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 and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 30 January 2026. Claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application where claims 1-9 have been amended and claims 10-19 have been withdrawn due to restriction requirement. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 30 September 2025, and are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s request for rejoinder and examination of all the pending claims (remarks page 1 paragraph 2), examiner notes that the claims are not in condition for allowance: To be eligible for rejoinder, “a claim to a nonelected invention must depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable claim”. Because the no claim is in condition for allowance, the claims are not eligible for rejoinder (see MPEP §821.04).
Examiner notes applicant’s statement regarding the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 30 September 2025 and notes applicant’s deferral of filing a terminal disclaimer until the claims are found to be in allowable condition. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is upheld below.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 4 paragraph 3) that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tungsten is not a dielectric material and can only be used to make Perkins’ absorptive layer 34a (as opposed to being used to construct dielectric layer 30a, mapped to the claimed tungsten layer), examiner notes that the disclosure of Perkins allows for the use of tungsten to construct the dielectric layer 30a. As pointed out by applicant, Perkins [0036] discloses that “the dielectric layer and/or the absorptive layer can be formed of or can include a material selected from: …tungsten…” – given the and statement, Perkins enables the dielectric layer to be formed of or can include a material selected from tungsten. Applicant points out that tungsten is not a dielectric material; examiner notes that while unconventional, it is known in the art that tungsten does have an associated dielectric function over a range of wavelengths, with both real and imaginary parts. Examiner notes that “Large optical field enhancement for nanotips with large opening angles” by Sebastian Thomas et al. (doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/6/063010) (herein after “Thomas”) page 2 figure 2 provides a comparison of dielectric functions for tungsten compared with gold over an over a wavelength range from 100-2000nm; it is shown that tungsten has a nonzero positive dielectric function over a wavelength range compared with gold. Therefore based on the disclosures of Perkins [0036] and Thomas fig. 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize tungsten as a candidate material able to function as dielectric layer 30a.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to: the amended “A” to begin the claim is noted, however “Polarizing” has remained capitalized. The claim should read “A polarizing filter…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0278811 A1 by Raymond T. Perkins et al. (“Perkins”) in view of US 2021/0191021 A1 by Radwanul Hasan Siddique et al. (“Siddique”).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins discloses a polarizing filter, the filter comprising, a polarizing structure comprising a plurality of parallel metal bars (Perkins [0010] discloses a wire-grid polarizer, easy to incorporate into optical systems [i.e. a polarizing filter]; [0054] and fig. 5 disclose one such wire-grid polarizer 10f comprising a wire-grid layer 22 formed from aluminum [plurality of parallel metal bars]), each bar being coated with an absorbing stack (Perkins fig. 5 show a plurality of layers on top of each Al wire-grid bar) comprising:
– a tungsten layer (Perkins [0031] discloses one or more of the plurality of layers stacked on the Al wire grid as a dielectric layer 30a and [0036] discloses the use of tungsten within a dielectric layer [a tungsten layer stacked on the parallel metal bars])
– a silicon layer, coating the tungsten layer (Perkins [0032] and fig. 5 show an absorptive layer 34a disposed on top of the dielectric layer 30a; [0034] discloses that the absorptive layer 34a can be formed from silicon [i.e. the absorptive layer 34a disclosed as comprising silicon is formed on the dielectric layer 30a formed from tungsten]); and
– a dielectric layer, coating the silicon layer (Perkins [0031] and fig. 5 discloses a third layer on top of the absorptive layer 34a which is an additional dielectric layer 30b [i.e. a dielectric layer coats the absorptive layer formed from silicon]).
Perkins is silent to a polarizing filter intended to be arranged in front of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels, the filter comprising¸ for each pixel, a polarizing structure.
However, Siddique does address this limitation. Perkins and Siddique are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are drawn to absorptive wire-grid polarizers.
Siddique discloses “a polarizing filter intended to be arranged in front of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels, the filter comprising¸ for each pixel, a polarizing structure” (Siddique [0088] discloses a multifunctional polarization filter 1900 [a polarizing filter] for a unit-cell pixel; [0053] and fig. 2 show four pixels, a similar multifunctional polarization filter with corresponding polarizers 201a-201d, where each polarizing structure 201a-201d is associated with the pixels shown as 205-208 where each respective pixel includes a photodetector [such that the polarizer is placed in front of an image sensor comprising photodetectors]; additionally, [0093] discloses an imaging system 2200 which includes polarizing filters (i.e. multifunctional polarization filter 1900) where the imaging system includes a camera 2201 having an image sensor, where the image sensor has a plurality of pixels (i.e. the pixels 205-208 shown in fig. 2A); the filter 1900 would be arranged in front of the image sensor in the imaging system 2200, where for each pixel a unique polarizing structure exists, as illustrated in fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins to incorporate a polarizing filter intended to be arranged in front of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels, the filter comprising¸ for each pixel, a polarizing structure as suggested by Siddique for the advantage of enabling the determination of a full Stokes polarization state of the light detected by the image sensor, as six polarization states are detectable via the multifunctional polarization filter (Siddique [0003], [0053], and [0093]).
Regarding claim 2, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1, and Perkins further teaches the filter wherein the metal bars are made of a material different from tungsten, preferably of aluminum (Perkins [0027] discloses the wire or grid layer 22 comprises a plurality of metal elements or wire 26; [0029] discloses the use of aluminum to construct the wire 26 forming the grid layer 22, and is shown in fig. 5 as being constructed of Al).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 2, and Perkins further teaches the filter wherein the tungsten layer has a thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm (Perkins [0048] discloses that the first dielectric layer 30a [which discloses the use of tungsten] can have a thickness of 100nm [greater than 60nm]).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1. Perkins is silent to the filter according to claim 1, wherein the metal bars are made of tungsten.
However, Siddique does address this limitation.
Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1, “wherein the metal bars are made of tungsten” (Siddique [0056] discloses the use of tungsten within the wire grid [i.e. the metal bars]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins to incorporate wherein the metal bars are made of tungsten as suggested by Siddique for the advantage of increased reflection suppression from cross polarization due to the structure present, including the use of tungsten (Siddique [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 4, and Perkins further teaches wherein the metal bars and the tungsten layer have a cumulated thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm (Perkins [0048] discloses that the layer 30a [tungsten layer] has a thickness of 100nm – therefore, the cumulative thickness between the metal bars and the tungsten layer is greater than 60nm since the tungsten layer itself is 100nm).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1. Perkins is silent to the filter according to claim 1, wherein the silicon layer has a thickness in the range from 20 to 100 nm, from 30 to 50 nm, or equal to approximately 39 nm.
However, Siddique does address this limitation.
Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1, “wherein the silicon layer has a thickness in the range from 20 to 100 nm, from 30 to 50 nm, or equal to approximately 39 nm” (Siddique [0056] discloses the wire grid structure following a metal-insulator-metal structure, wherein the insulator layer is constructed from silicon-based molecules (silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, etc.); the thickness of the insulator layer may range from about a few nanometers to a few hundred nanometers; one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider “a few nanometers” as corresponding to under 10 nm and reasonably consider “a few hundred nanometers” as corresponding to at least 200 nm – given this range, a thickness between 30 to 50 nm is anticipated by Siddique).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins to incorporate wherein the silicon layer has a thickness in the range from 20 to 100 nm, from 30 to 50 nm, or equal to approximately 39 nm as suggested by Siddique for the advantage of increased reflection suppression from cross polarization due to the structure present, including the thickness of the insulator layer (Siddique [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1, and Perkins further teaches the filter wherein the dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide (Perkins [0034] discloses the use of silicon oxide to construct the dielectric layer and the dielectric layer 30b is shown in fig. 5 as being constructed of SiO2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Siddique, and further in view of US 5,907,436 by Michael D. Perry et al. (“Perry”).
Regarding claim 8, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses the filter according to claim 1, and Perkins further teaches the filter wherein the dielectric layer is formed of dielectric materials having refractive indices lower than that of silicon (Perkins [0031] and fig. 5 discloses a third additional dielectric layer 30b [the dielectric layer] on top of the absorptive layer 34a [the silicon layer]; Perkins claim 23 specifies that dielectric layers have a refractive index different than that of the absorptive layer 34a [dielectric layer has a different refractive index than the silicon layer]; in one example, [0048] discloses that dielectric layer 30a has an index of refraction of 1.45 and the absorptive layer has an index of refraction of 2.5; given the difference in refractive indices for the dielectric and absorptive layers, and the freedom of choice for materials for those layers enabled by [0034]-[0036], one of ordinary skill in the art can choose a material for the dielectric layer such that the refractive index is lower than that of silicon [i.e. lower than an absorptive layer constructed from silicon] as needed for the particular application of the polarizing filter).
Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to the filter of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is formed of a stack of a plurality of layers of dielectric materials.
However, Perry does address this limitation. Perkins, Siddique, and Perry are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are drawn to optical components comprising thin films of dielectric materials within a grating and/or polarizer.
Perry discloses the filter of claim 1, “wherein the dielectric layer is formed of a stack of a plurality of layers of dielectric materials” (Perry fig. 7A and col 5 ll. 33-39 disclose a multilayer dielectric coating [stack of a plurality of layers form a dielectric layer] affixed to a substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins in view of Siddique to incorporate wherein the dielectric layer is formed of a stack of a plurality of layers as suggested by Perry for the advantage of increased absorption for light having polarizations parallel to grooves [parallel to metal bars of claimed invention] (Perry col 2 ll. 6-9).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Siddique, and further in view of US 2021/0190593 A1 by Yu Yao et al. (“Yao”).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins when modified by Siddique discloses a polarizing filter according to claim 1. Perkins is silent to a polarimetric image sensor, the sensor comprising: a plurality of pixels, each comprising a photodetector, and a polarizing filter according to claim 1, the filter being arranged on the side of an illumination surface of the photodetectors.
However, Siddique does address this limitation.
Siddique discloses “a polarimetric image sensor” (Siddique [0093] discloses an image sensor including the polarizing filter 1900 discloses therein [polarimetric image sensor]), “the sensor comprising: a plurality of pixels, each comprising a photodetector” (Siddique [0053] and fig. 2 discloses four pixels and four polarizing structures associated with each pixels; each respective pixel comprises a photodetector), “and a polarizing filter according to claim 1, the filter being arranged on the side of an illumination surface of the photodetectors” (Perkins when modified by Siddique has disclosed the polarizing filter according to claim 1; Siddique [0093] and fig. 22 discloses the polarizing filter 2202 [equivalent to the polarizing filter 1900] where the filter appears on the incident side of the photodetectors, i.e. incident light is filtered via 2202 and then received by the image sensor comprising the photodetectors, on the side of an illumination surface of the photodetectors; a similar structure is see in fig. 2 where a filter appears before the illumination of the pixel comprising the photodetector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins to incorporate a polarimetric image sensor, the sensor comprising: a plurality of pixels, each comprising a photodetector, and a polarizing filter according to claim 1, the filter being arranged on the side of an illumination surface of the photodetectors as suggested by Siddique for the advantage of enabling the determination of a full Stokes polarization state of the light detected by the image sensor, as six polarization states are detectable via the multifunctional polarization filter (Siddique [0003], [0053], and [0093]).
Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to a polarimetric image sensor formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate, the sensor comprising a plurality of pixels, each comprising a photodetector formed in the semiconducting substrate.
However, Yao does address this limitation. Perkins, Siddique, and Yao are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are drawn to absorptive wire-grid polarizers.
Yao discloses “a polarimetric image sensor formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate” (Yao abstract discloses a polarization sensor which when integrated onto an image sensor forms a polarimetric imager; [0072]-[0073] and fig. 11 disclose a semiconductor imaging substrate [i.e. an image sensor formed on top of semiconductor substrate]) “the sensor comprising a plurality of pixels, each comprising a photodetector formed in the semiconducting substrate” (Yao fig. 11 and [0073] discloses a plurality of photodetector regions, termed sub-pixels; figs. 10 and 11 shows the photodetectors formed within the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perkins in view of Siddique to incorporate a polarimetric image sensor formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate, the sensor comprising a plurality of pixels, each comprising a photodetector formed in the semiconducting substrate as suggested by Yao for the advantage of enabling a direct computation of stokes parameters from the intensities measured by individual polarization regions (Yao [0073]) enabling a full characterization of light polarization states (Yao fig. 11).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/537,880 (reference application, referred to herein as ‘880). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, all of the limitations of claim 1 are taught by claim 10 of the copending application.
Regarding claim 9, all of the limitations of claim 9 are taught by claim 10 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 R Chowdhury can be reached at (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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877