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 are objected to because there are blurry words and graphs in Fig. 19, 22 and 24. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: HYPERSPECTRAL IMAGE SENSOR AND SYSTEM
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “storage unit” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-20 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.
From Claim 11, the claim limitation “storage unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. From Specification para. [0057], “In the disclosure, terms such as "unit" or "module" may be used to denote a unit that has at least one function or operation and is implemented with hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software”. This is not enough to describe the structure because the unit can be hardware and/or software with no other boundaries. For examination purposes, “storage unit” is interpreted to mean any software/hardware that provides the functionality to store.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 12-20 are rejected due to their dependencies on claim 11.
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 of this title, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roh Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
277
303
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Roh Fig. 2A
PNG
media_image3.png
718
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Samsung Fig. 15
PNG
media_image4.png
537
607
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Morita Fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
675
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sie Fig. 4
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US20210127101A1), hereinafter Roh, in view of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (KR20220048930A from the IDS), hereinafter Samsung.
As to claim 1, Roh teaches a hyperspectral image sensor (claim 1; [0047]; fig. 1; hyperspectral image sensor 110) comprising:
a light-receiving sensor that is pixelated ([0047]; [0048]; fig. 1; The hyperspectral image sensor 110 may include a solid-state imaging device 111. The solid-state imaging device 111 may be a general image sensor including a plurality of pixels arranged in two dimensions to sense light);
and a plurality of metasurfaces arranged in front of the light-receiving sensor apart from each other in a stacking direction, and each having an array of meta-atoms ([0047]; fig. 1; The hyperspectral image sensor 110 may include a dispersion optical device 113, which is in front of the solid-state imaging device 111. [0050]; fig, 2A; The dispersion optical device 113 may include various forms of meta surfaces, for example in a stacking direction in fig. 2A),
and a speckle pattern is formed on a sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor by the plurality of metasurfaces ([0050]; The dispersion optical device 113 may include a grating having an asymmetric pattern or an aperiodic pattern and include various forms of meta surfaces. Speckle patterns are aperiodic, thus, a speckle pattern may be formed).
However, Roh does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface in which the meta-atoms are arranged to exhibit a disordered phase delay distribution.
Samsung, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface (Samsung fig. 15; page 26 lines 8-12; The multi-filter 130 comprises a plurality of sub-filters 132, 134, 136, wherein 136 includes an asymmetric nano-structure layer ANL) in which the meta-atoms are arranged to exhibit a disordered phase delay distribution (Samsung page 23 lines 34-37; The asymmetric nanostructure layer ANL may transmit light having a plurality of wavelengths within a band used by the multi-filter 120. Thus, there is an implicit disordered phase delay because the ANL transmits light through the different shapes/patterns over the respective pixels. Any structure that transmits light adjusts the phase of light when transmitting it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh to incorporate the teachings of Samsung to include wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface in which the meta-atoms are arranged to exhibit a disordered phase delay distribution; for the advantage of higher resolution characteristics (Samsung page 26 lines 25-26).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, further in view of Wang et al. (US20080088524A1), hereinafter Wang, and Morita et al. (US20240339466A1), hereinafter Morita.
As to claim 2, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the random metasurface, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution to exhibit random phase map information for incident plane wave, and the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein, in the random metasurface, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution to exhibit random phase map information for incident plane wave (Wang fig. 4D; [0027]; Local resonant cell group 408 comprises circular split-ring resonators 409 whose scale is chirped in a spatially random manner. Thus, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution which would implicitly exhibit random phase map information as light travels through the cell group 408. Any structure that transmits light adjusts the phase of light when transmitting it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include wherein, in the random metasurface, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution to exhibit random phase map information for incident plane wave; for the advantage of design versatility with a wide variety of metasurface options (Wang [0027]).
Still lacking the limitation such as the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain (Morita fig. 4; [0066]; With the length Dx (x, y) of the meta-atom 15_1 (x, y) in the polarization direction of the polarization component P1, a phase delay distribution of the polarization component P1 is adjusted. Thus, the random phase map defined as phase delay values is described by Morita as the phase delay distribution, according to the coordinates (x, y)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Morita to include the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain; for the advantage of design versatility via multiple microstructures (Morita [0006]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, further in view of Morita.
As to claim 3, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface have identical heights and irregular sizes.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface have identical heights and irregular sizes (Morita fig. 4; [0061]; The multiple meta-atoms 15 may all have the same height in the Z direction. As in fig. 4, the meta-atoms 15 are of irregular sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Morita to include wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface have identical heights and irregular sizes; for the advantage of design versatility via multiple microstructures (Morita [0006]).
As to claim 4, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned (Morita fig. 4; The coordinates of the meta-atoms 15 are integers (0,0), (0,1), (0, -1), etc. presented in a regular arrangement in fig. 4 for example, wherein each meta-atom center is spaced equally apart from the adjacent meta-atom center. Thus, the meta-atoms 15 are regularly positioned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Morita to include wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned; for the advantage of design versatility via multiple microstructures (Morita [0006]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, further in view of Wang.
As to claim 5, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned and have irregular sizes.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned and have irregular sizes (Wang [0026]; fig. 4C; The at least one geometric feature that is chirped is spatially varied in a manner that is spatially regular (i.e. regularly positioned), but discontinuous, having irregular sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned and have irregular sizes, for the advantage of design versatility with a wide variety of metasurface options (Wang [0027]).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh and Samsung, further in view of Sie et al. (US 20210338083 A1), hereinafter Sie.
As to claim 6, Roh teaches wherein a distance between the metasurfaces is determined (fig. 2A; [0050]; The distance between the metasurfaces is determined by Roh as the spacing between each meta surface of the dispersion optical device).
However, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a number of the plurality of metasurfaces such that sizes of at least some of speckles of the speckle pattern are greater than a pixel size of the light-receiving sensor.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least one of a number of the plurality of metasurfaces (Sie [0055]; For example, the detector array may include 1024 SPADs arranged in a 32x32 array. Thus, the number of the plurality of metasurfaces is determined) such that sizes of at least some of speckles of the speckle pattern are greater than a pixel size of the light-receiving sensor (Sie [0049]; fig. 4; At least 95% of observed speckles are between 0.5 and 2 pixels in size. Thus, the size of at least some of the speckles are greater than a pixel sign of the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein at least one of a number of the plurality of metasurfaces such that sizes of at least some of speckles of the speckle pattern are greater than a pixel size of the light-receiving sensor; for the advantage of a higher contrast image (Sie [0058]).
As to claim 7, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor (Sie [0040]; [0047]; fig. 4; By adjusting the distance between the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor, and the detector array 412, the projected speckle diameter may be tuned (d=8, 4 or 2 pixels). Thus, the average speckle size can be greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
As to claim 8, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor (Sie [0040]; [0047]; fig. 4; By adjusting the distance between the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor, and the detector array 412, the projected speckle diameter may be tuned (d=8, 4 or 2 pixels). Thus, the average speckle size can be greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
As to claim 9, Roh teaches wherein the plurality of metasurfaces comprise two to ten metasurfaces apart from each other ([0050]; fig, 2A; The dispersion optical device 113 may include various forms of meta surfaces, for example in a stacking direction in fig. 2A. Thus, there are between two to ten metasurfaces that are apart from each other).
As to claim 10, Roh in view of Samsung does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from the plurality of metasurfaces to the sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor is from 1 μm to 10 cm.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a distance from the plurality of metasurfaces to the sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor is from 1 μm to 10 cm (Sie fig. 4; [0040]; The fiber-SPAD distance z, which can be adjusted by the distance adjusted 426, can be adjusted to 59 mm or 30 mm. [0059]; the fiber-SPAD distance can also be 8.1 mm, for example. Thus, the distance between the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor, and the detector array 412, i.e. the plurality of metasurfaces, can be between 1 μm to 10 cm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein a distance from the plurality of metasurfaces to the sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor is from 1 μm to 10 cm; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, further in view of Forno et al. (US6744517B1), hereinafter Forno.
As to claim 11, Roh teaches a hyperspectral imaging system (title; Hyperspectral image sensor and hyperspectral image pickup apparatus) comprising:
a hyperspectral image sensor (claim 1; [0047]; fig. 1; hyperspectral image sensor 110) comprising a light-receiving sensor that is pixelated ([0047]; [0048]; fig. 1; The hyperspectral image sensor 110 may include a solid-state imaging device 111. The solid-state imaging device 111 may be a general image sensor including a plurality of pixels arranged in two dimensions to sense light) and a plurality of metasurfaces that are arranged in front of the light-receiving sensor apart from each other in a stacking direction, and each have an array of meta-atoms ([0047]; fig. 1; The hyperspectral image sensor 110 may include a dispersion optical device 113, which is in front of the solid-state imaging device 111. [0050]; fig, 2A; The dispersion optical device 113 may include various forms of meta surfaces, for example in a stacking direction in fig. 2A),
and a speckle pattern is formed on a sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor by the plurality of metasurfaces ([0050]; The dispersion optical device 113 may include a grating having an asymmetric pattern or an aperiodic pattern and include various forms of meta surfaces. Speckle patterns are aperiodic, thus, a speckle pattern may be formed);
a storage unit ([0087]; The second operation unit 40 may include an input unit 41 that receives data from the first operation unit 30, an encoder 42 that generates a feature map based on the input data, a decoder 43 that restores the feature of data based on the feature map, and an output unit 44 that outputs restored data);
and a processor configured to generate a hyperspectral image using the speckle pattern received by the light-receiving sensor (claim 7; an image processor configured to process image data provided from the solid-state imaging device to extract hyperspectral images for the plurality of wavelengths).
However, Roh does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface in which the meta-atoms are arranged to exhibit a disordered phase delay distribution, the storage unit storing a random phase map information of the random metasurface; the processor configured to generate the hyperspectral image using the random phase map information.
Samsung, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface (Samsung fig. 15; page 26 lines 8-12; The multi-filter 130 comprises a plurality of sub-filters 132, 134, 136, wherein 136 includes an asymmetric nano-structure layer ANL) in which the meta-atoms are arranged to exhibit a disordered phase delay distribution (Samsung page 23 lines 34-37; The asymmetric nanostructure layer ANL may transmit light having a plurality of wavelengths within a band used by the multi-filter 120. Thus, there is an implicit disordered phase delay because the ANL transmits light through the different shapes/patterns over the respective pixels. Any transparent structure adjusts the phase of light when transmitting it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh to incorporate the teachings of Samsung to include wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface in which the meta-atoms are arranged to exhibit a disordered phase delay distribution; for the advantage of higher resolution characteristics (Samsung page 26 lines 25-26).
Still lacking the limitations such as the storage unit storing a random phase map information of the random metasurface; and the processor configured to generate the hyperspectral image using the random phase map information.
Forno, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the storage unit storing a random phase map information of the random metasurface; and the processor configured to generate the hyperspectral image using the random phase map information (Forno Claim 28; The image store is arranged to store images of the interference fringe patterns captured by the camera, and the image processor is further arranged to process the further images to produce a phase map or phase distribution).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung to incorporate the teachings of Forno to include the storage unit storing a random phase map information of the random metasurface; and the processor configured to generate the hyperspectral image using the random phase map information, for the advantage of an accurate phase map for a more detailed analysis (Forno col. 2 lines 1-6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, and Forno, further in view of Wang and Morita.
As to claim 12, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the random metasurface, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution to exhibit random phase map information for incident plane wave, and the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein, in the random metasurface, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution to exhibit random phase map information for incident plane wave (Wang fig. 4D; [0027]; Local resonant cell group 408 comprises circular split-ring resonators 409 whose scale is chirped in a spatially random manner. Thus, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution which would implicitly exhibit random phase map information as light travels through the cell group 408. Any structure that transmits light adjusts the phase of light when transmitting it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include wherein, in the random metasurface, the meta-atoms are arranged in a disordered size distribution to exhibit random phase map information for incident plane wave; for the advantage of design versatility with a wide variety of metasurface options (Wang [0027]).
Still lacking the limitation such as the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain (Morita fig. 4; [0066]; With the length Dx (x, y) of the meta-atom 15_1 (x, y) in the polarization direction of the polarization component P1, a phase delay distribution of the polarization component P1 is adjusted. Thus, the random phase map defined as phase delay values is described by Morita as the phase delay distribution, according to the coordinates (x, y)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Wang and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Morita to include the random phase map is defined as phase delay values according to coordinates in a spatial domain; for the advantage of design versatility via multiple microstructures (Morita [0006]).
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, and Forno, further in view of Morita.
As to claim 13, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface have identical heights and irregular sizes.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface have identical heights and irregular sizes (Morita fig. 4; [0061]; The multiple meta-atoms 15 may all have the same height in the Z direction. As in fig. 4, the meta-atoms 15 are of irregular sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Morita to include wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface have identical heights and irregular sizes; for the advantage of design versatility via multiple microstructures (Morita [0006]).
As to claim 14, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned.
Morita, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned (Morita fig. 4; The coordinates of the meta-atoms 15 are integers (0,0), (0,1), (0, -1), etc. presented in a regular arrangement in fig. 4 for example, wherein each meta-atom center is spaced equally apart from the adjacent meta-atom center. Thus, the meta-atoms 15 are regularly positioned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Morita to include wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned; for the advantage of design versatility via multiple microstructures (Morita [0006]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung, and Forno, further in view of Wang.
As to claim 15, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned and have irregular sizes.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned and have irregular sizes (Wang [0026]; fig. 4C; The at least one geometric feature that is chirped is spatially varied in a manner that is spatially regular (i.e. regularly positioned), but discontinuous, having irregular sizes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include wherein the meta-atoms of the random metasurface are regularly positioned and have irregular sizes, for the advantage of design versatility with a wide variety of metasurface options (Wang [0027]).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Samsung and Forno, further in view of Sie.
As to claim 16, Roh teaches wherein a distance between the metasurfaces is determined (fig. 2A; [0050]; The distance between the metasurfaces is determined by Roh as the spacing between each meta surface of the dispersion optical device).
However, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a number of the plurality of metasurfaces such that sizes of at least some of speckles of the speckle pattern are greater than a pixel size of the light-receiving sensor.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein at least one of a number of the plurality of metasurfaces (Sie [0055]; For example, the detector array may include 1024 SPADs arranged in a 32x32 array. Thus, the number of the plurality of metasurfaces is determined) such that sizes of at least some of speckles of the speckle pattern are greater than a pixel size of the light-receiving sensor (Sie [0049]; fig. 4; At least 95% of observed speckles are between 0.5 and 2 pixels in size. Thus, the size of at least some of the speckles are greater than a pixel sign of the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein at least one of a number of the plurality of metasurfaces such that sizes of at least some of speckles of the speckle pattern are greater than a pixel size of the light-receiving sensor; for the advantage of a higher contrast image (Sie [0058]).
As to claim 17, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor (Sie [0040]; [0047]; fig. 4; By adjusting the distance between the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor, and the detector array 412, the projected speckle diameter may be tuned (d=8, 4 or 2 pixels). Thus, the average speckle size can be greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
As to claim 18, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor (Sie [0040]; [0047]; fig. 4; By adjusting the distance between the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor, and the detector array 412, the projected speckle diameter may be tuned (d=8, 4 or 2 pixels). Thus, the average speckle size can be greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein a degree of disorder of the plurality of metasurfaces is limited such that an average speckle size of the speckle pattern is greater than twice the pixel size of the light-receiving sensor; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
As to claim 19, Roh teaches wherein the plurality of metasurfaces comprise two to ten metasurfaces apart from each other ([0050]; fig, 2A; The dispersion optical device 113 may include various forms of meta surfaces, for example in a stacking direction in fig. 2A. Thus, there are between two to ten metasurfaces that are apart from each other).
As to claim 20, Roh in view of Samsung and Forno does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from the plurality of metasurfaces to the sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor is from 1 μm to 10 cm.
Sie, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a distance from the plurality of metasurfaces to the sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor is from 1 μm to 10 cm (Sie fig. 4; [0040]; The fiber-SPAD distance z, which can be adjusted by the distance adjusted 426, can be adjusted to 59 mm or 30 mm. [0059]; the fiber-SPAD distance can also be 8.1 mm, for example. Thus, the distance between the detector end 420, i.e. the light-receiving sensor, and the detector array 412, i.e. the plurality of metasurfaces, can be between 1 μm to 10 cm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roh in view of Samsung and Forno to incorporate the teachings of Sie to include wherein a distance from the plurality of metasurfaces to the sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor is from 1 μm to 10 cm; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kemaya Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11 am – 8 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877