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 .
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.
Claim(s) 2, 13 and 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 25, applicant claims that the solid covering comprises a portion of the second substrate. However, the independent claims (1, 12 and 24) state that the solid covering is “between the first substrate and the second substrate”. It is unclear how the solid portion is “between” the first and second substrates and also comprises portions of the second substrate.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim in light of claim 1 such that the solid portion is between the substrates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-13, 18-25 and 30is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (PGPUB 20210307608) in view of Cho et al. (PGPUB 20210118932).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a method for imaging comprising:
receiving light at a first substrate (Fig. 1, substrate 110), the first substrate comprising a first meta-lens (120);
receiving a first portion of the light at a second substrate (180), the second substrate including an optical sensor (150 defines the focal surface plane and [0008] states that there are photodetectors located at the focal surface),
wherein:
receiving at least a second portion of the light focused by the first meta-lens (Fig. 1 indicates how the light is focused by the meta lens onto the focusing plane).
Hu does not disclose that the optical sensor is directly covered by a solid covering, and
the first substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate such that the solid covering is between the first substrate and the second substrate.
However, Cho teaches an imaging device comprising an array of meta-lenses where the optical sensor (449) is directly covered by a solid covering (410), and
the first substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate such that the solid covering is between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0056]-[0058] where various substrate alternatives for attachment of the meta-lens structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hu and Cho such that there was an intervening solid covering between the image sensors and the meta-lens structures that was coupled to both the meta-lens substrate and the imaging sensor substrate motivated by providing structural stability to the optical system.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Hu discloses wherein the solid covering comprises a portion of the second substrate, and wherein the solid covering comprises a solid spacer (Fig. 4 where the solid substrate functions as a spacer with distance “r”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hu discloses further comprising an optical filter disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0055] of Hu and [0073] of Cho).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hu discloses an optical filter but does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is between the solid covering and the first substrate.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the final filtered light will be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would modify the location of the filter motivated by increased flexibility of manufacture.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hu discloses wherein the optical sensor comprises a back side illuminated optical sensor ([0050] of Hu and 143 of Cho).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hu discloses wherein the optical sensor is flush with the solid covering (Fig. 1 of Cho).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hu discloses wherein the first substrate further comprises a second meta-lens (array: [0045], [0078] of Hu and Fig. 1 of Cho where there is an array of metalenses).
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses a method for imaging comprising:
receiving light at a first substrate (Fig. 1, substrate 110), the first substrate comprising a first meta-lens (120);
receiving a first portion of the light at a second substrate (180), the second substrate including an optical sensor (150 defines the focal surface plane and [0008] states that there are photodetectors located at the focal surface),
wherein:
receiving at least a second portion of the light focused by the first meta-lens (Fig. 1 indicates how the light is focused by the meta lens onto the focusing plane).
Hu does not disclose that the optical sensor is directly covered by a solid covering, and
the first substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate such that the solid covering is between the first substrate and the second substrate.
However, Cho teaches an imaging device comprising an array of meta-lenses where the optical sensor (449) is directly covered by a solid covering (410), and
the first substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate such that the solid covering is between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0056]-[0058] where various substrate alternatives for attachment of the meta-lens structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hu and Cho such that there was an intervening solid covering between the image sensors and the meta-lens structures that was coupled to both the meta-lens substrate and the imaging sensor substrate motivated by providing structural stability to the optical system.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, modified Hu discloses wherein the solid covering comprises a portion of the second substrate (Fig. 4 where the solid substrate functions as a spacer with distance “r”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hu discloses further comprising an optical filter disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0055] of Hu and [0073] of Cho).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hu discloses an optical filter but does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is between the solid covering and the first substrate.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the final filtered light will be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would modify the location of the filter motivated by increased flexibility of manufacture.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hu discloses wherein the optical sensor comprises a back side illuminated optical sensor ([0050] of Hu and 143 of Cho).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hu discloses wherein the optical sensor is flush with the solid covering (Fig. 1 of Cho).
Regarding claim 22, modified Hu discloses wherein the first substrate further comprises a second meta-lens (array: [0045], [0078] of Hu and Fig. 1 of Cho where there is an array of metalenses).
Regarding claim 23, modified Hu discloses further comprising: generating, using at least the second portion of the light focused by the first meta-lens (Fig. 1), an image (at plane 150); and outputting the image (Abst.).
Regarding claim 24, Hu discloses an apparatus for imaging comprising:
receiving light at a first substrate (Fig. 1, substrate 110), the first substrate comprising a first meta-lens (120);
receiving a first portion of the light at a second substrate (180), the second substrate including an optical sensor (150 defines the focal surface plane and [0008] states that there are photodetectors located at the focal surface),
wherein:
receiving at least a second portion of the light focused by the first meta-lens (Fig. 1 indicates how the light is focused by the meta lens onto the focusing plane).
Hu does not disclose that the optical sensor is directly covered by a solid covering, and
the first substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate such that the solid covering is between the first substrate and the second substrate.
However, Cho teaches an imaging device comprising an array of meta-lenses where the optical sensor (449) is directly covered by a solid covering (410), and
the first substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate such that the solid covering is between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0056]-[0058] where various substrate alternatives for attachment of the meta-lens structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hu and Cho such that there was an intervening solid covering between the image sensors and the meta-lens structures that was coupled to both the meta-lens substrate and the imaging sensor substrate motivated by providing structural stability to the optical system.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, modified Hu discloses wherein the solid covering comprises a portion of the second substrate (Fig. 4 where the solid substrate functions as a spacer with distance “r”).
Regarding claim 30 modified Hu discloses further comprising an optical filter disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate ([0055] of Hu and [0073] of Cho).
Claim(s) 3, 14 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Cho and further in view of MacKinnon (PGPUB 20210152789).
Regarding claims 3, 14 and 26, modified Hu does not disclose wherein the second substrate comprises a silicone substrate.
However, MacKinnon teaches an imaging device having image sensors arranged on a silicone substrate (Claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Hu and MacKinnon such that the image sensors are attached to a silicone substrate motivated by reducing manufacturing costs.
Claim(s) 4, 15 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Cho and further in view of Logsdon (PGPUB 20030146384).
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 27, modified Hu does not disclose wherein the solid covering comprises silicon substrate.
However, Logsdon teaches an imaging device having image sensors arranged under a silicone substrate ([0015], 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Hu and Logsdon such that the solid cover comprised a silicone substrate motivated by improving absorption of particular wavelengths ([0015]).
Claim(s) 5, 16 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over u in view of Cho and further in view of Han (PGPUB 20210014394).
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 28, modified Hu does not disclose wherein the solid covering is glass.
However, Han teaches a meta-lens imaging device (Fig. 11) wherein the image sensor is covered with a glass substrate ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Hu and Han such that the solid cover comprised glass motivated by reducing manufacturing costs.
Claim(s) 6, 17 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Cho and further in view of Riley et al. (USPAT 10795168).
Regarding claims 6, 17 and 29, modified Hu does not disclose wherein the solid covering comprises a third substrate disposed on the second substrate and wherein the third substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate.
However, Riley teaches a meta-lens imaging device (Fig. 13) wherein the solid covering comprises a third substrate disposed on the second substrate and wherein the third substrate is mechanically coupled to the second substrate (Col. 22 lines 51-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Hu and Riley such that the solid cover comprised a third substrate motivated by providing additional design tool for system-level optimization (Col. 22 lines 51-63).
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872