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 28-31, 33-38 and 41-49 currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-27, 32 and 39-40 are canceled; claims 28 and 45-48 are currently amended; claims 29-31, 33-38 and 41-44 are previously presented; and claim 49 is newly added. The amendment dated April 9, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claim 48 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection is now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claim.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the newly amended claim 28, the applicant argues that because Kokkoris teaches the initial resist roughness is from 1 to 5nm, Kokkoris does not disclose the roughness of the sidewall being no greater than 5 nm, and the underlayer taught by Kokkoris is not the same as the "first dielectric nanofin" and "second dielectric nanofin" recited in the claim.
The examiner considers a sidewall of nanofins or nanostructures having a surface roughness of no greater than 5 nm has been known for more than two decades, and one of ordinary person in the art can easily fabricate such sidewalls as evidenced by at least Du et al. (US 20070010099, see Para. [0010] “the method reduces etched sidewall roughness to about 5 nm or less, which is important for feature sizes less than about 0.10 μm”), where Kokkoris teaches a fabrication method of further reducing the surface roughness of sidewalls and a method of estimating the effects of the roughness parameters. These methods of obtaining such sidewalls include at least an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process and plasma etching with photoresist. The new rejections set forth below cite Du which describes those evidence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 28-31, 33-38 and 41-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbabi (“Dielectric metasurfaces for complete control of phase and polarization with subwavelength spatial resolution and high transmission”, Nature Nanotech 10, 937–943), of record, in view of Du et al. (US 20070010099, hereinafter “Du”), and in further view of Brongersma (US 20160025914), of record.
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),
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)”), and
wherein the angle of rotation of the first dielectric nanofin is different than the angle of rotation of the second dielectric nanofin (Figs. 1a-b).
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, Du teaches a known fabrication method includes fabricating sidewalls having a surface roughness of no greater than 5 nm (Para. [0088] “a smooth etched sidewall surface (having a surface roughness of less than 5 nm)”).
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 dielectric nanofins as disclosed by Arbabi with the teachings of Du, 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 etching a dielectric layer with a smaller surface roughness, which is important for small feature sizes (Du: Paras. [0010], [0088]).
Arbabi does not disclose the first dielectric nanofin has a rectangular cross-section.
However, Brongersma teaches a similar dielectric metasurface optical element (Figs. 1-2) comprises: dielectric nanofins having a rectangular cross-section (200 in 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.
Regarding claim 29, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 33, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma 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, Du teaches a known fabrication method includes fabricating sidewalls having a surface roughness of less than 5 nm (Para. [0088]; 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 dielectric nanofins as disclosed by Arbabi with the teachings of Du, 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 etching a dielectric layer with a smaller surface roughness, which is important for feature sizes less than about 0.10 μm (Du: Paras. [0010], [0088]).
Regarding claim 34, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 36, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma 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 37, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi further discloses wherein the optical component is a lens, a collimator, a polarizer, or a hologram (Page 937 Column 1).
Regarding claim 41, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi further discloses wherein the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric nanofin have elongated cross-sections (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 45, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not explicitly disclose the height, width, and length of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric 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 dielectric 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 dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not explicitly disclose the width of the first dielectric nanofin is greater than the width of the second dielectric nanofin.
However, Arbabi teaches providing elliptical dielectric 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 dielectric nanofin is greater than the width of the second dielectric 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).
Regarding claim 47, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi further discloses wherein the different angle of rotation of the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric 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 as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above, and Arbabi further discloses an array of nanofins which includes the first dielectric nanofin and the second dielectric 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), wherein Ω(x, y) is a computed phase map (see Figs. 1a-b wherein nanofins are rotated in the x-y plane with angles, θ(x, y)).
Regarding claim 48, Arbabi as modified by Du an Brongersma discloses the limitations of claim 28 above.
Arbabi does not disclose the rectangular cross-section is projected onto a plane parallel to the surface of the substrate.
However, Brongersma teaches a similar dielectric metasurface optical element (Figs. 1-2) comprises: dielectric nanofins having a rectangular cross-section projected onto a plane parallel to the surface of a substrate (see 200 disposed on 202 in 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 rectangular cross-section is projected onto a plane parallel to the surface of the substrate, for the purpose of obtaining optical metasurfaces (Brongersma: Para. [0058]) and as conventionally known in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights