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
Claims 16-18, 20, 22-24, 28 and 31-42 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 1/14/2026 Applicant amended claims 16, 18, 28, 31 and 34 newly added claims 36-42 and canceled claims 19, 21, 25-27 and 29-30.
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.
Claims 18, 37, 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 18. Claim 18 recites “the optical fill material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted the claim refers to “an optical material,” and for examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as the optical material.
Claims 40 and 42 are similarly rejected due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 37. Claim 37 recites “the optical material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 18 refers to “an optical material,” but claim 37 does not depend upon claim 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 42 does not include any limitation further limiting claim 18 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-18, 20, 22-24, 28, 34-38, 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230215889 A1 to Yoshita et al. in view of US 12153233 B1 to Xin et al. further in view of US 20230314776 A1 to Yi et al.
Regarding Claim 16. Yoshita discloses a method comprising: providing a semiconductor body (Fig. 1 semiconductor substrate 10) having a first side and a second side (as shown in Fig. 1); forming a photodetecting region comprising a photosensitive structure in the semiconductor body (See Fig. 1 receiving section 11, para 51 “This light receiving section 11 is, for example, PIN (Positive Intrinsic Negative) type photodiode PD and has a pn junction in a predetermined region of the semiconductor substrate 10”); and forming a microlens (Fig. 1 lens 14).
Yoshita does not specifically disclose patterning the second side of the semiconductor body to form nanostructures comprising a metalens, wherein the nanostructures are configured so that the metalens focuses electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the infrared range on the photosensitive structure; and forming the microlens over the metalens.
However, Xin discloses patterning the second side of the semiconductor body to form nanostructures comprising a metalens (See Fig. 11, Col 9 lines 54-55 “lenses 48 may be formed from nanostructures that are etched into the surface of a layer of semiconductor”), between the photodetecting region and another lens element 50 which is formed over metalens 48 (See at least Fig. 6 or Fig. 11). One would be motivated to form a metalens between the microlens and photodiode of Yoshita to help enhance metalens performance and potentially reduce fabrication complexity (See Col 9 lines 61-63) and to help enhance image sensor pixel efficiency (Col 3 line 41).
Further, Yi discloses the nanostructures are configured so that the metalens focuses electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the infrared range on the photosensitive structure (See Fig. 1 and para 14 “metalens is configured to bend the light of thermal radiation of the target object and converge the light onto the surface of the infrared focal plane array detector”), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include patterning the second side of the semiconductor body to form nanostructures comprising a metalens, wherein the nanostructures are configured so that the metalens focuses electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the infrared range on the photosensitive structure.
Regarding Claim 17. Xin further discloses forming the photodetecting region in the semiconductor body comprises etching a trench in the semiconductor body and filling the trench with a second semiconductor (See Col 9 lines 54-55 and Col 5, lines 49-51“Nanostructures 32 may be formed from dielectric, semiconductor, and/or other materials transparent to light at the operating wavelengths of interest for the metalens”).
Regarding Claim 18. Yi further discloses depositing an optical material over the nanostructures, wherein the optical material fills spaces between the nanostructures (See Fig. 2 microstructure array film coating 102); and the optical fill material has a refractive index of at least 2.0 (See para 63, where it is noted that germanium has an index of refraction of at least 4.0). Xin further discloses the semiconductor body has a high index of refraction (e.g., 2.2-3.5) (See Col 9 lines 58-59).
Regarding Claim 20. Yi further discloses the photosensitive structure is germanium (para 22) and the metalens focuses the electromagnetic radiation having the wavelength in the infrared range on the photosensitive structure (para 14).
Regarding Claim 22. Yi further discloses the nanostructures are spaced apart from one another with spacings that vary in relation to distance from a center of the metalens (See para 78).
Regarding Claim 23. Yi further discloses the nanostructures are spaced apart from one another with spacings that vary in a periodic pattern in relation to distance from the center of the metalens (See Fig. 2 and para 78).
Regarding Claim 24. Yi further discloses the nanostructures are spaced apart from one another with spacings that monotonically increase or decrease in relation to distance from the center of the metalens in a sequence that repeats (See Fig. 2 and para 78).
Regarding Claim 28. Yoshita, Xin and Yi do not specifically disclose that a distance between the metalens and the photosensitive structure is in the range from 1 µm to 5 µm.
However, Xin discloses a distance between the metalens and the photosensitive structure is dependent on the focal length of the metalens (Col 9 lines 37-41).
The focal length of the meta lens is a result effective variable in that it is dependent of the desired focal length of the metalens or system of lenses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a distance between the metalens and the photosensitive structure is in the range from 1 µm to 5 µm is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 34. Yoshita discloses a method comprising: providing a semiconductor body (Fig. 1 semiconductor substrate 10) having a first side and a second side (as shown in Fig. 1); forming an infrared-absorbing structure in or on the first side (See Fig. 1 receiving section 11, para 51 “This light receiving section 11 is, for example, PIN (Positive Intrinsic Negative) type photodiode PD and has a pn junction in a predetermined region of the semiconductor substrate 10”); forming a back-end-of-line metal interconnect structure over the first side (See at least Fig. 1 wiring layer 22); bonding the semiconductor body to a substrate (See at least Fig. 1 layer 27); and forming a microlens (Fig. 1 lens 14).
Yoshita does not specifically disclose thinning the semiconductor body from the second side; and etching the second side to define nanostructures, wherein the nanostructures provide a metalens operative to focus infrared radiation on the infrared-absorbing structure; and forming the microlens over the metalens.
However, Xin discloses thinning the semiconductor body from the second side; and etching the second side to define nanostructures (See Fig. 11, Col 9 lines 54-55 “lenses 48 may be formed from nanostructures that are etched into the surface of a layer of semiconductor”), between the photodetecting region and another lens element 50 which is formed over metalens 48 (See at least Fig. 6 or Fig. 11). One would be motivated to form a metalens between the microlens and photodiode of Yoshita to help enhance metalens performance and potentially reduce fabrication complexity (See Col 9 lines 61-63) and to help enhance image sensor pixel efficiency (Col 3 line 41).
Further, Yi discloses the nanostructures provide a metalens operative to focus infrared radiation on the infrared-absorbing structure (See Fig. 1 and para 14 “metalens is configured to bend the light of thermal radiation of the target object and converge the light onto the surface of the infrared focal plane array detector”), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include patterning the second side of the semiconductor body to form nanostructures comprising a metalens, wherein the nanostructures are configured so that the metalens focuses electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in the infrared range on the photosensitive structure.
Regarding Claim 35. Yi further discloses the nanostructures vary in one or more of width, shape, spacing, and height in a pattern organized around a center of the metalens (See Fig. 2, Fig. 8 and para 78).
Regarding Claim 36. Yoshita, Xin and Yi do not specifically disclose that a distance between the metalens and the photosensitive structure is at least 2 µm.
However, Xin discloses a light detector may be placed at a distance dependent on focal length of the metalens (See Fig. 6 and Col 9 lines 36-39).
The distance between the metalens and the photosensitive structure is a result effective variable in that it is dependent of the desired focal length and design of the metalens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include a distance between the metalens and the photosensitive structure is at least 2 µm is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 37. Yoshida and Xin further discloses the optical material forms a spacer that determines a distance between the metalens and the microlens (See Xin Fig. 11 surface of layer 54).
Regarding Claim 38. Yi further discloses forming an antireflective coating on the optical material (para 64).
Regarding Claim 40. Xin further discloses the difference in refractive index between the semiconductor body and the optical material is in the range from 1.0 to 1.5 (Col 8 lines 48-49 “Layers 52, 54, and 56 may be, for example, polymer layers or other transparent layers,” Col 7 lines 49-53 “Nanostructures 32 may be formed from dielectric, semiconductor, and/or other materials transparent to light at the operating wavelengths of interest for the metalens. As an example, an array of metal oxide fins (e.g. titanium dioxide fins)” and Col 3 lines 12-17 “Some metal oxides may have relatively high refractive index values (e.g., 2.5 for titanium oxide, 2.1 for niobium oxide, etc.). Other inorganic materials may have lower refractive index values (e.g., 2-2.2 for silicon nitride). Even lower refractive index values (e.g., 1.45-1.5) may be achieved using polymers”).
Regarding Claim 42. Yi further discloses the optical fill material has a refractive index of at least 2.0 (See para 63, where it is noted that germanium has an index of refraction of at least 4.0). Xin further discloses the semiconductor body has a high index of refraction (e.g., 2.2-3.5) (See Col 9 lines 58-59).
Claims 31-33 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230215889 A1 to Yoshita et al. in view of US 20220399393 A1 to Kang et al. further in view of US 12153233 B1 to Xin et al. further in view of US 20230314776 A1 to Yi et al.
Regarding Claim 31. Yoshita discloses a method comprising: providing a semiconductor body (Fig. 1 semiconductor substrate 10) having a first side and a second side (as shown in Fig. 1); and forming a microlens (Fig. 1 lens 14).
Yoshita does not specifically disclose etching a trench in the first side; depositing a second semiconductor in the trench, wherein the second semiconductor comprises germanium and forms an infrared-absorbing structure within the trench; thinning the semiconductor body from the second side; forming a mask over the second side and etching through openings in the mask to form a pattern of protrusions or indentations on or in the second side; and depositing an optical material over and between the protrusions, wherein the pattern of protrusions and the optical material form a metalens operative to focus infrared radiation on the infrared-absorbing structure; and forming the microlens over the metalens.
However, Kang discloses etching a trench in the first side; depositing a second semiconductor in the trench (See at least Fig. 9A-9F SiGe material 300, para 45 “to form a plurality of openings (or trenches). In different embodiments, forming the openings may include different manufacturing steps, for example, mask deposition, optically exposing the mask, etching”) the second semiconductor comprises germanium and forms an infrared-absorbing structure within the trench (See para 46 “SiGe material 300”), as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(D), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Xin also discloses thinning the semiconductor body from the second side; to form a pattern of protrusions or indentations on or in the second side (See Fig. 11, Col 9 lines 54-55 “lenses 48 may be formed from nanostructures that are etched into the surface of a layer of semiconductor”), between the photodetecting region and another lens element 50 which is formed over metalens 48 (See at least Fig. 6 or Fig. 11). One would be motivated to form a metalens between the microlens and photodiode of Yoshita to help enhance metalens performance and potentially reduce fabrication complexity (See Col 9 lines 61-63) and to help enhance image sensor pixel efficiency (Col 3 line 41).
Further, Yi discloses forming a mask over the second side and etching through openings in the mask to form a pattern of protrusions or indentations (para 79 “ICP etching adopts the Bosch process, and the photoresist pattern generated by stepping photolithography is used as an etching mask to obtain the metasurface microstructure array 101”) depositing an optical material over and between the protrusions (See Fig. 2 microstructure array film coating 102), wherein the pattern of protrusions and the optical material form a metalens operative to focus infrared radiation on the infrared-absorbing structure (See Fig. 1 and para 14 “metalens is configured to bend the light of thermal radiation of the target object and converge the light onto the surface of the infrared focal plane array detector”), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include etching a trench in the first side; depositing a second semiconductor in the trench, wherein the second semiconductor comprises germanium and forms an infrared-absorbing structure within the trench; thinning the semiconductor body from the second side; forming a mask over the second side and etching through openings in the mask to form a pattern of protrusions or indentations on or in the second side; and depositing an optical material over and between the protrusions, wherein the pattern of protrusions and the optical material form a metalens operative to focus infrared radiation on the infrared-absorbing structure.
Regarding Claim 32. Yi further discloses the protrusions have an orderly variation in width that contributes a lensing effect to the metalens (See Fig. 2, Fig. 8 and para 78).
Regarding Claim 33. Yi further discloses the protrusions have an orderly variation in spacing that contributes a lensing effect to the metalens (See Fig. 2, Fig. 8 and para 78).
Regarding Claim 41. Yoshita, Xin and Yi do not specifically disclose thinning the semiconductor body reduces the semiconductor body to a thickness in the range from 4 µm to 10 µm.
However, Xin discloses thinning the semiconductor body reduces the semiconductor body (Col 9 lines 55 “etched into the surface of a layer of semiconductor”) to a thickness in the range from 4 µm to 10 µm (Col 5 lines 62-65).
Further the semiconductor body thickness is a result effective variable in that it is dependent of the desired focal length and design of the metalens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include thinning the semiconductor body reduces the semiconductor body to a thickness in the range from 4 µm to 10 µm is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshita, Xin and Yi as applied to claim 16 further in view of US 20220399395 A1 to Lai et al.
Regarding Claim 39. As stated above, Yoshita, Xin and Yi renders all limitations obvious.
Yoshita, Xin and Yi do not specifically disclose that forming the microlens over the metalens comprises a thermal reflow process.
However, Lai discloses forming the microlens comprises a thermal reflow process (See para 75), as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(D), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include forming the microlens over the metalens comprises a thermal reflow process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Xin does not teach forming the microlens over the metalens, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights