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 8 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 16 and 20 have overcome each and every objection and U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 9 December 2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 16 and 20 do not overcome the U.S.C. 103 rejections and cause a new U.S.C. 112 issue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8 April 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Applicant remarks that none of the cited references teaches [Feature A] “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”. Roh (US20210127101A1) [0050] teaches the “dispersion optical device” 113 as including an “asymmetric pattern”, and “aperiodic pattern”, or “meta surfaces”. Samsung (US20220115420A1) [0124] teaches the first to third sub filters 132, 134, 136 may include an “asymmetric nano structure layer” ANL. However, Applicant remarks that the current application explains throughout (in Specification para. [0066]-[0068], [0080], [0084], and [0106]-[0112]), a “random metasurface” is an established term of art that denotes a particular structure, and forming a metasurface to be “random” involve specific design parameters and processes—none of which are taught by either Roh or Samsung. Applicant remarks that “aperiodic” or “asymmetric” are both conceptually distinct from “random”.
Applicant remarks that none of the cited references teaches [Feature B] “wherein the plurality of metasurfaces is configured to form a speckle pattern on a sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor”. Applicant remarks that Roh’s “metasurfaces” 113 do not form a speckle pattern. The current application details (in Specification para. [0060]) that a “speckle pattern” is also a well-known term of art used to describe a specific patter of light in which bright regions are randomly distributed throughout the pattern. Applicant remarks again that “aperiodic” or “asymmetric” are both conceptually distinct from “random”.
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s cited paragraphs [0066]-[0068], [0080], [0084], and [0106]-[0112] do not define a “random metasurface”, but rather, further gives examples on how the meta-atoms in the random metasurface may act. For example, from para. [0084]: “The meta-atoms 105 may have different widths within the range of about 60 nm to about 300 nm, but are not limited thereto” (emphasis added). Therefore, the “random metasurface” is not limited to any particular structure that excludes asymmetry. Therefore, the asymmetric nanostructure layer taught by Roh can be considered the random nanostructure, because, according to the Specification of the current application, para. [0009]-[0011], random metasurface examples are given, including “the meta-atoms of the random metasurface may be regularly positioned”. In an asymmetric nanostructure layer, the meta-atoms are regularly positioned. Therefore, “asymmetric” can be interpreted as “random”.
Further, Samsung teaches that the asymmetric nanostructure layer ANL implies a disordered phase delay distribution, because the ANL transmits light having a plurality of wavelengths within a band. The ANL transmits light through the different shapes/patterns over the respective pixels, and any structure that transmits light adjusts the phase of light when transmitting it. The phase delay distribution is disordered because the transmitted light has the plurality of wavelengths. Instead of a single, coherent beam, the ANL transmits a plurality of wavelengths (a complex spectrum) in the form of speckle patterns.
Further, the following article describes “the construction of a random array of meta-atoms tailored in asymmetric backgrounds” (abstract), thus, in support of the interpretation that asymmetric metasurfaces can be random metasurfaces: Chu H, Xiong X, Fang NX, Wu F, Jia R, Peng R, Wang M, Lai Y. Matte surfaces with broadband transparency enabled by highly asymmetric diffusion of white light. Sci Adv. 2024 Mar 15;10(11):eadm8061. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adm8061. Epub 2024 Mar 15. PMID: 38489370; PMCID: PMC10942103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10942103/.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitation is a result of the random nanostructure, rather than the structure which creates the result. Therefore, the structural requirements of the claim have been met by Roh in view of Samsung. Thus, Roh in view of Samsung is capable of the intended result, i.e. a speckle pattern. Further, speckle pattern is inherent to a coherent input light passing through a disordered or randomly structured metasurface. From Wikipedia, “Speckle, speckle pattern, or speckle noise designates the granular structure observed in coherent light, resulting from random interference… Speckle patterns arise when coherent light is randomized”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_(interference). Therefore, Roh in view of Samsung is capable of the intended result.
Examiner respectfully suggests further limiting the structure of the hyperspectral image sensor, rather than the intended output. Specifically, Examiner respectfully suggests further defining the “random” metastructure. For example, does “random” exclude “asymmetric”? Is the metasurface intentionally made random, i.e. “randomized”, in a specific manner, at any point in time? Specification para. [0031] refers to a “controlled randomness” that may be used to further limit the claims.
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 10 and 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.
The term “about” in claims 10 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP 2173.05b, Sec. III. A. there is "nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term "about." Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)". For examination purposes, “about 1 μm to about 10 cm is interpreted as 0.5 μm to 10.5 cm.
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.
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 in front of the light-receiving sensor and apart from each other in a stacking direction, and each of the plurality of metasurfaces 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. The meta surfaces are apart from each other in a stacking direction because they are distinct entities from each other),
and wherein the plurality of metasurfaces is configured to form a speckle pattern on a sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor ([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).
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
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 a 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 a 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 a 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 a 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]).
PNG
media_image4.png
537
607
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Morita Fig. 4
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 metasurfaces of the plurality of 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]).
PNG
media_image5.png
675
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sie Fig. 4
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 about 1 μm to about 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 about 1 μm to about 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 about 1 μm to about 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 in front of the light-receiving sensor and apart from each other in a stacking direction, each of the plurality of metasurfaces 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. The meta surfaces are apart from each other in a stacking direction because they are distinct entities from each other),
wherein the plurality of metasurfaces is configured to form a speckle pattern on a sensing surface of the light-receiving sensor ([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 device ([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 at least one 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 device configured to store a random phase map information of the random metasurface; the at least one 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 device configured to store a random phase map information of the random metasurface; the at least one 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 device configured to store a random phase map information of the random metasurface; and the at least one 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 device configured to store a random phase map information of the random metasurface; the at least one 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 metasurfaces of the plurality of 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 about 1 μm to about 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 about 1 μm to about 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 about 1 μm to about 10 cm; for the advantage of increased adjustability to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio (Sie [0027]).
Citation of pertinent art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US20220336509A1), hereinafter Zhang teaches a hyperspectral image sensor comprising:
a light-receiving sensor that is pixelated (Zhang [0107]; “this application provides a spectrum splitting and filtering device applied to an image sensor, to improve light utilization. An efficient pixel-level spectrum splitting function is implemented by using an integrated pixel-level the spectrum splitting & filtering device, thereby improving light utilization of a color image sensor”);
and each of the plurality of metasurfaces having an array of meta-atoms (Zhang [0115]; “The metasurface includes a plurality of subunits, and each subunit includes an array including a plurality of columnar structures”),
wherein at least one of the plurality of metasurfaces is a random metasurface in which the meta-atoms are arranged (Zhang [0148]; “For another example, one or more two-dimensional barcode images may be randomly generated, and the plurality of arrays are constructed based on the plurality of two-dimensional barcode images. Specifically, for example, a size of a to-be-constructed metasurface may be preset, then the metasurface is divided into square grids, hexagonal grids, or the like, and then each grid is randomly filled to obtain an array structure, as shown in FIG. 15”).
PNG
media_image6.png
783
1502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhang Fig. 15
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights