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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 25 June 2026. Claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application, where claims 10-19 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement and claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection to claim 1 set forth in the Final Office Action dated 25 March 2026, and is hereby withdrawn. The provisional rejection on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting over copending Application No. 18/537,880 is withdrawn on the basis of the application having been patented and the provisional rejection having been rendered moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes applicant’s argument (remarks page 1 paragraph 2) repeated by reference concerning the Request for Rejoinder filed in the 30 January 2026 response. Examiner repeats the response to this argument provided in the Final Office Action dated 25 March 2026 herein. 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 with regards to the Double Patenting Rejection repeated by reference, specifically that applicant defers filing a terminal disclaimer until the claims are found to be in allowable condition. While the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been rendered moot, a nonprovisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection appears below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (remarks page 2 – page 3 paragraph 3) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. This is in regards to the newly amended limitation “absorbing tungsten layer” – neither Perkins nor Siddique are relied on to teach the limitation in question.
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”), and further in view of US 2021/0048573 A1 by Tomu Takeda (herein after “Takeda”).
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 dielectric layer (Perkins [0031] and fig. 5 discloses a dielectric layer 30b).
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]).
Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to the absorbing stack comprising an absorbing tungsten layer; a silicon layer, coating the absorbing tungsten layer; and a dielectric layer coating the silicon layer.
However, Takeda does address this limitation. Perkins, Siddique, and Takeda are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are drawn to absorptive wire-grid polarizers.
Takeda discloses “the absorbing stack, comprising:
an absorbing tungsten layer (Takeda fig. 1 and [0043] disclose a polarizing element 1 comprising a base layer 12 being coated with a plurality of layers; a first absorption layer 13 appears above base layer 12, where [0058] the first absorption layer 13 may be constructed from tungsten W);
a silicon layer, coating the absorbing tungsten layer (Takeda fig. 1 and [0043] discloses a first dielectric layer 14 coating the first absorbing layer 13, where [0062] the first dielectric layer may be formed by silicon [first dielectric layer 14 is the silicon layer]); and
a dielectric layer, coating the silicon layer (Takeda fig. 1 and [0043] discloses a second dielectric layer 16, ultimately coating the first dielectric layer 14 [dielectric layer coating the silicon layer]; examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the dielectric layer 14 still “coats” the layer 13 even though a reflective layer 15 is formed between the two layers).
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 the absorbing stack comprising an absorbing tungsten layer; a silicon layer, coating the absorbing tungsten layer; and a dielectric layer coating the silicon layer as suggested by Takeda for the advantage of attenuating interference effects (Takeda [0061]), and reducing deterioration of image quality to due ghost effects (Takeda [0085]).
Regarding claim 2, Perkins when modified by Siddique and Takeda 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 and Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1. Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to the filter according to claim 1, wherein the absorbing tungsten layer has a thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm.
However, Takeda does address this limitation.
Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1, “wherein the absorbing tungsten layer has a thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm” (Takeda [0060] discloses that the film thickness of the first absorption layer 13 [absorbing tungsten layer] is desirably from 10 nm to 100 nm [61nm through 100nm are all concrete examples within the claimed range]).
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 absorbing tungsten layer has a thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm as suggested by Takeda for the advantage of attenuating interference effects (Takeda [0061]), and reducing deterioration of image quality to due ghost effects (Takeda [0085]).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins when modified by Siddique and Takeda 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 and Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 4. Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to the filter according to claim 4, wherein the metal bars and the absorbing tungsten layer have a cumulated thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm.
However, Takeda does address this limitation.
Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 4, “wherein the metal bars and the absorbing tungsten layer have a cumulated thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm” (Takeda [0060] discloses that the film thickness of the first absorption layer 13 [absorbing tungsten layer] is desirably from 10 nm to 100 nm [61nm through 100nm are all concrete examples within the claimed range]; for the case where the first absorption layer is greater than 61nm, the cumulative thickness of the metal bars and absorbing tungsten layer is greater than 60nm).
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 metal bars and the absorbing tungsten layer have a cumulated thickness greater than 40nm, preferably greater than 60nm as suggested by Takeda for the advantage of attenuating interference effects (Takeda [0061]), and reducing deterioration of image quality to due ghost effects (Takeda [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins when modified by Siddique and Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1. Perkins when modified by Siddique 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, Takeda does address this limitation.
Takeda 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” (Takeda [0061] discloses that the first dielectric layer 14 may have a film thickness set in the range of 1 nm to 500 nm, such that it is capable of adjusting the phase of polarized light; while the prior art range is broader than the claimed range, the upper and lower bounds of the range do not differ by more than an order of magnitude, and given the purpose for the broad range (i.e. to adjust the phase of polarized light) the claimed ranged (specifically between 20 to 100 nm) is anticipated by Takeda).
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 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 Takeda for the advantage of attenuating interference effects (Takeda [0061]), and reducing deterioration of image quality to due ghost effects (Takeda [0085]).
Regarding claim 7, Perkins when modified by Siddique and Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1. Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to the filter according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide.
However, Takeda does address this limitation.
Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1, “wherein the dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide” (Takeda [0068] discloses that the second dielectric layer 16 [claimed dielectric layer] is formed from same material as that of the first dielectric layer 14, which [0062] discloses is desirably formed from SiO2 [silicon oxide]).
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 made of silicon oxide as suggested by Takeda for the advantage of as suggested by Takeda for the advantage of attenuating interference effects (Takeda [0061]), and reducing deterioration of image quality to due ghost effects (Takeda [0085]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Siddique, in view of Takeda, and further in view of US 5,907,436 by Michael D. Perry et al. (herein after “Perry”).
Regarding claim 8, Perkins when modified by Siddique and Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1. Perkins when modified by Siddique is silent to the filter according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is formed of dielectric materials having refraction indices lower than that of silicon.
However, Takeda does address this limitation.
Takeda discloses the filter according to claim 1, “wherein the dielectric layer is formed of dielectric materials having refraction indices lower than that of silicon” (Takeda [0068] discloses that the second dielectric layer 16 [claimed dielectric layer] is formed from materials having a refractive index desirably larger than 1.0 and equal to or smaller than 2.5; it is known in the art as being greater than 2.5, and for the example wavelength given in Takeda of 520-590 nm, would have a refractive index of over 4 [dielectric layer formed from materials having refraction indices lower than that of silicon]).
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 dielectric materials having refraction indices lower than that of silicon as suggested by Takeda for the advantage of attenuating interference effects (Takeda [0061]), and reducing deterioration of image quality to due ghost effects (Takeda [0085]).
Perkins in view of Siddique and Takeda is silent the filter according to 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, Takeda, 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 according to 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 and Takeda 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, in view of Takeda, and further in view of US 2021/0190593 A1 by Yu Yao et al. (“Yao”).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins when modified by Siddique and Takeda 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 and Takeda 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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,584,795 B2 (herein after “the ‘795 patent”). 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 8 of the ‘795 patent. This includes the recitation of the polarizing filter arranged in front of an image sensor comprising a plurality of pixels (taught by claim 1 of the ‘795 patent) the filter comprising a polarizing structure with a plurality of metal bars (taught by claim 6 of the ‘795 patent), wherein each metal bar is coated with an absorbing stack (taught by claim 7 of the ‘795 patent), comprising the tungsten layer, silicon layer coating the tungsten layer, and the dielectric layer coating the silicon layer (taught by claim 8 of the ‘795 patent). The amended language of “absorbing tungsten layer” vs “tungsten layer” does not overcome the NSDP rejection.
Regarding claim 9, all of the limitations of claim 9 are taught by claim 8 of the ‘795 patent. This includes the recitation of a polarimetric image sensor formed inside and on top of a semiconductor substrate (taught by claim 1 of the ‘795 patent), and the plurality of pixels comprising a photodetector, and the filter being arranged on the side of an illumination surface of the photodetectors (all taught by claim 1 of the ‘795 patent).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 2012/0319222 A1 by Ken Ozawa et al., disclosing an imaging element with corresponding polarizing element incorporated. Polarizing element comprises stacked absorbing layers on metal bars similar to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights