionally arranged (nanostructures 92 are two dimensionally arranged fig. 13).
Drolet does not discloses, a magnetic element that includes a first ferromagnetic layer, a second ferromagnetic layer, a spacer layer sandwiched between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer,
wherein light which passes through the meta-lens is applied to the magnetic element.
However Degawa discloses in at least figures 1 and 19, a magnetic element (magnetic element 10 fig. 2) that includes a first ferromagnetic layer (first ferromagnetic layer 1 fig. 1), a second ferromagnetic layer (second ferromagnetic layer 2 fig. 1), a spacer layer (spacer layer 3 fig. 1) sandwiched between (the spacer layer 3 is between the first and second ferromagnetic layers 1 and 2 fig. 1) the first ferromagnetic layer (first ferromagnetic layer 1 fig. 1) and the second ferromagnetic layer (second ferromagnetic layer 2 fig. 2),
wherein light which passes through (the light detection element 100 is irradiated with light that is transmitted through the wavelength filter F and lens R paragraph [0132]) the meta-lens (Lens R fig. 19, meta lens taught above by Drolet) is applied to (the light is applied to magnetic element 10 paragraph [0132]) the magnetic element (magnetic element 10 is a part of light detection element 100 fig. 1 shown in light sensor device 2000 fig. 19).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic element as taught by Degawa with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light detection element 100 converts the light applied to the magnetic element 10 into the electrical signal paragraph [0132]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Han et al. (US 20190377067 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the meta-lens has a first region when an arrangement surface
on which the nanostructures are arranged is viewed in a plan view, and
an area of each of nanostructures provided in the first region the plan view decreases toward an outward side from a center of the first region.
However Han discloses in at least figures 5-6, wherein the meta-lens (meta-lens 510” fig. 6) has a first region (first annular region fig. 6) when an arrangement surface (substrate 13 fig. 5) on which the nanostructures (nano-structures NS3 fig. 6) are arranged (nano-structures NS3 are arranged on substrate 13 fig. 5) is viewed in a plan view (the meta lens is shown in a plan view fig. 6), and
an area of each of nanostructures (nano-structures NS3 fig. 6) provided in the first region (first annular region fig. 6) the plan view (the meta lens is shown in a plan view fig. 6) decreases toward an outward side from a center (the area of NS3 decreases from the center of the first annular region to the outward edge of the first annular region fig. 6) of the first region (first annular region fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the nanostructure arrangement as taught by Han in the meta lens of Drolet. The arrangement of the nanostructures can change the optical characteristics of the light collimated by the meta lens (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Han discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the meta-lens further has an annular region on the outward side of the first region when the arrangement surface on which the nanostructures arc arranged is viewed in the plan view, and
an area of each of nanostructures provided in the annular region the plan view decreases toward an outer circumferential side from an inner circumferential side of the annular region.
However Han further discloses, wherein the meta-lens (meta-lens 510” fig. 6) further has an annular region (second annular region fig. 6) on the outward side (the second annular region is on the outward side of the first annular region fig. 6) of the first region (first annular region fig. 6) when the arrangement surface (substrate 13 fig. 5) on which the nanostructures (nano-structures NS3 fig. 6) are arranged (nano-structures NS3 are arranged on substrate 13 fig. 5) is viewed in the plan view (the meta lens is shown in a plan view fig. 6), and
an area of each of nanostructures (nano-structures NS3 fig. 6) provided in the annular region (second annular region fig. 6) the plan view (the meta lens is shown in a plan view fig. 6) decreases toward an outer circumferential side from an inner circumferential side (the area of NS3 decreases from inner circumferential side to an outer circumferential side of the second annular region fig. 6) of the annular region (second annular region fig. 6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the nanostructure arrangement as taught by Han in the meta lens of Drolet. The arrangement of the nanostructures can change the optical characteristics of the light collimated by the meta lens (paragraph [0065]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Chen et al. (US 20200103640 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Drolet further discloses, wherein when an arrangement surface on which the nanostructures (nanostructures 92 are arranged on layer 24 fig. 13) are arranged is viewed in a plan view (layer 24 in in a pan view fig. 13), a shape of each of the nanostructures (nanostructures 92 fig. 13) in the plan view (layer 24 in in a pan view fig. 13) has a longitudinal direction (y direction fig. 13) and a transverse direction (x direction fig. 13), and
Drolet does not disclose, a disposition angle of the longitudinal direction (y direction fig. 13) or at least one of the nano structures is different from a disposition angle of the longitudinal direction of another nanostructure.
However Chen discloses in at least figure 2, a disposition angle (disposition angle a as shown below in fig. 2) of the longitudinal direction (longitudinal direction as shown below in fig. 2) of at least one of the nano structures (nano-structure a as shown below in fig. 2) is different (the disposition changes from angle a to angle b in the longitudinal direction as shown below in fig. 2) from a disposition angle (disposition angle a as shown below in fig. 2) of the longitudinal direction (longitudinal direction as shown below in fig. 2) of another nanostructure (nano-structure b as shown below in fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the nanostructure arrangement as taught by Chen in the meta lens of Drolet. The size of the nanofins impacts the phase profile of the meta lens (paragraph [0040]).
PNG
media_image1.png
827
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kojima (US 6603619 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of the light focused by the meta lens.
However Kojima discloses in at least figure 4A, wherein the magnetic element (magnetic storage medium 1 fig. 4A.) is disposed at a focal position (the dual-focal-point objective lens 13 is driven so as to control the light flux 16 to always focus on the magnetic storage medium 1 col. 9 lines 29-31) of the light focused by (light flux 16 fig. 4A) the meta lens (objective lens 13 fig. 4A, meta lens taught above by Drolet).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to focus light on a magnetic element as taught by Kojima with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light focused to the magnetic element is reflected and directed to the optical detecting system col. 9 lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Kojima discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and Drolet further discloses, wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of a wave length range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm (the recording laser beams may be stepped through multiple wavelengths within the linewidth of each pixel color in the range of red blue and green col. 5 line 61 - col. 6 line 7 which is 470-700nm).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Silvano de Sousa et al. (US 20200153510 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Drolet does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and 1 mm or less.
However Silvano de Sousa discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of 1 mm or less (the wavelength of infrared light is in the range of several um and 750 nm paragraph [0003]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use infrared light as taught by Silvano de Sousa in the pixel array of Drolet. One of the means of electromagnetic radiation used for wireless communications is the infrared spectral range paragraph [0003]).
Additionally, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (a wavelength of 800 nm or more and 1 mm or less nm required by the claim overlaps the range disclosed by Silvano de Sousa (the wavelength is in the range of several um and 750nm). 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Mun et al. (US 20220082815 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Drolet does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of a wavelength range of 200 nm or more and less than 380 nm.
However Mun discloses in figure 28, wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of 200 nm or more and less than 380 nm (the photodetector 2430 may include an array of a plurality of sensors for sensing light paragraph [0191] the image sensor may be a UV sensor paragraph [0182] which has a wavelength of 10-400nm).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use ultraviolet light as taught by Mun in the pixel array of Drolet. The ultraviolet sensor is used to detect the ultraviolet light emitted by the LEDs paragraph [0182]).
Additionally, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (200 nm or more and less than 380 nm required by the claim overlaps the range disclosed by Johnson (ultra violet light at 10-400nm). 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Claims 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Cho (US 20210112201 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Drolet does not explicitly disclose, A light sensor unit comprising:
a plurality of light detection elements, wherein each of the light detection elements is the light detection element according to claim 1.
However Cho discloses in at least figure 4, a light sensor unit (image sensor includes lens elements 421, 422 and 423 paragraph [0064]) comprising:
a plurality of light detection elements (sensing array 440 fig. 4), wherein each of the light detection elements (sensing regions 441, 442 and 443 fig. 4) is the light detection element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the light sensor unit of Cho with the pixel array of Drolet. A plurality of sensing regions of the sensing array 440 may sense image information having a focus that is formed according to a viewing angle of each of lens elements having different viewing angles (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Drolet and Degawa , and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the light detection elements are two-dimensionally arranged.
However Cho further discloses, wherein the light detection elements (sensing array 440 fig. 5) are two-dimensionally arranged (the sensing array 440 is two-dimensionally arranged fig. 5)
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the light sensor unit of Cho with the pixel array of Drolet. A plurality of sensing regions of the sensing array 440 may sense image information having a focus that is formed according to a viewing angle of each of lens elements having different viewing angles (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Drolet and Degawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Drolet does not disclose, a receiving device comprising:
The light detection element according to claim 1.
However Cho discloses in at least figure 4, a receiving device (image sensor paragraph [0062] including lens elements 421, 422, 423, and sensing array 440 fig. 4) comprising:
The light detection element (sensing array 440 fig. 4) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the receiving device of Cho with the light detection unit of Drolet. A plurality of sensing regions of the sensing array 440 may sense image information having a focus that is formed according to a viewing angle of each of lens elements having different viewing angles (paragraph [0069]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Cho (US 20210112201 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Kojima (US 6603619 B1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the light detection elements include at least a first light detection element and a second light detection element,
in the first light detection element, the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of light in a first wavelength range focused by the meta-lens and in the second light detection element, the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of light in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength focused by the meta-lens.
However Cho further discloses, wherein the light detection elements (sensing array 440 fig. 4) include at least a first light detection element (sensing regions 441 fig. 4) and a second light detection element (sensing regions 441 fig. 4).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use multiple light detecting elements as taught by Cho in the pixel array of Drolet. A plurality of sensing regions of the sensing array 440 may sense image information having a focus that is formed according to a viewing angle of each of lens elements having different viewing angles (paragraph [0069]).
Additionally Kojima discloses in at least figure 4A, wherein the magnetic element (magnetic storage medium 1 fig. 4A.) is disposed at a focal position (the dual-focal-point objective lens 13 is driven so as to control the light flux 16 to always focus on the magnetic storage medium 1 col. 9 lines 29-31) of the light focused by (light flux 16 fig. 4A) the meta lens (objective lens 13 fig. 4A, meta lens taught above by Drolet).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to focus light on a magnetic element as taught by Kojima with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light focused to the magnetic element is reflected and directed to the optical detecting system col. 9 lines 9-20).
Further, It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Drolet, to duplicate the electronic device, in order to have multiple light detection elements for different wavelength ranges.
In addition, absent any criticality, the duplicate the electronic device is only obvious modification of Drolet since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, the more electronic devises, the more wavelength ranges can be covered, but the functionality of the sensor does not change.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Cho (US 20210112201 A1) as applied to claim 10 above in further view of Silvano de Sousa et al. (US 20200153510 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 10 and Drolet further discloses, wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of a wave length range of 380 nm or more and less than 800 nm (the recording laser beams may be stepped through multiple wavelengths within the linewidth of each pixel color in the range of red blue and green col. 5 line 61 - col. 6 line 7 which is 470-700nm).
Drolet does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second wavelength range is a particular wavelength range of a wavelength range of 800 nm or more and 1 mm or less.
However Silvano de Sousa discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the wavelength range is a particular wavelength range of a wavelength range of 1 mm or less (the wavelength of infrared light is in the range of several um and 750 nm paragraph [0003]).
Additionally, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (a wavelength of 800 nm or more and 1 mm or less required by the claim overlaps the range disclosed by Silvano de Sousa the wavelength is in the range of several um and 750 nm). 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Further, It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Silvano de Sousa, to duplicate the electronic device, in order to have multiple light detection elements for different wavelength ranges.
In addition, absent any criticality, the duplicate the electronic device is only obvious modification of Silvano de Sousa since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, the more electronic devises, the more wavelength ranges can be covered, but the functionality of the sensor does not change.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Cho (US 20210112201 A1) as applied to claim 10 above in further view of Mun et al. (US 20220082815 A1) and Kojima (US 6603619 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the light detection elements further has a third light detection element,
in the third light detection element the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of light in a third wavelength range different from the first wavelength range and the second wavelength range focused by the meta-lens, and
the third wavelength range is a particular wavelength range of a wavelength range of 200 nm or more and less than 380 nm.
However Mun further discloses wherein the light is light in a particular wavelength range of 200 nm or more and less than 380 nm (the photodetector 2430 may include an array of a plurality of sensors for sensing light paragraph [0191] the image sensor may be a UV sensor paragraph [0182] which has a wavelength of 10-400nm).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use ultraviolet light as taught by Mun in the pixel array of Drolet. The ultraviolet sensor is used to detect the ultraviolet light emitted by the LEDs paragraph [0182]).
Additionally Kojima discloses in at least figure 4A, wherein the magnetic element (magnetic storage medium 1 fig. 4A.) is disposed at a focal position (the dual-focal-point objective lens 13 is driven so as to control the light flux 16 to always focus on the magnetic storage medium 1 col. 9 lines 29-31) of the light focused by (light flux 16 fig. 4A) the meta lens (objective lens 13 fig. 4A, meta lens taught above by Drolet).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to focus light on a magnetic element as taught by Kojima with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light focused to the magnetic element is reflected and directed to the optical detecting system col. 9 lines 9-20).
Further, It is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mun, to duplicate the electronic device, in order to have multiple light detection elements for different wavelength ranges.
In addition, absent any criticality, the duplicate the electronic device is only obvious modification of Drolet since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, the more electronic devises, the more wavelength ranges can be covered, it provides but the functionality of the sensor does not change.
Further, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (200 nm or more and less than 380 nm required by the claim overlaps the range disclosed by Johnson (ultra violet light at 10-400nm). 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Cho (US 20210112201 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Yu (CN 105891609 A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Drolet does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light detection elements are one-dimensionally arranged.
However Yu discloses in at least figure 1A, wherein the light detection elements (the electromagnetic radiation detector paragraph [0042] of translation) are one-dimensionally arranged (the electromagnetic radiation detector can be arranged into a one-dimensional array as an imaging device paragraph [0042] of translation).
The combination of Drolet and Cho discloses the claimed invention except that a two-dimensional arrangement for light detection elements is used instead of a one-dimensional arrangement. Yu shows that the two-dimensional arrangement is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these arrangements were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a two-dimensional arrangement for a one-dimensional arrangement, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Cho (US 20210112201 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Kim (US 20210372856 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein at least one light detection element constituting one pixel among the light detection elements differs from another light detection element constituting the one pixel in a constitution of the nanostructures in the meta-lens.
However Kim discloses in at least figure 7B, wherein at least one light detection element (meta surface 711 and pixel array 712 fig. 7A) constituting one pixel (the light detection element includes the hybrid pixel array 712 fig. 7B) among the light detection elements (meta surface 711 and pixel array 712 and meta surface 711 and pixel array 713 fig. 7B) differs from (the nanostructures may be fabricated with different geometric dimensions and arrangements to focus light at the same focal distance for each wavelength such as 0.4-1um and 8-12um paragraph [0067] the global meta-lens 711 that focuses different wavelengths of light or radiant energy to different locations on one or more arrays 712 and 713 of hybrid pixels paragraph [0068]) another light detection element (meta surface 711 and pixel array 713 fig. 7A) constituting the one pixel (the light detection element includes hybrid pixel array 713 fig. 7B) in a constitution of the nanostructures (the meta surface lens may be formed from nanostructures paragraph [0067]) in the meta-lens elements (meta lens 711 fig. 7B).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use different nanostructures for different wavelengths as taught by Kim in the pixel array of Drolet. The meta surface lens may be formed from nanostructures that include dielectric materials that may be transparent to the wavelengths in a desired spectrum paragraph [0067]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Cho (US 20210112201 A1) as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Menon et al. (US 20220086372 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein at least one light detection element constituting one pixel among the light detection elements differs from another light detection element constituting the one pixel in a distance between the meta-lens and the magnet element.
However Menon discloses in at least figure 2A, wherein at least one light detection element (Light detector A as shown below in fig. 2A) constituting one pixel (sensor pixel A as shown below in fig. 2A) among the light detection elements (Light detectors A-C as shown below in fig. 2A) differs from another (the meta material filter 118 is different for each sensor pixel as shown below in fig. 2A) light detection element (Light detector A as shown below in fig. 2A) constituting the one pixel (sensor pixel A as shown below in fig. 2A), in a distance between (the metamaterial filter 118 can be oriented adjacent the sensor array 120 and can be patterned with pixels having varied physical heights paragraph [0081] resulting in different distances between the metamaterial filter and the sensor 120 fig. 2A) the meta-lens (meta material 118 as shown below in fig. 2A) and the magnet element (the light from the meta material 118 is applied to sensor 120 as shown below in fig. 2A, magnetic element taught above by Drolet and the magnetic element receives light from the meta lens as described in current application paragraph [0008]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use different distances between the pixels and the meta lens as taught by Menon in the in the pixel array of Drolet. The different heights are designed to diffract to diffract an incoming image to produce an engineered response which is sensitive to 2D spatial coordinates paragraph [0081]).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Han et al. (US 20190377067 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 3 above and in further view of Kojima (US 6603619 B1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Han discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of the light focused by the meta-lens.
However Kojima discloses in at least figure 4A, wherein the magnetic element (magnetic storage medium 1 fig. 4A.) is disposed at a focal position (the dual-focal-point objective lens 13 is driven so as to control the light flux 16 to always focus on the magnetic storage medium 1 col. 9 lines 29-31) of the light focused by (light flux 16 fig. 4A) the meta lens (objective lens 13 fig. 4A, meta lens taught above by Drolet).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to focus light on a magnetic element as taught by Kojima with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light focused to the magnetic element is reflected and directed to the optical detecting system col. 9 lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Han discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of the light focused by the meta-lens.
However Kojima discloses in at least figure 4A, wherein the magnetic element (magnetic storage medium 1 fig. 4A.) is disposed at a focal position (the dual-focal-point objective lens 13 is driven so as to control the light flux 16 to always focus on the magnetic storage medium 1 col. 9 lines 29-31) of the light focused by (light flux 16 fig. 4A) the meta lens (objective lens 13 fig. 4A, meta lens taught above by Drolet).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to focus light on a magnetic element as taught by Kojima with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light focused to the magnetic element is reflected and directed to the optical detecting system col. 9 lines 9-20).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drolet (US 10748969 B2) in view of Degawa (US 20220252449 A1) and Chen et al. (US 20200103640 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Kojima (US 6603619 B1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Drolet, Degawa and Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Drolet does not disclose, wherein the magnetic element is disposed at a focal position of the light focused by the meta-lens.
However Kojima discloses in at least figure 4A, wherein the magnetic element (magnetic storage medium 1 fig. 4A.) is disposed at a focal position (the dual-focal-point objective lens 13 is driven so as to control the light flux 16 to always focus on the magnetic storage medium 1 col. 9 lines 29-31) of the light focused by (light flux 16 fig. 4A) the meta lens (objective lens 13 fig. 4A, meta lens taught above by Drolet).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to focus light on a magnetic element as taught by Kojima with the meta lens in the pixel array of Drolet. The light focused to the magnetic element is reflected and directed to the optical detecting system col. 9 lines 9-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahmed et al. (US 20190121004 A1) discloses a meta surface device for display that has space between the pixels.
Janunts (US 20210263070 A1) discloses an assembly for detecting radiation that has a meta lens and pixel grid.
Mirta (US 7135698 B2) discloses a sub pixel photodetector for detecting different bands of infrared radiation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights