DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/29/24 and 10/03/25 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akselrod et al. (US 20190301025).
Regarding claim 1, Akselrod teaches an optical metasurface (¶49, fig. 1A, a metallic holographic metasurface device), comprising, an optical reflector layer (¶57, the backplane structure 104 reflects optical waves); a resonator layer (fig. 1B, the metallic holographic elements or resonators 106 include a pair of metal pillars 110A-110B and an electrically-tunable material 112 between the metal pillars) with an array of optical resonators (106) that extend vertically with respect to the optical reflector layer (104), each optical resonator (106) formed by two stack-integrated (shown in fig. 6F, evidence by 614 and 622) metallic optical elements (pair of metal pillars 110A-110B, fig. 1B) positioned adjacent to one another to form a gap (electrically-tunable material 112) therebetween, wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element (fig. 6F, evidence by 614 and 622) comprises at least, a base metallic optical element (¶92, 614 is made of copper; ¶52 and fig. 1B, the metallic holographic elements or resonators 106 include a pair of metal pillars 110A-110B and an electrically-tunable material 112 between the metal pillars. The metal pillars are deposited over a backplane structure 104), and a first stacked metallic optical element (¶92, 622 is made of copper); and a tunable dielectric material that has a tunable refractive index positioned within the gap between the adjacent stack-integrated metallic optical elements of each respective optical resonator (¶53 and fig. 1B, the resonator includes two metal pillars that are separated by an electrically-tunable material having a tunable refractive index. The resonator produces a holographic output as shown in fig. 1B; ¶55, since the refractive index modulation range of the tunable dielectric materials may be small).
Regarding claim 2, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 1, wherein the base metallic optical element (614) of each stack-integrated metallic optical element (fig. 6F) is formed during a first damascene manufacturing process, and wherein the first stacked metallic optical element (622) of each stack-integrated metallic optical element is formed during a subsequent damascene manufacturing process, and wherein at least the subsequent damascene manufacturing process is a single-damascene manufacturing process (¶78, The damascene process may be a single damascene process, or a dual-damascene process. In some embodiments, the single damascene process may include two separate damascene steps may be used to separately form trenches and vias. This single damascene process may be used in forming devices where vias are not present and ¶112, FIGS. 8A-8D illustrate the steps for forming the alternative metallic optical metasurface. FIG. 8A shows a cross-sectional view of forming patterned copper pillars and copper patches using a damascene process in according to embodiments of the disclosure).
Regarding claim 8, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 1, wherein the base metallic optical element (copper patches 614) and a first stacked metallic optical element (copper pillars 622) of each stack-integrated metallic optical comprise copper (614 and 622 are made of copper).
Regarding claim 9, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 1, wherein the optical reflector layer comprises a plurality of metallic reflector patches (¶60, the partial backplane structure 104B may include a metal patch 308 embedded in a dielectric layer 306 and the patches are metallic and they reflect optical waves (¶57)).
Regarding claim 13, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 1, wherein the array of optical resonators (fig. 1B; ¶52, plurality of columns of metallic holographic elements 106 arranged linearly) of the resonator layer comprises a two-dimensional array of optical resonators (shown in fig. 1B, 106 is arranged in a two-dimensional array).
Regarding claim 14, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 13, wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element in the two-dimensional array of optical resonators (106 includes 622,626, and 623) comprises a rectangular prism pillar (shown in fig. 1B and 6F).
Regarding claim 15, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 1, wherein the array of optical resonators (106) of the resonator layer comprises a one-dimensional array of optical resonators (shown in fig. 1B and 6F; ¶40, can be a one-dimensional (1D) array or a two-dimensional (2D) array).
Regarding claim 16, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 15, wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element (fig. 6F)in the one-dimensional array of optical resonators (106) comprises an elongated rectangular rail (shape shown in fig. 6F).
Regarding claim 17, Akselrod teaches the metasurface of claim 1, wherein the tunable dielectric material comprises one or more of: liquid crystal, an electro-optic polymer, electro-optical crystal, and chalcogenide glass (¶48, method may also include filling the nano-gaps between the copper pillars with an electrically-tunable material to form a metallic optical metasurface device. The electrically-tunable material may include liquid crystals, Electro-optic (EO) polymer material, or Chalcogenide Glasses, among others. The electrically-tunable material has a refractive index that can be tuned by applying an electric voltage.).
Regarding claim 18, Akselrod teaches a method to manufacture an optical metasurface (¶4, methods for fabrication of metallic optical metasurfaces), comprising: forming an optical reflector layer (¶57, the backplane structure 104 reflects optical waves); forming an interconnect layer above the optical reflector layer (104; ¶97, the vias may be present in an active metallic optical metasurface (not shown), or in the interconnect region 103 of the metallic optical metasurface); forming a resonator layer (fig. 1B, the metallic holographic elements or resonators 106 include a pair of metal pillars 110A-110B and an electrically-tunable material 112 between the metal pillars) with an array of optical resonators (106), wherein each optical resonator is formed as two vertically extending stack-integrated metallic optical elements (fig. 6F, evidence by 614 and 622) positioned adjacent to one another to form a gap therebetween (fig. 1B; ¶52, The metallic holographic elements or resonators 106 include a pair of metal pillars 110A-110B and an electrically-tunable material 112 between the metal pillars. The metal pillars are deposited over a backplane structure 104.), wherein forming each stack-integrated metallic optical element (fig. 6F, evidence by 614 and 622) comprises at least: forming a base metallic optical element (614) via a damascene process (fig. 8A-8D; ¶112, FIGS. 8A-8D illustrate the steps for forming the alternative metallic optical metasurface. FIG. 8A shows a cross-sectional view of forming patterned copper pillars and copper patches using a damascene process in according to embodiments of the disclosure.), and forming a stacked metallic optical element (622) on top of the base metallic optical element (614) via a subsequent damascene process; and positioning a tunable dielectric material that has a tunable refractive index positioned within the gap (¶53 and fig. 1B, the resonator includes two metal pillars that are separated by an electrically-tunable material having a tunable refractive index. The resonator produces a holographic output as shown in fig. 1B; ¶55, since the refractive index modulation range of the tunable dielectric materials may be small) between the adjacent stack-integrated metallic optical elements of each respective optical resonator (106).
Regarding claim 19, Akselrod teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the tunable dielectric material comprises one or more of: liquid crystal, an electro-optic polymer, electro-optical crystal, and chalcogenide glass (¶48, method may also include filling the nano-gaps between the copper pillars with an electrically-tunable material to form a metallic optical metasurface device. The electrically-tunable material may include liquid crystals, Electro-optic (EO) polymer material, or Chalcogenide Glasses, among others. The electrically-tunable material has a refractive index that can be tuned by applying an electric voltage.).
Regarding claim 21, Akselrod teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the optical reflector layer is formed to include a plurality of metallic reflector patches (¶60, the partial backplane structure 104B may include a metal patch 308 embedded in a dielectric layer 306 and the patches are metallic and they reflect optical waves (¶57)).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod et al. (US 20190301025) as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Nikolov et al. (US 20210063683).
Regarding claim 3, Akselrod teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element extends to a height that is at least four times greater than a smallest width thereof, such that each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 4:1. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nikolov teaches the metasurface, wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element extends to a height relative to the stack-integrated metallic optical element (as shown fig. 1, fig. 2A, and ¶34; The optically thin top metal layer of the stack, while optically thin for the design wavelength, is preferably at least 30 nm for robustness. The base layer is minimally optically thick for the design wavelength, but is preferably less than 130 nm for ease in fabrication or to optimize efficiency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the metasurface of Akselrod with each stack-integrated metallic optical element extends to a height that is at least four times greater than a smallest width thereof, such that each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 4:1, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). The motivation for doing so would be to provide an ultrathin flat metasurface device capable of dynamically modifying the wavefront of reflected light (¶54).
Regarding claim 4, Akselrod teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach the base metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 3:1, and the first stacked metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 2:1, such that each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 5:1. Nikolov further teaches the metasurface, wherein the base metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio, and the first stacked metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio (as shown fig. 1, fig. 2A, and ¶34; The optically thin top metal layer of the stack, while optically thin for the design wavelength, is preferably at least 30 nm for robustness. The base layer is minimally optically thick for the design wavelength, but is preferably less than 130 nm for ease in fabrication or to optimize efficiency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the metasurface of Akselrod with each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 3:1, and the first stacked metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 2:1, such that each stack-integrate metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 5:1, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). The motivation for doing so would be to provide an ultrathin flat metasurface device capable of dynamically modifying the wavefront of reflected light (¶54).
Regarding claim 6, Akselrod teaches the invention as set forth above but does not specifically teach wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element further comprises at least a second stacked metallic optical element, and wherein each of the base metallic optical element, the first stacked metallic optical element, and the second stacked metallic optical element have an aspect ratio of at least 2:1, such that each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 6:1. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nikolov teaches the metasurface, wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element further comprises at least a second stacked metallic optical element, and wherein each of the base metallic optical element, the first stacked metallic optical element, and the second stacked metallic optical element have an aspect ratio of at least 2:1, such that each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 6:1 (as shown fig. 1, fig. 2A, and ¶34; The optically thin top metal layer of the stack, while optically thin for the design wavelength, is preferably at least 30 nm for robustness. The base layer is minimally optically thick for the design wavelength, but is preferably less than 130 nm for ease in fabrication or to optimize efficiency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the metasurface of Akselrod with wherein each stack-integrated metallic optical element further comprises at least a second stacked metallic optical element, and wherein each of the base metallic optical element, the first stacked metallic optical element, and the second stacked metallic optical element have an aspect ratio of at least 2:1, such that each stack-integrated metallic optical element has an aspect ratio of at least 6:1, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). The motivation for doing so would be to provide an ultrathin flat metasurface device capable of dynamically modifying the wavefront of reflected light (¶54).
Regarding claim 20, Akselrod teaches the method, wherein the subsequent damascene process to form the metallic optical element is a single-damascene process (¶78, the damascene process may be a single damascene process, or a dual-damascene process. In some embodiments, the single damascene process may include two separate damascene steps may be used to separately form trenches and vias. This single damascene process may be used in forming devices where vias are not present.). Akselrod does not specifically teach the subsequent damascene process to form the stacked metallic optical element is a single-damascene process that includes a deposition of a conductive barrier, and wherein a portion of the conductive barrier remains unetched to connect the base metallic optical element and the stacked metallic optical element. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nikolov teaches the subsequent damascene process to form the stacked metallic optical element is a single-damascene process that includes a deposition of a conductive barrier, and wherein a portion of the conductive barrier remains unetched to connect the base metallic optical element and the stacked metallic optical element (¶34, the optically thin top metal layer of the stack, while optically thin for the design wavelength, is preferably at least 30 nm for robustness. The base layer is minimally optically thick for the design wavelength, but is preferably less than 130 nm for ease in fabrication or to optimize efficiency; ¶54, Based on use of highly-reflective GSP resonators employing an optically thin patterned metal top layer and an optically thick patterned metal base layer separated by a patterned insulator layer, the above metalens and metagrating examples demonstrate reflection type, mechanically tunable, ultrathin flat metasurface devices capable of dynamically modifying the wavefront of reflected light.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the method of Akselrod with the subsequent damascene process to form the stacked metallic optical element is a single-damascene process that includes a deposition of a conductive barrier, and wherein a portion of the conductive barrier remains unetched to connect the base metallic optical element and the stacked metallic optical element of Nikolov, for the purpose of providing ultrathin flat metasurface device capable of dynamically modifying the wavefront of reflected light (¶54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10-12, and 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose the claimed metasurface specifically including as distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a metallic barrier connection between the base metallic optical element and the first stacked metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element.”
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not disclose the claimed metasurface specifically including as distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “a first metallic barrier connection between the base metallic optical element and the first stacked metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element; and a second metallic barrier connection between the first stacked metallic optical element and the second stacked metallic optical element of each stack-integrated metallic optical element.”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not disclose the claimed metasurface specifically including as distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “an interconnect layer positioned between the optical reflector layer and the resonator layer, wherein the interconnect layer comprises a plurality of metallic vias, wherein each metallic via electrically connects to one of the stack-integrated metallic optical elements of the resonator layer.”
Specifically, with respect to claim 11, is objected to for the same reason as claim 10.
Specifically, with respect to claim 12, is objected to for the same reason as claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the forming the interconnect layer above the optical reflector layer comprises forming a plurality of metallic vias, an interconnect dielectric etch-stop layer, an interconnect dielectric mid-layer, and an etch-resistant dielectric cap layer.”
Regarding claim 23, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein forming the stacked metallic optical element on top of the base metallic optical element via the subsequent damascene process comprises an electroless deposition of copper directly on an exposed upper surface of the base metallic optical element.”
Regarding claim 24, the prior art does not disclose the claimed method specifically including as distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations the claimed “wherein the subsequent damascene process to form the stacked metallic optical element includes a selective deposition of a conductive barrier material on dielectric surfaces without deposition on an upper surface of the base metallic optical element.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 05/30/26
Prosecution Insights