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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-9,
Regarding Wang, the reference is generally directed to an "[o]ptical sensing devices employing light intensity detectors integrated with nanostructures." (See Abstract). For example, Wang discloses polarization and spectral sampling pixels which can include formed nanostructures therein (which may be oriented to filter polarization states of the incident light). The Office appears to interpret the nanostructures in the polarization and spectral sampling pixels of Wang, as disclosing the claimed "row of nanostructures that filter light by a first polarization state." Additionally, the Office cites to FIG. 13 of Wang (reproduced below) as alleged disclosing "nanostructures configured having a first length and a second length to filter the light by a first polarization state," as recited by previous independent claim 1 (prior to instant amendment). (See Office Action, pp. 3-4).
Regarding FIG. 13 of Wang, the figure seemingly depicts an example of polarization and spectral sampling pixels that include nanostructure features (e.g. 133- 3, 133-4) appearing to have a circular shape and a rectangular shape respectively and allegedly having the claimed "a first length and a second length.” [image omitted]
In contrast, as amended, independent claim 1 now recites, "a nanostructure configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, the first length and the second length having selected values determined to filter the light by a first polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering." That is, the claimed "nanostructures" may be nanoholes, and a nanohole may be configured with a first length (R1), a second length (R2). Further, the nanoholes may filter light at a particular polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering, which may be imparted by the selected values of R1 and R2.
However, while the examiner agrees that Wang does not teach nanoholes, the claim does not require the nanostructures to be nanoholes. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, on pages 10-11,
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that as seen in FIG. 6B of the Applicant's Specification, a single nanostructure may have a claimed "first length in a first direction" (e.g., R1- length of the nanohole, along YZ axis) and the claimed "second length in a second direction" (e.g., R2 - width of the nanohole, along YX axis), rather than multiple nanostructures, where a first nanostructure (e.g., circular shaped nanostructures) can have a length and a second nanostructure (e.g., rectangular nanostructure) may have a different, second length, as seemingly disclosed by Wang.
Additionally, the claimed "nanostructure" can be configured with a first length and a second length (e.g., change the R1, R2) having related values that are selected to provide a different filtering of light "by a first polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering," as claimed. [specification citation omitted]
The cited portions of Wang are seemingly silent with respect to nanostructures having a particular geometry and/or configuration which may impart a particular polarization state and amount of filtering to light. That is, the nanostructures of Wang do not appear to be "configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, the first length and the second length having selected values determined to filter the light by a first polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering," in the same manner as the claimed "nanostructures."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments regarding “a single nanostructure” merely require one of the nanowires of wang to have the claimed features.
Furthermore, the claim does not require a single shaped nanostructures. The claim merely requires “a nanostructures layer comprising a row of nanostructures arranged to scatter light, a nanostructure configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, the first length and the second length having selected values determined to filter the light by a first polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering”. This limitation is disclosed by Wang at Fig. 13, paragraph [0068]. Wang states that its filter contains nanowires, which inherently have “a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction”, even a single molecule has a defined length, and a nano wire is a stack of molecules with a defined length in a second direction. Wang continues the structures “can filter polarization states of the incident light depending on the orientations of the dispersed nanowires or molecules” paragraph [0068]. There is nothing in the claim to restrict the amount of filtering and the polarization states. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The examiner notes that an amendment “wherein the nanostructures are nanoholes” would overcome the current rejection, pending further search.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddique et al. (US 2021/0223104 A1), hereinafter “Siddique”, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0301053 A1), hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 1, Siddique teaches an image sensor (abstract, Fig. 2), comprising:
an aperture (ref 202, paragraph [0037]);
a dispersion array (ref 204, paragraph [0037]);
a lens (ref 205, paragraph [0040]);
an image sensor (ref 206, paragraph [0040]); and
a processor (ref 207, paragraph [0041]),
wherein the dispersion array further comprises a dispersion structure, the dispersion structure comprising:
a nanostructures layer comprising a row of nanostructures (ref 403, paragraph [0045]) arranged to scatter light (paragraph [0049]), configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction (as shown in Fig. 4, the examiner notes the claim does not require different lengths); and
a filter layer comprising materials arranged to disperse the light, wherein the light is received from the nanostructure layer (Fig. 4, ref 404, paragraph [0050]).
Siddique is silent regarding the first length and the second length having selected values determined to filter the light by a first polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering.
However, Wang teaches an optical sensor (abstract, Fig. 12) including nanostructures arranged to scatter light (“nanostructure can be made of any types of materials that influence the incident light by scattering “ paragraph [0034], see also paragraph [0038]), the first length and the second length having selected values (as shown in Fig. 13, refs 133-3, 133-4, paragraph [0068], the claim does not require different lengths), determined to filter the light by a first polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering (“materials with conducting or semi-conducting nanowires (e.g. 132-1 to 132-4), polarized molecules or chiral molecules dispersed in a supporting medium (e.g. a polymer material). The resulting structures have an intrinsic anisotropy and can filter polarization states of the incident light depending on the orientations of the dispersed nanowires or molecules “ paragraph [0068])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the scattering layer includes a row of nanostructures that filter light by a first polarization state as paragraph [0077] of Wang teaches polarizers are needed in hyperspectral imaging and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Wang to measure both wavelength and polarization.
Regarding claim 2, Siddique teaches at least two dispersion structures, wherein the at least two dispersion structures comprise a defect layer, and wherein the defect layers of the at least two dispersion structures have differing thicknesses from each other (as shown in Fig 4, paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Siddique teaches wherein, the nanostructures layer is configured for scattering the light in a first wavelength range, and the filter layer is configured for dispersing the light in a second wavelength range (paragraphs [0039], [0051], [0175]).
Regarding claim 4, Siddique teaches wherein the at least two dispersion structures disperse different wavelength ranges from each other (paragraphs [0043], [0050], [0177]).
Regarding claim 5, Siddique is silent regarding wherein the at least two dispersion structures filter light by at least the first polarization state.
However, Wang teaches wherein the at least two dispersion structures filter light by at least the first polarization state (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the at least two dispersion structures filter light by at least the first polarization state in order to perform detection on the polarization of the light, using a known technique.
Regarding claim 6, Siddique teaches wherein the at least two dispersion structures are configured to scatter the light in one direction and not to scatter the light in a second direction (paragraph [0178]).
Regarding claim 7, Siddique teaches wherein the at least two dispersion structures comprise rows of anisotropic nanostructures that are positioned at a different angles from each other (paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 8, Siddique is silent regarding wherein the at least two dispersion structures comprise nanostructures configured having the first length and the second length to filter light by the first polarization state for a first dispersion structure and nanostructures configured having a third length and the fourth length to fitter light by a second polarization state for a second dispersion structure, the first length and second length being different than the third length and fourth length.
However, Wang teaches wherein the at least two dispersion structures comprise nanostructures configured having the first length and the second length to filter light by the first polarization state for a first dispersion structure and nanostructures configured having a third length and the fourth length to fitter light by a second polarization state for a second dispersion structure (as shown in Fig 13 paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the at least two dispersion structures comprise nanostructures configured having the first length and the second length to filter light by the first polarization state for a first dispersion structure and nanostructures configured having a third length and the fourth length to fitter light by a second polarization state for a second dispersion structure in order to perform detection on the polarization of the light, using a known technique.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first length and second length being different than the third length and fourth length, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One would choose different lengths in order to scatter or filter at different wavelengths.
Regarding claim 9, Siddique is silent regarding wherein the image sensor reads polarization state data from wavelengths dispersed by the dispersion array.
However, Wang teaches wherein the image sensor reads polarization state data from wavelengths dispersed by the dispersion array (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the image sensor reads polarization state data from wavelengths dispersed by the dispersion array in order to perform detection on the polarization of the light, using a known technique.
Regarding claim 10, Siddique is silent regarding wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first polarization state from polarization state data.
However, Wang teaches wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first polarization state from polarization state data (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first polarization state from polarization state data in order to obtain the polarization state of the light for analysis.
Regarding claim 11, Siddique teaches wherein the image sensor is subdivided to read image data from a first set of pixels and polarization state data from a second set of pixels (paragraphs [0128]-[0130]).
Regarding claim 12, Siddique teaches wherein the first set of pixels comprises a circle, and the second set of pixels comprises an annulus coaxial with the circle of the first set of pixels (paragraphs [0128]-[0130]).
Regarding claim 13, Siddique is silent regarding wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first polarization state from polarization state data.
However, Wang teaches wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first polarization state from polarization state data (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the first polarization state from polarization state data in order to obtain the polarization state of the light for analysis.
Regarding claim 15, Siddique teaches a method to obtain spectral data from a sensor (abstract, Figs. 2, 4), the method comprising:
receiving incident light (Fig. 4, ref 201, paragraph [0037]);
scattering the incident light through a scattering to create scattered light (ref 402, paragraph [0048]);
dispersing a subset of the scattered light through a dispersion layer to create dispersed light (ref 204, Fig. 3, paragraph [0043]);
receiving the dispersed light on an image sensor (ref 206, paragraph [0040]).
Siddique is silent regarding filtering the incident light by a polarization state through a scatting and polarization layer to create scattered polarized light, the scattering and polarization filter layer comprising nanostructures configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, the first length and the second length having selected values that are determined to filter the incident light by the polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering; dispersing a subset of the scattered polarized light, from the scattering and polarization filter layer, through a dispersion layer to create dispersed polarized light, and reconstructing polarization state data from the dispersed polarized light.
However, Wang teaches an optical sensor (abstract, Fig. 12) including filtering the incident light by a polarization state through a scatting and polarization layer to create scattered polarized light, the scattering and polarization filter layer comprising nanostructures configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, the first length and the second length having selected values that are determined to filter the incident light by the polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering (paragraph [0038]); dispersing a subset of the scattered polarized light, from the scattering and polarization filter layer, through a dispersion layer to create dispersed polarized light (paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0068]) and reconstructing polarization state data from the dispersed polarized light (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including filtering the incident light by a polarization state through a scatting and polarization layer to create scattered polarized light, the scattering and polarization filter layer comprising nanostructures configured having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, the first length and the second length having selected values that are determined to filter the incident light by the polarization state and a corresponding amount of filtering; dispersing a subset of the scattered polarized light, from the scattering and polarization filter layer, through a dispersion layer to create dispersed polarized light, and reconstructing polarization state data from the dispersed polarized light as paragraph [0077] of Wang teaches polarizers are needed in hyperspectral imaging and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Wang to measure both wavelength and polarization.
Regarding claim 16, Siddique teaches wherein the polarization state data is reconstructed from the dispersed polarized light from a shortwave infrared, mid-infrared, or near-infrared spectrum (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 17, Siddique is silent regarding wherein the nanostructures of the scattering and polarization filter layer comprise anisotropic nanostructures.
However, Wang teaches wherein the nanostructures of the scattering and polarization filter layer comprise anisotropic nanostructures (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Siddique with the teaching of Wang by including wherein the nanostructures of the scattering and polarization filter layer comprise anisotropic nanostructures in order to perform detection on the polarization of the light, using a known technique and obtain the polarization state of the light for analysis.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches wherein a subset of the scattered polarized light is dispersed by a Distributed Bragg filter (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 20, Siddique teaches further comprising scattering the incident light in a first wavelength range through the scattering layer (Fig. 4, ref 402, paragraph [0048) of a dispersion structure (Fig. 3, paragraph [0043]) of a dispersion array, the scattering layer comprising a row of the nanostructures (ref 403, paragraph [0045) positioned at different angles from each other and configured to create scattered light in the first wavelength range (paragraph [0179]) but does not teach the polarization filter layer.
However, Wang teaches the polarization filter layer (supra).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddique and Wang as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US 2019/0034690 A1), hereinafter “Jung”.
Regarding claim 14, Siddique and Wang teach the at least two dispersion structures and the at least two dispersion structures filter a first polarization state and a second polarization state (supra) but is silent regarding a quarter-wave plate arranged on top and the second polarization state being perpendicular to the first polarization state.
However, Jung teaches an optical device (abstract) including a quarter-wave plate (Fig. 4A, ref 423) arranged on top and the second polarization state being perpendicular to the first polarization state (paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Siddique with the teaching of Jung by including a quarter-wave plate arranged on top and the second polarization state being perpendicular to the first polarization state in order to transform circular polarization into a linear polarization which can be detected by sensor.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddique and Wang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Deliwala (US 2005/0058352 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Siddique is silent regarding wherein image and polarization state data are reconstructed concurrently.
However, Deliwala teaches optical image encoding and reconstruction (abstract) including wherein image and polarization state data are reconstructed concurrently (paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Siddique with the teaching of Deliwala by including wherein image and polarization state data are reconstructed concurrently in order to obtain additional information about the measured object, Deliwala, paragraph [0021].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rothberg (US 2019/0025511) teaches a photonic structure that includes a polarization filter that filters by an amount of filtering, and appears to be able to be combined with the prior art of record to render at least claim 1 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
