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 .
Drawings
The drawings dated 9/26/2025 are considered and accepted by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As a result, the rejection in the Office Action dated 05/08/2025 is maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the applicant submits that Buettgen (US 2018/0301498) does not disclose “the WSOE is configured to focus different wavelengths of the incident radiation at different respective depths in a photo-sensitive detection region of the drift-field demodulation pixel.” (Remarks, page 2 lines 1-17 and page 3 lines 5-15). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, in fig. 1B, Buettgen discloses “The spectral filter 113 can be useful in some cases to block or substantially attenuate particular ranges of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation,” (Buettgen, fig. 1B and par [0026]). In other words, spectral filter 113 selectively passes certain ranges of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. This spectral filter 113 is mapped to the claimed wavelength separating optical element (WSOE). Furthermore, in fig. 1B par [0030-0034], Buettgen discloses spectral filter 113 focuses a first wavelength of multi-wavelength electromagnetic radiation 114 onto the region 111A at a first depth; spectral filter 113 focuses a second wavelength of multi-wavelength electromagnetic radiation 114 onto the region 111B at a second depth; and spectral filter 113 focuses a third wavelength of multi-wavelength electromagnetic radiation 114 onto the region 111C at a third depth. In other words, spectral filter 113 focuses different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation 114 at different respective depths in drift-field demodulation pixel 101. Therefore, the spectral filter 113 disclosed by Buettgen satisfies the claimed language of “the WSOE is configured to focus different wavelengths of the incident radiation at different respective depths in a photo-sensitive detection region of the drift-field demodulation pixel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Buettgen (US 2018/0301498 to Buettgen et al).
Regarding claim 1, Buettgen discloses an apparatus (optoelectronic module 100) (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B) comprising:
a sensor including a drift-field demodulation pixel (demodulation pixel 101) (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B, par [0023]);
a wavelength separating optical element (WSOE) (spectral filter 113) disposed such that, when radiation (radiation 114) is incident on the drift-field demodulation pixel, the radiation passes through the WSOE (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B) before reaching the drift-field demodulation pixel (demodulation pixel 101), and wherein the WSOE is configured to focus different wavelengths (wavelengths of radiation 114) of the incident radiation at different respective depths (depths, i.e. depth relative to thickness t) in a photo-sensitive detection region of the drift-field demodulation pixel (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B, par [0023, 0026, 0032, 0033, 0039], wherein wavelengths of radiation 114 are focused on respective depths of demodulation pixel 101).
Regarding claim 2, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Buettgen discloses
the drift-field demodulation pixel (demodulation pixel 101) has different potential profiles (profiles 120A, 120B, and 120C) distributed over the different respective depths (depths, i.e. depth relative to thickness t).
Regarding claim 3, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Buettgen discloses
the drift-field demodulation pixel (demodulation pixel 101) is operable such that photo-generated charges (photo-generated charges 115A, 115B, 115C) generated at the different respective depths have different respective drift velocities (drift velocities 116A, 116B, 116C) (Buettgen, par [0032-0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Buettgen discloses
read-out circuitry (inherent read-out circuitry) coupled to an output (output node 109) of the drift-field demodulation pixel and operable to sample (sample) the photo-generated charges (photo-generated charges 115A, 115B, 115C) at different times based on the different respective drift velocities (Buettgen, par [0032-0033, 0037], wherein photo-generated charges 115A, 115B, 115C are sampled at output node 109 by an inherent read-out circuitry).
Regarding claim 11, Buettgen discloses a method comprising:
receiving radiation in a photo-sensitive detection region of a drift-field demodulation pixel (demodulation pixel 101) (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B, par [0023]),
wherein the radiation passes through a wavelength separating optical element (WSOE) (spectral filter 113) before reaching the drift-field demodulation pixel (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B), and
wherein the WSOE (spectral filter 113) focuses different wavelengths (wavelengths of radiation 114) of the radiation at different respective depths (depths, i.e. depth relative to thickness t) in the drift-field demodulation pixel (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B, par [0023, 0026, 0032, 0033, 0039], wherein wavelengths of radiation 114 are focused on respective depths of demodulation pixel 101).
Regarding claim 12, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Buettgen discloses
the drift-field demodulation pixel generates photo-generated charges (photo-generated charges 115A, 115B, 115C) in response to receiving the different wavelengths (wavelengths of radiation 114) of the radiation at different respective depths (depths, i.e. depth relative to thickness t) pixel (Buettgen, figs. 1A, 1B, par [0023, 0026, 0032, 0033, 0039]), the method further including: sampling, at different time, signals associated with the photo-generated charges (photo-generated charges 115A, 115B, 115C) at the different depths (Buettgen, par [0032-0033, 0037], wherein photo-generated charges 115A, 115B, 115C are sampled at output node 109 by an inherent read-out circuitry).
Regarding claim 13, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Buettgen discloses
determining spectral data (spectral data) based on the sampled signals (Buettgen, abstract, par [0032-0033, 0037], wherein spectral data is determined based on sampled signals from output node 109)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 5, 7-8, 10, 15 -18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgen (US 2018/0301498 to Buettgen et al) in view of Hu (US 2021/0307608 to Hu et al).
Regarding claim 5, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE is attached to the drift-field demodulation pixel.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 410) is attached (mounted together) to the drift-field demodulation pixel (imaging array 480) (Hu, fig. 4, par [0048-0050], wherein meta-lens 410 and imaging array 480 are mounted together in a common case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Hu into the apparatus by Buettgen so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over traditional optical components (Hu, par [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Buettgen and Hu disclose aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hu disclose:
the WSOE (meta-lens 410) is disposed over a front-side (in front) of the drift-field demodulation pixel (imaging array 480) (Hu, fig. 4, par [0048-0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Buettgen and Hu disclose aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hu disclose:
the WSOE (meta-lens 410) is separated at a distance (0.1-0.5 mm) from the front-side of the drift-field demodulation pixel (imaging array 480) (Hu, fig. 4, par [0048-0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE comprises a metastructure including meta-atoms arranged so that the metastructure is operable as a lens.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) arranged so that the metastructure is operable as a lens (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Hu into the apparatus by Buettgen so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over traditional optical components (Hu, par [0029]).
Regarding claim 15, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE comprises a metastructure including meta-atoms.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Hu into the apparatus by Buettgen so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over traditional optical components (Hu, par [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE comprises a metastructure including meta-atoms.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Hu into the apparatus by Buettgen so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over traditional optical components (Hu, par [0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE comprises a metastructure including meta-atoms.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Hu into the apparatus by Buettgen so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over traditional optical components (Hu, par [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Buettgen and Hu disclose aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Buettgen and Hu disclose aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgen (US 2018/0301498 to Buettgen et al) in view of Graff (US 2010/0178722 to de Graff et al).
Regarding claim 6, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE is attached to a backside of the drift-field demodulation pixel.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Graff discloses:
the WSOE (micro-lenses) is attached to a backside (backside) of the drift-field demodulation pixel (imaging cells) (Graff, fig. 31, par [0174])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Graff into the apparatus by Buettgen and Hu so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation reduces distortion and aberration (Yen, par [0010]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgen (US 2018/0301498 to Buettgen et al) and Graff (US 2010/0178722 to de Graff et al) in view of Hu (US 2021/0307608 to Hu et al).
Regarding claim 16, Buettgen and Graff disclose aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
the WSOE comprises a metastructure including meta-atoms.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Hu discloses:
the WSOE (meta-lens 100) comprises a metastructure (meta-surface) including meta-atoms (meta-atoms) (Hu, fig. 1, par [0030-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Hu into the apparatus by Buettgen and Graff so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over traditional optical components (Hu, par [0029]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgen (US 2018/0301498 to Buettgen et al) and Hu (US 2021/0307608 to Hu et al) in view of Yen (2022/0086319).
Regarding claim 9, Buettgen and Hu disclose aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen and Hu do not disclose:
a multi-band pass filter disposed between the WSOE and the drift-field demodulation pixel.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Yen discloses:
a multi-band pass filter (RGBIR filter) disposed between the WSOE (meta lens layer 20) and the drift-field demodulation pixel (pixel P) (Yen, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Yen into the apparatus by Buettgen and Hu so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides clear image and reduces weight and thickness for the apparatus (Yen, par [0006]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettgen (US 2018/0301498 to Buettgen et al) in view of Yen (2022/0086319) Hu (US 2021/0307608 to Hu et al).
Regarding claim 14, Buettgen discloses aforementioned limitations of the parent claim. However, Buettgen does not disclose:
combining images based on the sampled signals to obtain a multi-color image for the drift-field demodulation pixel.
On the other hand, in the same endeavor, Yen discloses:
combining images based on the sampled signals to obtain a multi-color image (color image) for the drift-field demodulation pixel (photosensitive elements 30) (Yen, fig. 1, par [0024-0025], wherein a color image is generated based on photosensitive elements 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the disclosure by Yen into the apparatus by Buettgen and Hu so as to achieve the invention as claimed because such incorporation provides clear image and reduces weight and thickness for the apparatus (Yen, par [0006]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUAN H LE whose telephone number is (571)270-1130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 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, Lin Ye can be reached at 5712727372. 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.
/TUAN H LE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638