DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 28-48 currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-27 are canceled; and claims 28-48 are newly added. The amendment dated November 3, 2023 has been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2023, 07/18/2024 and 10/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 48 is 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.
Claim 48 recites “an array of nanofins which includes the first nanofin and the second nanofin, wherein the array of nanofins includes a spatial distribution of angles, θ(x, y)=Ω(x, y)/2, that sets the rotation angle of a given nanofin at position (x, y)”. However, the term Ω(x, y) is not defined in the claim. Thereby as being indefinite, claim 48 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For the purpose of examining the present application, the limitation has been construed as meaning “an array of nanofins which includes the first nanofin and the second nanofin, wherein the array of nanofins includes a spatial distribution of angles, θ(x, y)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-31, 34-35, 37-38, 40-44 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbabi et al. (“Dielectric metasurfaces for complete control of phase and polarization with subwavelength spatial resolution and high transmission”. Nature Nanotech 10, 937–943 (2015), Published 31 August 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.186 , hereinafter “Arbabi”).
Regarding claim 28, Arbabi discloses an optical component (Fig. 1; Page 937 column 2 “a single-layer array of amorphous silicon elliptical posts with different sizes and orientations, resting on a fused-silica substrate”), comprising:
a transparent substrate (Page 937 column 2 “a fused-silica substrate”) including a surface (the upper surface of the fused-silica substrate”); and
a first dielectric nanofin and a second dielectric nanofin disposed on the surface of the transparent substrate (Fig. 1a; choose one of a-Si posts and one of the adjacent a-Si post), wherein the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin each comprise a top surface and sidewalls surrounding the top surface (see Fig. 1b),
wherein the first dielectric nanofin has a width along a short axis, a length along a long axis that is greater than the width along the short axis (see the top view of an a-Si post in Fig. 1b; choose Dy as a short axis, Dx as a long axis, and a height perpendicular to the substrate which is greater than the width (see Fig. 1b and Page 938 Fig. 2 "amorphous silicon post height of 715 nm" and Page 944 Column 1 “The simulation parameters used to obtain Fig. 3b–d are the same as the ones used in Fig. 2, and the diameters of the elliptical posts are 300 and 150 nm”),
wherein the second dielectric nanofin has a width along a short axis and a length along a long axis that is greater than the width along the short axis, and a height perpendicular to the substrate which is greater than the width (Fig. 1b, Page 938 Fig. 2, Page 944 Column 1), and
wherein the angle of rotation of the first dielectric nanofin is different than the angle of rotation of the second dielectric nanofin (see Fig. 1a-b).
Regarding claim 29, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the width along the short axis of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin is no greater than 200 nm (see Page 944 Column 1 teaching the diameters of posts of 150 nm), the height along the long axis of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin is at least twice the width along the short axis (see Page 938 Fig. 2 teaching the heights of 715 nm).
Regarding claim 30, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein a ratio of the height of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin along the long axis to the width of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin along the short axis is at least 5:1 (see Supplementary Fig. 4 inset in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, teaching (Dx, Dy) of (100 nm, 200 nm) and Page 938 Fig. 2 "amorphous silicon post height of 715 nm").
Regarding claim 31, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the sidewalls of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin are substantially perpendicular to the surface of the transparent substrate (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 34, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further disclose wherein the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin each include a dielectric material that is amorphous or single-crystalline (Page 937 column 2 “amorphous silicon elliptical posts”).
Regarding claim 35, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin each include a dielectric material having a light transmittance of at least 50% over the visible spectrum (Page 937 Column 1 “an average transmission higher than 85%").
Regarding claim 37, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the optical component is configured to introduce a phase profile on incident light (Page 937 Column 1 “The platform we propose does not suffer from these limitations and provides a unified framework for realizing any device for polarization and phase control”, see also Page 942 column regarding a phase profile).
Regarding claim 38, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the optical component is a lens, a collimator, a polarizer, or a hologram (Page 937 Column 1).
Regarding claim 40, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the height of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin are substantially the same (see Page 938 Fig. 1 inset “amorphous silicon posts with the same height, but different diameters (Dx and Dy)”).
Regarding claim 41, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses repeating meta-gratings including the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin (see the hexagonal unit cell in Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 42, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the first dielectric nanofin of adjacent meta-gratings are separated by an identical meta-grating period (see Fig. 1a wherein a first nanofin in each unit cell is separated by the period of the unit cell).
Regarding claim 43, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the optical component is polarization dependent such that when an incident light has a first polarization state, an output light has a first polarization output and a first phase output and when the incident light has a second polarization state, the output light has a second polarization output and a second phase output (Page 937 Column 2 “each of the posts imposes a polarization-dependent phase shift on the transmitted light and modifies both its phase and polarization” teaching the posts are polarization dependent and an output light would have different polarization states and different phase outputs for an incident light having different polarization states).
Regarding claim 44, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin have elongated cross-sections (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 47, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses wherein the different angle of rotation of the first nanofin and the second nanofin produces a geometric phase accumulation (S2 in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, teaching Jones matrix and the phase shifting the x and y components).
Regarding claim 48, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and further discloses an array of nanofins which includes the first nanofin and the second nanofin, wherein the array of nanofins includes a spatial distribution of angles, θ(x, y)=Ω(x, y)/2, that sets the rotation angle of a given nanofin at position (x, y) (see 112(b) rejections above) (see Figs. 1a-b wherein nanofins are rotated in the x-y plane with angles, θ(x, y)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi.
Regarding claim 45, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not explicitly disclose the height, width, and length of the first nanofin and the second nanofin are optimized to provide a π-phase shift between their major and minor axis.
However, Arbabi teaches a method of controlling a phase shift by optimizing the height, width, and length of nanofins (see Fig. 2 inset and Page 938 Column 2 – Page 939 Column 1 teaching imposing phase shifts).
Because Arbabi identifies the result effective variables including the height, width, and length, for the purpose of controlling for polarization and phase control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical component as disclosed by Arbabi to have the height, width, and length of the first nanofin and the second nanofin optimized to provide a π-phase shift between their major and minor axis, for the purpose of imposing desired phase shifts (Arbabi: Page 938 Column 2 – Page 939 Column 1).
Regarding claim 46, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not explicitly disclose the width of the first nanofin is greater than the width of the second nanofin.
However, Arbabi teaches providing elliptical nanofins with different sizes (Page 937 Column 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical component as disclosed by Arbabi, wherein the width of the first nanofin is greater than the width of the second nanofin, for the purpose of obtaining desired phase and polarization as each of the posts imposes a polarization-dependent phase shift on the transmitted light (Arbabi: Page 937 Column 2).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi in view of Kokkoris et al. ("Nanoscale Roughness Effects at the Interface of Lithography and Plasma Etching: Modeling of Line-Edge-Roughness Transfer During Plasma Etching," in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1705-1714, Published Sept. 2009, doi: 10.1109/TPS.2009.2024117, hereinafter “Kokkoris”).
Regarding claim 32, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not explicitly disclose the sidewalls of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin have a surface roughness of no greater than 5 nm.
However, Kokkoris teaches sidewalls of dielectric nanofins have a surface roughness of no greater than 5 nm (see Figs. 6-7 insets describing the initial sidewall surface roughness obtained is 5 nm; Page 1710 Column 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical component as disclosed by Arbabi with the teachings of Kokkoris, wherein the sidewalls of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin have a surface roughness of no greater than 5 nm, for the purpose of obtaining well defined sidewall morphology (Kokkoris: Page 1706 Column 1 – Page 1707 Column 2).
Regarding claim 33, Arbabi as modified by Kokkoris discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not explicitly disclose the sidewalls of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin have a surface roughness of no greater than 2 nm.
However, Kokkoris teaches sidewalls of dielectric nanofins have a surface roughness of 1 – 5 nm, and can be further trimmed (Page 1710 Columns 1-2) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical component as disclosed by Arbabi with the teachings of Kokkoris, wherein the sidewalls of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin have a surface roughness of no greater than 2 nm, for the purpose of obtaining well defined sidewall morphology (Kokkoris: Page 1706 Column 1 – Page 1707 Column 2).
Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi in view of Brongersma et al. (US 20160025914, hereinafter “Brongersma”).
Regarding claim 36, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not disclose the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin each include a dielectric material having an imaginary part of a refractive index no greater than 0.1 over the visible spectrum, and a real part of the refraction index of at least 2 over the visible spectrum.
However, Kokkoris teaches a similar dielectric metasurface optical element (Figs. 1-2) comprises dielectric nanofins such as silicon and titanium dioxide (Para. [0011]) (the examiner considers titanium dioxide is a dielectric material having an imaginary part of a refractive index no greater than 0.1 over the visible spectrum, and a real part of the refraction index of at least 2 over the visible spectrum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical element as disclosed Arbabi with the teachings of Brongersma, wherein the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin each include a dielectric material having an imaginary part of a refractive index no greater than 0.1 over the visible spectrum, and a real part of the refraction index of at least 2 over the visible spectrum, for the purpose of using known high refractive index materials for obtaining optical metasurfaces (Brongersma: Paras. [0011]-[0012]) and as conventionally known in the art.
Regarding claim 39, Arbabi discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not disclose the first dielectric nanofin has a rectangular cross-section.
However, Kokkoris teaches a similar dielectric metasurface optical element (Figs. 1-2) comprises: dielectric nanofin having a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical element as disclosed Arbabi with the teachings of Brongersma, wherein the first dielectric nanofin has a rectangular cross-section, for the purpose of obtaining optical metasurfaces (Brongersma: Para. [0058]) and as conventionally known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871