Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on March 19th, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 12-23 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 19th, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 7-9, “Remarks”) that Morita, Ahmed, Han, and the other cited references fail to teach the limitations presented in amended Claims 1, 13, and 17.
However, as seen in the rejections below, Claim 1 is rejected by the combination of Morita, Meng, and Hsu. Claim 13 is rejected by the combination of Ahmed, Meng, and Hsu. Claim 17 is rejected by the combination of Han, Meng, and Hsu.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate that the corresponding limitations are addressed with a secondary reference/embodiment in an obviousness analysis.
Claims 1, 4-5, 12, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (2024/0339466 A1; hereinafter Morita) in view of Meng et al (2025/0102355 A1; hereinafter Meng) and Hsu et al. (2023/0081415 A1; hereinafter Hsu).
Regarding Claim 1, Morita (figs. 1, 2, and 21) teaches a device, comprising:
an image sensor ([0046], 133) inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate ([0048], 20), the image sensor comprising:
a plurality of pixels ([0051], PX1a-PX2b), each comprising
a photodetector ([0051]) formed in the substrate (20);
at least first ([0133], 11b) and second ([0133], 11a) metasurfaces stacked, in this order, in front of the plurality of pixels (PX1a-PX2b), and a third metasurface,
each metasurface being a bidimensional array of pads ([0058], [0133], meta-atoms 15, see fig. 3), wherein
the first metasurface is configured to route incident light toward the photodetectors of the underlying pixels according to the wavelength of the incident light the second metasurface is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light, and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light toward the photodetectors of the pixels.
Morita doesn’t teach the first metasurface is configured to route incident light toward the photodetectors of the underlying pixels according to the wavelength of the incident light and the second metasurface is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light.
However, Meng (fig. 41) teaches the first metasurface ([0153], 11) is configured to route incident light toward the photodetectors ([0086], 12 contains a plurality of detection regions) of the underlying pixels ([0104]) according to the wavelength ([0154], 11 is configured to split light into a plurality of colors) of the incident light and the second metasurface ([0153], 13) is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light ([0154], 13 is configured to split light into a plurality of polarizations). Meng teaches the positions of the first and second metasurfaces may also be interchanged ([0156]). Meng also teaches this metasurface layer arrangement improves light utilization efficiency, increases imaging information, and further improves imaging quality ([0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the metasurface layer arrangement of Meng to further improve imaging quality.
Morita doesn’t teach a third metasurface and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light.
However, Hsu (fig. 3) teaches a third metasurface ([0044], 18-4) and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light ([0078], 18-4 directs incoming light into a sensing device 16, see fig. 3). Hsu also teaches that a cascade of multiple metasurfaces can produce spatial focusing by utilizing the spaces between the layers and to realize a compact optical system ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the third metasurface of Peidous to utilize the spaces between the layers and to realize a compact optical system.
Regarding Claim 4, Morita (figs. 1, 2, and 21) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the pads (15) of the first metasurface (11b) and the pads (15) of the second metasurface (11a) are of amorphous silicon ([0058]).
Regarding Claim 5, Morita (figs. 1, 2, and 21) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the pads (15) of the first metasurface (11b) and the pads (15) of the second metasurface (11a) are laterally surrounded with silicon oxide ([0057], waveguide 30).
Regarding Claim 12, Morita (figs. 1, 2, and 21) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein, in top view, the pads (15) of the first metasurface (11b) or the pads of the second metasurface (11a) have asymmetrical shapes (see fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 22, Morita (figs. 1, 2, and 21) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein in top view, the pads (15) of the first metasurface (11b) or the pads of the second metasurface (11a) are rectangular (see fig. 4) or elliptic in shape.
Regarding Claim 23, Meng (fig. 41) teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first metasurface (11) is configured to route and focus red light, green light, blue light ([0138]), and infrared light ([0182], infrared band may also be applied).
Claims 2-3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita, Meng, and Hsu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (2020/0264343 A1; hereinafter Han).
Regarding Claim 2, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first and second metasurfaces are at a distance from the semiconductor substrate shorter than 500 μm.
However, Han (fig. 13) teaches the first ([0096], 330) and second metasurfaces ([0096], 530) are at a distance from the semiconductor substrate ([0091], 200) shorter than 500 µm ([0055], [0075], 530 and 330 are spaced from 200 by a focal length of about 15 µm). Han teaches that this distance appropriately focuses light for wavelengths between 780 nm – 920 nm. ([0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the distances of Han to properly focus the light.
Regarding Claim 3, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first metasurface is at a distance from the semiconductor substrate in the range from 1 to 50 μm, and the second metasurface is at a distance from the first metasurface in the range from 1 to 50 μm.
However, Han (fig. 13) teaches the first metasurface ([0096], 330) is at a distance from the semiconductor substrate ([0091], 200) in the range from 1 to 50 µm ([0055], [0075], 530 and 330 are spaced from 200 by a focal length of about 15 µm), and the second metasurface ([0096], 530) is at a distance from the first metasurface (330) in the range from 1 to 50 µm ([0074], [0076], the two metasurfaces are spaced apart by 2λ, or about 1-2 μm). Han teaches that this distance appropriately focuses light for wavelengths between 780 nm – 920 nm. ([0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the distances of Han to properly focus the light.
Regarding Claim 21, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first and second metasurfaces are at a distance from the semiconductor substrate shorter than 100 μm.
However, Han (fig. 13) teaches the first ([0096], 330) and second metasurfaces ([0096], 530) are at a distance from the semiconductor substrate ([0091], 200) shorter than 100 μm ([0055], [0075], 530 and 330 are spaced from 200 by a focal length of about 15 µm). Han teaches that this distance appropriately focuses light for wavelengths between 780 nm – 920 nm. ([0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the distances of Han to properly focus the light.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita, Meng, and Hsu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (2021/0014394 A1; hereinafter Han2).
Regarding Claim 6, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the pads of the first and second metasurfaces have sub-wavelength lateral dimensions.
However, Han2 (fig. 7) teaches the pads ([0057], NS, [0076], NS3) of the first ([0076], 122) and second metasurfaces ([0075], 140) have sub-wavelength lateral dimensions ([0057], [0076]). Han2 teaches that this arrangement to perform a desired optical function for light in the predetermined wavelength band ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the lateral dimensions of Han2 to properly perform desired optical functions.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita, Meng, and Hsu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Noudo et al. (2025/0120206 A1; hereinafter Noudo).
Regarding Claim 8, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, comprising a layer of color filters between the first metasurface and the substrate.
However, Nouda (fig. 39) teaches a layer of color filters ([0265], 430R, 430G) between the first metasurface ([0265], 2006) and the substrate ([0135], 209). Nouda teaches this narrows the wavelength range and increases light controllability ([0265]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the color filters of Nouda to narrow the wavelength range and increase light controllability.
Regarding Claim 9, Morita doesn’t explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, comprising a layer of color filters above the second metasurface.
However, Nouda (fig. 40) teaches a layer of color filters ([0266], 430R, 430G) above the second metasurface ([0265], 2006). Nouda teaches this makes it possible to reduce sensitivity loss due to inter-pixel light blocking ([0266]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the color filters of Nouda to reduce sensitivity loss due to inter-pixel light blocking.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (2019/0121004 A1; hereinafter Ahmed) in view of Meng and Hsu.
Regarding Claim 13, Ahmed (fig. 3) teaches a device, comprising:
a substrate ([0032], 350);
a plurality of pixels ([0032], 330) on the substrate (350);
a first metasurface ([0032], 320) on the plurality of pixels (330), the first metasurface (320) having a plurality of cells (four cells, see fig. 3) that align with the plurality of pixels (330);
a second metasurface ([0032], 310) on the first metasurface (320), the second metasurface (310) having a plurality of portions (one group, see fig. 3), each portion aligning with a group of the plurality of cells (see fig. 3), and a third metasurface between the first metasurface and the plurality of pixels; wherein
the first metasurface is configured to route incident light toward the underlying pixels according to the wavelength of the incident light, the second metasurface is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light, and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light toward the pixels.
Ahmed doesn’t teach the first metasurface is configured to route incident light toward the underlying pixels according to the wavelength of the incident light, the second metasurface is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light.
However, Meng (fig. 41) teaches the first metasurface ([0153], 11) is configured to route incident light toward the photodetectors ([0086], 12 contains a plurality of detection regions) of the underlying pixels ([0104]) according to the wavelength ([0154], 11 is configured to split light into a plurality of colors) of the incident light and the second metasurface ([0153], 13) is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light ([0154], 13 is configured to split light into a plurality of polarizations). Meng teaches the positions of the first and second metasurfaces may also be interchanged ([0156]). Meng also teaches this metasurface layer arrangement improves light utilization efficiency, increases imaging information, and further improves imaging quality ([0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ahmed to include the metasurface layer arrangement of Meng to further improve imaging quality.
Ahmed doesn’t teach a third metasurface between the first metasurface and the plurality of pixels and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light toward the pixels.
However, Hsu (fig. 3) teaches a third metasurface ([0044], 18-4) between the first metasurface ([0044], 18-3) and the plurality of pixels ([0036], CCD array 16) and the third metasurface (18-4) is configured to focus incident light toward the pixels ([0078], 18-4 directs incoming light into a sensing device 16, see fig. 3). Hsu also teaches that a cascade of multiple metasurfaces can produce spatial focusing by utilizing the spaces between the layers and to realize a compact optical system ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the third metasurface of Peidous to utilize the spaces between the layers and to realize a compact optical system.
Regarding Claim 14, Ahmed (fig. 3) teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the first metasurface (320) includes a transparent material ([0035]) that includes a plurality of pads ([0024], meta-atoms 91 formed as part of a metastructure, see fig. 1A).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, Meng, and Hsu as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Faraon et al. (2022/0214219 A1; hereinafter Faraon).
Regarding Claim 15, Ahmed doesn’t explicitly teach the device of claim 14, wherein the plurality of pads are amorphous silicon.
However, Faraon (fig. 3B) teaches the plurality of pads ([0034], 301’, 302’, 303’) are amorphous silicon ([0044]). Faraon also teaches that amorphous silicon may be used for near and mid IR ranges ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ahmed to include the amorphous silicon of Faraon to apply the device for near and mid IR ranges.
Regarding Claim 16, Ahmed doesn’t explicitly teach the device of claim 14, wherein the plurality of pads are silicon nitride.
However, Faraon (fig. 3B) teaches the plurality of pads ([0034], 301’, 302’, 303’) are silicon nitride ([0044]). Faraon also teaches that silicon nitride may be used for visible ranges ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ahmed to include the silicon nitride of Faraon to apply the device for visible ranges.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Meng and Hsu.
Regarding Claim 17, Han (fig. 13) teaches a device, comprising:
a substrate ([0091], 200, [0096], 310);
a first pixel ([0091], left most 210) on the substrate (200, 310);
a second pixel (middle 210) on the substrate (200, 310);
a first metasurface ([0096], 530) on the first and second pixels (left most and middle 210), the first metasurface (530) including a first portion (portion above left most 210) on the first pixel and a second portion (portion above middle 210) on the second pixel;
a second metasurface ([0096], 330) on the first metasurface (530), the second metasurface (330) including a transparent material ([0060], spacer layer may be SiO2) around a pattern of pads ([0093]-[0094], NS3, NS1); and a third metasurface between the first metasurface and the first and second pixels; wherein
the first metasurface is configured to route incident light toward the first pixel or toward the second pixel according to the wavelength of the incident light, the second metasurface is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light, and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light toward the first and second pixels.
Han doesn’t teach the first metasurface is configured to route incident light toward the first pixel or toward the second pixel according to the wavelength of the incident light and the second metasurface is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light.
However, Meng (fig. 41) teaches the first metasurface ([0153], 11) is configured to route incident light toward the first pixel or toward the second pixel ([0104], pixels) according to the wavelength ([0154], 11 is configured to split light into a plurality of colors) of the incident light and the second metasurface ([0153], 13) is configured to route incident light according to the polarization state of the incident light ([0154], 13 is configured to split light into a plurality of polarizations). Meng teaches the positions of the first and second metasurfaces may also be interchanged ([0156]). Meng also teaches this metasurface layer arrangement improves light utilization efficiency, increases imaging information, and further improves imaging quality ([0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Han to include the metasurface layer arrangement of Meng to further improve imaging quality.
Han doesn’t teach a third metasurface between the first metasurface and the first and second pixels and the third metasurface is configured to focus incident light toward the first and second pixels.
However, Hsu (fig. 3) teaches a third metasurface ([0044], 18-4) between the first metasurface ([0044], 18-3) and the first and second pixels ([0036], CCD array 16) and the third metasurface (18-4) is configured to focus incident light toward the first and second pixels ([0078], 18-4 directs incoming light into a sensing device 16, see fig. 3). Hsu also teaches that a cascade of multiple metasurfaces can produce spatial focusing by utilizing the spaces between the layers and to realize a compact optical system ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Morita to include the third metasurface of Peidous to utilize the spaces between the layers and to realize a compact optical system.
Regarding Claim 18, Han (fig. 13) teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the plurality of pads (NS3, NS1) are opaque ([0060], NS1 may be TiO2) to radiation measured by the first pixel and the second pixel (left most and middle 210).
Regarding Claim 19, Han (fig. 13) teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of pads (NS3, NS1) are amorphous silicon ([0060]).
Regarding Claim 20, Han (fig. 13) teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of pads are silicon nitride ([0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights