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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 04, 2026 has been entered. Applicants’ amendment to Fig 1A has overcome the objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
The Examiner interprets the Amendments to independent claims 11, 14, and 22 as having changed the scope of the invention by further limiting the “metasurface array” to be “a regular arrangement of individual metalenses” .
Claims 11, 14, 18, 20-22, 26-29, and 31-32 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The Drawings were objected to for not showing the claimed metalenses. Applicants’ have traversed the objection asserting that the metalenses are not a separate component from the metasurface array. The Examiner understands an interpretation where metalenses integrally form a metasurface array, but is confused by an assertion that individual metalenses cannot be depicted in the drawings, for example in similar manner to depictions (vertical dividing lines) inferred as representing individual pixels of a pixel array in each figure. While the Examiner believes this may make the configuration of the claimed metasurface arrays more readily understood, in view of additional clarity from the amended claim language, the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed May 4, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 11, 14, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102, and of claims 18, 20-22, 26-28, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and some of the grounds are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicants’ argument in regards to the rejection of claim 11 that Dowski does not disclose the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array is not persuasive. A detector array 10000 of Dowski (a sensor assembly) is shown in example in Fig 295 {¶ [0795-796]; see the included Figures below}, having a pitch depicted by the width of a detector pixel 10001. A detector pixel 10001 is shown in more detail in Fig 296, on the same page, as comprising a photosensitive region 10002 (a sensor pixel) and an individual metalens 10010; that is the detector 10000 of Fig 295 comprises a sensor pixel array of sensor pixels 10002 and a metasurface array of individual metalenses 10010, the metasurface array being a regular arrangement of 10010 metalenses on the array of sensor pixels 10002 with a size and pitch of the sensor pixel array, as depicted in Fig 295. In the rejection of claim 11, the Examiner cited the of similar detector pixel 10740 of Fig 331 (in order to include IR cut filter 10750 in the assembly), rather than detector pixel 10001 of Fig 296, as the detailed detected pixel configuration, arrayed in the same manner as shown by Fig 295, having interpreted the disclosure to include the similar array arrangement, the disclosure including a number of exemplary detector pixels and not repeating with each example a figure depicting a corresponding detector array 10000. The detector pixel 10740 of Fig 331 includes the same sensor pixel 10002 as Fig 296 and a variation of the metalens comprising 10152 rather than 10010. (The Examiner notes that alternatively, one may consider an obviousness type rejection using the Figure 296 detector pixel configuration, combined with the 10750 IR cut filter of Fig 331).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim rejections included below have been updated to more clearly explain the interpretation.
Applicants’ argument in regards to the rejection of claims 11 and 14 that Han does not disclose the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array is persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of additional embodiments disclosed by Han in combination with additional prior art. Please see the updated claim rejections below.
Applicants’ argument in regards to the rejection of claim 22 that Devlin does not disclose the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array is persuasive, and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Dowski, Jr.; Edward R. et al. (US 2010/0165134; hereinafter Dowski).
Regarding claim 11, Dowski discloses a sensor assembly, comprising:
a sensor pixel array (an array of 10002 elements; Fig 331; ¶ [0795,0819]; arrayed in the manner shown in Fig 295, ¶ [0795]);
a metasurface array (an array of 10152 elements; Fig 331; ¶ [0801]; arrayed in the manner shown in Fig 295, ¶ [0795]) on the sensor pixel array, wherein the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses (10152) with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array (as shown in Figs 331 and 295); and
an IR cut filter (10750; Fig 331; ¶ [0820]) on a side of the metasurface array opposite the sensor pixel array.
Regarding claim 29, Dowski discloses a mobile device (hand held device; ¶ [0389]) having an imaging sensor to image a user body portion (an iris, for example; ¶ [0389]) placed proximate to the device, comprising the sensor assembly of claim 11 (as described under claim 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11, 14, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Motta; Ricardo J. (US 2011/0228097; hereinafter Motta).
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses a sensor assembly, comprising:
an image sensor (1210; Fig 12; ¶ [0091,099-103]);
a metasurface array (the array of meta-lenses 142,143,144 {which may be repeatedly arranged}; Fig 12; ¶ [0103, {0102}]) on the sensor pixel array, wherein the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses.
Han does not disclose in the embodiment of Fig 12:
(1) the image sensor 1210 is a sensor pixel array, wherein the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array; and
(2) an IR cut filter on a side of the metasurface array opposite the sensor pixel array.
Regarding (1), Han discloses image sensor 1200 in the embodiment of Fig 10 {¶ [0088, 0091} which is described as an array. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the sensor 1210 may also be configured as an array. One may have been motivated do this in order form a color image from the color filter array 125 and metasurface array of Fig 12. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the configuration is well-known and typical in the art.
Regarding (2), in the same field of endeavor, Motta discloses a sensor assembly (1; Fig 2; ¶ [0006-0008]) comprising a sensor pixel array (4), a color filter array (3), and an IR cut filter (2). Accordingly it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the disclosures of Han and Motta by substituting the IR cut filter plus color filter array of Motta for the color filter array of Han (125; Fig 12). One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is a conventional method in the art, as disclosed by Motta (¶ [0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 32, Han discloses the assembly of claim 11, further comprising an optical spacer (not labeled in Fig 12; see Fig 9 {¶ [0082-83 and 0101; Abstr]) on the sensor pixel array (1210; Fig 12) opposite the metasurface array (the array of meta-lenses 142,143,144; Fig 12).
Regarding claim 14, Han discloses a sensor assembly, comprising:
an image sensor (1210; Fig 12; ¶ [0091,099-103]);
a transparent substrate (110; Fig 12; ¶ [0053, 0103]) on the sensor pixel array; and,
a metasurface array (the array of meta-lenses 142,143,144 {which may be repeatedly arranged}; Fig 12; ¶ [0103, {0102}]) on a side of the substrate opposite the image sensor, wherein the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses.
Han does not disclose in the embodiment of Fig 12:
(1) the image sensor 1210 is a sensor pixel array, wherein the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array; and
(2) a notch filter on a side of the metasurface array opposite the substrate.
Regarding (1), Han discloses image sensor 1200 in the embodiment of Fig 10 {¶ [0088, 0091} which is described as an array. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the sensor 1210 may also be configured as an array. One may have been motivated do this in order form a color image from the color filter array 125 and metasurface array of Fig 12. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the configuration is well-known and typical in the art.
Regarding (2), in the same field of endeavor, Motta discloses a sensor assembly (20; Fig 3; ¶ [0035-36,0040]) responsive to both visible light and near-infrared spectral energy (¶ [0001]), and comprising a sensor pixel array (24), a color filter array (23), and a notch filter (22). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the disclosures of Han and Motta by substituting the notch filter plus color filter array of Motta for the color filter array of Han (125; Fig 12). One would have been motivated to do this in order to combine the advantages of each disclosure: to enable less noisy transmission of spectral energy having wavelengths in both the visible spectrum and the near-infrared (IR) spectrum (Motta; Abstr, ¶ [0031-33]), in the reduced total optical length sensor assembly provided by the metasurface array of Han (Han; ¶ [0006, 0103]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because it is common in the art to combine or include multiple types of filters in a sensor assembly, and because Motta has suggested the disclosed notch filer (Motto; ¶ [0050) as an improvement over a conventional IR filter commonly used with an image sensor (such as Han discloses in another embodiment; Han; IR cut-off filter 123; Fig 10; ¶ [0090]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Motta; Ricardo J. (US 2011/0228097; hereinafter Motta) and further in view of Mouli; Chandra (US 2007/0014019; hereinafter Mouli).
Regarding claim 18, Han in view of Motta discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose the wherein the metasurface array is tuned to at least two wavelengths and at least two focal lengths.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (110; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024]), wherein the microlens array is tuned to at least two wavelengths (since color {wavelength} filter array 124 {Fig 2; R,G,B: Fig 3; ¶ [0025]} is in the light path after having passed through the microlens array, the microlens array must be tuned to at least two wavelengths) and at least two focal lengths (for the case where different focal lengths are desired {for each microlens 102, in the microlens array}; ¶ [0033]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metasurface array of Han in view of Motta in the manner of the microlens array of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this in order to enable more optimal operation of the device over at least two wavelengths and two distances (focal lengths). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the metasurface array is essentially a substitution for a microlens array (at least, a functional substitution), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, and a metasurface array is known in the art as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Motta; Ricardo J. (US 2011/0228097; hereinafter Motta) and further in view of Wheatly John A et al. (US 2019/0137669 A1; hereinafter Wheatly).
Regarding claim 20, Han in view of Motta discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the notch filter is polarization selective.
In the same field of endeavor Wheatley discloses a polarization selective (near IR) notch filter (1000c-1; Fig 10C; ¶ [0054,00079]) included in a sensor of an optical system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polarization selective near IR notch filter of Wheatly for the near IR notch filter of the assembly of claim 14, or to have modified the claim 14 assembly to include the polarization selective function. One may have been motivated to do this in order to improve a detection signal analysis (sensitivity/accuracy) with the addition of the polarization state (Wheatly; ¶ [0075-76,0083]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because this type of filter is known in the art, and Han in view of Motta has not disclosed a limitation that would render incompatible the filter or polarization selective function of Wheatley (¶ [0079; 0087-93]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Motta; Ricardo J. (US 2011/0228097; hereinafter Motta) and further in view of Paiella; Roberto et al. (US 2020/0321378; hereinafter Paiella).
Regarding claim 21, Han in view of Motta discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the metasurface array is polarization selective.
In the same field of endeavor Paiella discloses a metasurface array (NP array; Figs 5A,6,8B; ¶ [0089-90]) in a sensor assembly (such as shown in Fig 2B), wherein the metasurface array is polarization selective. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the assembly of claim 14 with such a metasurface array. One may have been motivated to do this to take advantage of the reduced glare and improved contrast the metasurface array of Paiella offers (Paiella; ¶ [0052]) in combination with the assembly of claim 14 of Han in view of Motta. One would have had a reasonable expectation because of the similar structures of the metasurface arrays of Han (140; Figs 3,10) and Paiella (NP array; Fig 5A), and because a metasurface array is known in the art as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowski, Jr.; Edward R. et al. (US 2010/0165134; hereinafter Dowski) in view of Imai; Haruna et al. (US 2023/0367050; hereinafter Imai).
Regarding claim 31, Dowski discloses the sensor assembly of claim 11, but does not disclose further comprising a transparent substrate on the sensor pixel array (array of 10002; Figs 331,295) opposite the metasurface array (array of 10152; Fig 331; 295).
In the same field of endeavor, Imai disclose an IR cut filter (Fig. 29; ¶ [0004]) comprising a transparent substrate 13. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the IR cut filter configuration of Imai for the IR cut filter of claim 11, satisfying the further limitation of claim 31. One would have been motivated to do this as an alternate configuration, perhaps to provide a protective layer or cover glass over a sensor assembly of an electronic device. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because such an IR cut filter is well-known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, and 26-28 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “a transparent substrate on a side of the pinhole array opposite the optically clear adhesive; and a metasurface array on a side of the substrate opposite the pinhole array, wherein the metasurface array is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array”, along with the additional limitation of claim 22. For example, the prior art Devlin (Devlin; Robert C. et al. {US 2021/0028215}) discloses a related sensor assembly, cited in the prior office action, and additionally with respect to Figs 18A-18D and associated description, but the metasurface array of Devlin is not a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array. The prior art Han discloses a metasurface array which is a regular arrangement of individual metalenses with a size and pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array, but not having a transparent substrate on a side of a pinhole array and additional configuration. The Examiner does not find it obvious to combine the metasurface array of Han with the sensor assembly of Devlin, and the Examiner has not found in additional prior art the particular combination of limitations, or evidence that such combination of limitations would be obvious from a combination of references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang; Zhaohui et al. (WO 2020/035768; the prior art discloses an optical element comprising a microlens array, wherein an array of microlenses includes metalens);
Chung; Dae-young et al. (US 2018/0012069; the prior art discloses a fingerprint sensing system comprising a microlens array).
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights