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 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04 February 2026, overcomes the prior rejection(s). However, the amendment gives rise to a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on new analysis of the previously applied reference(s).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the target location” should read --the same target location--.
Regarding claim 18, “the target location” should read --the same target location--.
Regarding claim 19, “the target location” should read --the same target location--.
Claims 3-17 and 20 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao (US20210190593A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses an optical stack for image sensing (Fig. 16 as further structurally described in Fig. 13; ¶¶ 72, 79-81), comprising:
a photo detection layer (Fig. 16A, as structurally detailed in Fig. 13, consisting of Ag cross antennas + SiO2 + Ag gratings + dielectric layer + detector elements) including an array of pixels (Fig. 16(a), array of pixels P1 to P6),
the photo detection layer further comprising a plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 13, Ag gratings + SiO2 + Ag cross antenna) on a light-receiving surface of the photo detection layer (Fig. 13, top surface of detector elements),
the optical stack configured to direct selected parts of light received by the optical stack, incident on the plurality of nanostructures, onto a pixel among the array of pixels of the photo detection layer (¶¶ 79-81, polarization filtering per pixel; see further Figs. 16C & 16E), wherein
a first nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 13, Ag cross antenna + SiO2) corresponding to the pixel includes a rectangular cross-sectional shape along a plane parallel to the pixel (Fig. 13(3), cross-section of SiO2 rectangular parallel to the pixel) and a vertex elevated above the light-receiving surface by a first vertical distance orthogonal to the plane of the pixel, the vertex being defined by an edge that is parallel to the light-receiving surface (see Annotated Fig. 13, introduced below), and for
a first group of nanostructures, the first group of nanostructures comprising at least two nanostructures and fewer nanostructures than the plurality of nanostructures per pixel (Fig. 16B, four Ag cross antenna nanostructures; see Annotated Fig. 16B, introduced below), each nanostructure of the first group having a respective vertex defined by an edge that is parallel to the light-receiving surface, the edge defining each respective vertex is arranged to point, directionally, towards a same target location on the photo detection layer, the target location being horizontally laterally displaced relative to a position directly beneath the respective vertex in plane with the photo detection layer (see Second Annotated Fig. 16B, introduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein an area occupied by the first group of nanostructures is rectangular in cross-section (see Annotated Fig. 16B, previously introduced).
Regarding claim 5, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 4, and further discloses: wherein a second group of nanostructures are arranged at a regular predefined spacing, different to an arrangement of the first group of nanostructures (Fig. 13(2), Ag gratings).
Regarding claim 6, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 5, and further discloses: wherein the first group of nanostructures and the second group of nanostructures are arranged in a rectangular array (Fig. 16A, P1 through P6 corresponding to the rectangular array).
Regarding claim 7, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 6, and further discloses: wherein the first group of nanostructures and the second group of nanostructures are arranged in an array area within the rectangular array, wherein the array area is aligned with a subset of pixels of the array of pixels (Fig. 16A, P5).
Regarding claim 9, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 4, and further discloses: wherein the plurality of nanostructures protrude away from the light-receiving surface (Fig. 13, nanostructures layered upon the detector element).
Regarding claim 11, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the plurality of nanostructures are nano-antennas (Fig. 13, “cross antennas”; ¶¶ 68 & 76), and the plurality of nanostructures are further configured to perform wavelength filtering of the selected parts of light received by the optical stack (¶¶ 81 & 85, polarization and wavelength filtering).
Regarding claim 15, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, and further discloses: further comprising a spacer layer disposed on the light receiving surface of the photo detection layer (Fig. 13, dielectric layer), wherein the plurality of nanostructures are disposed on the spacer layer on a side opposite the photo detection layer (Fig. 13, Ag gratings + SiO2 + Ag cross antenna on a side of the dielectric layer which is opposite facing relative to the detector element).
Regarding claim 16, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the photo detection layer further comprises a second plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 13, dielectric layer across each pixels of Fig. 16A), the plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 13, Ag gratings + SiO2 + Ag cross antenna) and the second plurality of nanostructures being arranged in different nanostructure layers (Fig. 13, dielectric layer in a different layer than Ag gratings + SiO2 + Ag cross antenna), at least some of the plurality of nanostructures and/or the second plurality of nanostructures being composed from a first nanostructure layer (Fig. 13, Ag gratings of the plurality of nanostructures corresponding to a first nanostructure layer) and a second nanostructure layer (Fig. 13, dielectric layer of the second plurality of nanostructures corresponding to a second nanostructure layer).
Regarding claim 20, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures are sized in a range from 1 nanometer (nm) to 999 nm (¶¶ 49, 53-54, 57, 70-71, 77, 83 & 89-90, nanostructure sizes disclosed are within 1 to 999 nm).
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 3, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Hwang (US20190004222A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein the first group of nanostructures focus light onto a single pixel. Hwang teaches the limitation in Fig. 31, where a first group of nanostructures (530 + F1 + 540) focuses light onto a single pixel (550). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first group of nanostructures of Yao and incorporate the focusing features of Hwang, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the focusing features taught by Hwang would confer the advantages of increased fill factor and quantum efficiency for the pixel sensor, thereby yielding a system with higher sensitivity and improved low-light performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein at least some of the plurality of nanostructures are configured to focus the selected parts of light received by the optical stack element onto the pixel of the array of pixels to avoid crosstalk with other pixels of the array of pixels. Hwang teaches the limitation in Fig. 31, where at least some (503) of a plurality of nanostructures (530 + F1 + 540) focuses light onto a pixel (550), and each pixel each have a focusing nanostructure (530) naturally aiding in reduced crosstalk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of nanostructures of Yao and incorporate the focusing features of Hwang, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the focusing features taught by Hwang would confer the advantages of increased fill factor and quantum efficiency for the pixel sensor, in addition to reduced crosstalk with other pixels by funneling light to correct pixel, thereby yielding a system with higher sensitivity and improved low-light performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, however does not disclose: wherein the plurality of nanostructures are arranged in a formation comprising nanostructures and spacings, the formation providing a predefined focusing effect optical function. Hwang teaches the limitation in Fig. 31, where the plurality of nanostructures (530 + F1 + 540) are arranged such that element 530 is a predefined distance from pixel (550) providing a predefined focusing effect, as naturally understood by the Gaussian thin lens equation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of nanostructures of Yao and incorporate the focusing features of Hwang, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the focusing features taught by Hwang would confer the advantages of increased fill factor and quantum efficiency for the pixel sensor, thereby yielding a system with higher sensitivity and improved low-light performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wang (US20170310907A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 4, and further discloses: wherein the directing of the selected parts of light […] is in the infrared or near infrared spectrum (¶¶ 18-20 & 71, operates in infrared). Yao does not teach: “focused by the plurality of nanostructures.” However, Wang teaches the limitation in Fig. 5, where the plurality of nanostructures (504+516) focuses onto pixel (510). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of nanostructures of Yao and incorporate the focusing features of Wang, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the focusing features taught by Wang would confer the advantages of increased fill factor and quantum efficiency for the pixel sensor, thereby yielding a system with higher sensitivity and improved low-light performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Aschwanden (US20130114148A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, however does not discloses: wherein the optical stack is configured to perform an optical function based on electrical tuning of at least some of the plurality of the nanostructures by the application of control signals to the at least some of the plurality of nanostructures connected by wiring, the electrical tuning controlling at least one of: focus, an optical axis, a field of view, and a filtering function for the at least some of the nanostructures for the pixel. Aschwanden teaches electrical tuning of focus by varying the voltage across electrodes connected to an adjustable lens in Fig. 9 and ¶¶ 80-81. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least some of the plurality of the nanostructures of Yao and incorporate the focusing features of Aschwanden with the motivation to compensation of unwanted optical effects, thereby yielding a system with higher image quality and stabilization (see Aschwanden, ¶¶ 5, 53, 68 & 81).
Regarding claim 14, Yao in view of Aschwanden teaches the optical stack of claim 13, and further teaches: wherein the at least some of the nanostructures are assigned to a row or column of nanostructure areas on the light receiving surface (Yao, Fig. 11 as previously combined with Aschwanden, Fig. 9) and a terminal is provided for each row or column for the application of the control signals (Aschwanden, Fig. 9, electrodes 104 and 106 as previously combined with the nanostructures of Yao).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Ozdemir (“Broadband polarization-independent low-crosstalk metasurface lens array-based mid wave infrared focal plane arrays,” published March 2018)1.
Regarding claim 17, Yao discloses the optical stack of claim 1, however does not discloses: wherein the plurality of nanostructures focus a greater amount of the received selected parts of light onto the pixel when compared to an optical stack comprising a combination of a photo detection layer and micro-lenses without nanostructures. However, Ozdemir teaches nanostructures (Fig. 1(a)) focusing light (Fig. 2(c)(d)) and “perform much better than refractive microlens” (p. 4, col. 2, ln. 15-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of nanostructures of Yao and incorporate the focusing features of Ozdemir, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting the focusing features taught by Ozdemir would confer the advantages of increased fill factor and quantum efficiency for the pixel sensor, thereby yielding a system with higher sensitivity and improved low-light performance. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur (US20120026497A1) in view of Yao.
Regarding claim 19, Mathur teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an illuminator (112) and a detector (175+180+190) configured to detect repeatedly emitted light from the illuminator (¶ 6, pulsed light) scattered by a region of interest (166), and an optical stack (108) […], and the optical stack (180) is part of an image sensor (175+180) configured to provide a scanning (162) of the region of interest (166).
Mathur does not teach the specific details of the optical stack. However, Yao teaches an optical stack (Fig. 16 as further structurally described in Fig. 13; ¶¶ 72, 79-81) comprising: a photo detection layer (Fig. 16A, as structurally detailed in Fig. 13, consisting of Ag cross antennas + SiO2 + Ag gratings + dielectric layer + detector elements) including an array of pixels (Fig. 16(a), array of pixels P1 to P6), the photo detection layer further comprising a plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 13, Ag gratings + SiO2 + Ag cross antenna) on a light-receiving surface of the photo detection layer (Fig. 13, top surface of detector elements), the optical stack configured to direct selected parts of light received by the optical stack, incident on the plurality of nanostructures, onto a pixel among the array of pixels of the photo detection layer (¶¶ 79-81, polarization filtering per pixel; see further Figs. 16C & 16E), wherein a first nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (Fig. 13, Ag cross antenna + SiO2) corresponding to the pixel includes a rectangular cross-sectional shape along a plane parallel to the pixel (Fig. 13(3), cross-section of SiO2 rectangular parallel to the pixel) and a vertex elevated above the light-receiving surface by a first vertical distance orthogonal to the plane of the pixel, the vertex being defined by an edge that is parallel to the light-receiving surface (see Annotated Fig. 13, previously introduced), and for a first group of nanostructures, the first group of nanostructures comprising at least two nanostructures and fewer nanostructures than the plurality of nanostructures per pixel (Fig. 16B, four Ag cross antenna nanostructures; see Annotated Fig. 16B, previously introduced), each nanostructure of the first group having a respective vertex defined by an edge that is parallel to the light-receiving surface, the edge defining each respective vertex is arranged to point, directionally, towards a same target location on the photo detection layer, the target location being horizontally laterally displaced relative to a position directly beneath the respective vertex in plane with the photo detection layer (see Second Annotated Fig. 16B, previously introduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical stack of Mathur and adopt the features of Yao with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for improved detection speed and greater measurement accuracy, thereby yielding a more reliable system with finer measurement capabilities (see Yao, ¶¶ 8-9 & 21).
Claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to claim 19 and is therefore similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Mary (US20110216229A1) which discloses an image sensor optical stack employing nanostructures for filtering and concentrating incident light onto corresponding pixel regions. Peters (US8750653B1) which discloses an image sensor employing nanoantennas which selectively couple and filter incident light towards underlying pixels.
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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Ozdemir et al., “Broadband polarization-independent low-crosstalk metasurface lens array-based mid wave infrared focal plane arrays,” arXiv:1803.05637v1 [physics.optics], published 15 March 2018.