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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/14/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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)(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, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbabi (US 2020/0388644 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Arbabi discloses a metalens array of a camera (Figs.1-6, 17 and 21), including:
a) a first thin film layer 650 of a first metalens 730 of a metalens array of the camera (Figs.17 and 21);
b) a nanostructure NS1 formed in the first thin film layer 650, the nanostructure including at least one of a hole through the first thin film layer, or a pillar extending from a bottom surface of the first thin film layer (Figs.3A-5, 17 and 21); and
c) at least one thin film layer 600 of a second metalens 720 of the metalens array, where the phase modulation of the first metalens 730 varies from a phase modulation of the second metalens 720 (same focal length for different wavelengths, Fig.21); where
d) the first metalens 730 is integrated on a first pixel 510 of a pixel array 500 of the camera, the first metalens 730 being positioned over at least a portion of the first pixel 510; and
e) the second metalens 720 is integrated on a second pixel 510 of the pixel array 500 of the camera, the second metalens 720 being positioned over at least a portion of the second pixel 510 (Figs.17 and 21).
Examiner’s Note: the recitation of “thermal camera” amounts to nothing more than an intended use, and as such, carries no patentable weight.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Arbabi further discloses:
f) the first metalens 730 further includes a second thin film layer 670 (Figs.17 and 21); and
g) at least one of the first thin film layer 650 and the second thin film layer 670 is formed with at least one low refractive index material, at least one high refractive index material, or a combination of the at least one low refractive index material and the at least one high refractive index material (par.0154).
With respect to claim 10, Arbabi further discloses that the metalens array is configured as a global lens of the camera (Fig.21); and a phase profile of each metalens of the metalens array is configured to vary spatially across the pixel array based at least on the microstructure (Fig.16; inherent for collecting/focusing each incident wavelength band to the pixel 510, Fig.21; phase modulation varying across the metalens is a fundamental property of all lenses, both bulk and meta. That’s how lenses provide focus, see Fig.16).
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 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 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 12, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0372856 A1) in view of Arbabi (US 2020/0388644 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Kim discloses a method of forming a metalens array 711 of a thermal camera and a thermal camera (Fig.7B), including:
a) forming a first metalens (for focusing 8-12 μm wavelength band) of the metalens array 711;
b) forming a second metalens of the metalens array (pars.0067-0068, for focusing the 0.4-1 μm wavelength band);
c) integrating the first metalens on a first pixel 713 of a pixel array of the thermal camera, the first metalens being positioned over at least a portion of the first pixel (par.0068, arrays 712 and 713 may be a single array, see at least Fig.7D);
d) integrating the second metalens on a second pixel 712 of the pixel array of the thermal camera, the second metalens being positioned over at least a portion of the second pixel (par.0068, arrays 712 and 713 may be a single array, see at least Fig.7D); and
e) the nanostructure of the first metalens imparts a phase modulation that varies from a phase modulation of the second metalens (varying focus across the width of the metalens 711, Fig.7B, for focusing the different wavelength bands to different spatial locations at substantially the same focal depth).
(Claim 18): the thermal camera further including (Figs.7B-8):
f) the thermal sensor array (Fig.7D) configured to detect the thermal radiation via the metalens array 711;
g) an image processor 860 to process signals of the thermal radiation generated by the thermal sensor array; and
h) a thermal display 840 configured to indicate a relative temperature of an object based on an output of the image processor.
Further regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Kim does not specifically disclose the details of the nanostructures of the metalens array 711 (Fig.7B) that focus the two wavelength bands to their corresponding pixels (pixels crudely shown as 712 and 713, but detailed in Figs.6A-J and 7D).
Arbabi teaches the practice of providing a multi-wavelength band metalens array integrated with pixels of an imaging camera, where the disparate wavelength bands are focused to the same focal depth at corresponding pixels, including:
i) a first thin film layer 650 of a first metalens 730 of a metalens array of the camera (Figs.17 and 21);
ii) a nanostructure NS1 formed in the first thin film layer 650, the nanostructure including at least one of a hole through the first thin film layer, or a pillar extending from a bottom surface of the first thin film layer (Figs.3A-5, 17 and 21); and
iii) at least one thin film layer 600 of a second metalens 720 of the metalens array, where the phase modulation of the first metalens 730 varies from a phase modulation of the second metalens 720 (same focal length for different wavelengths, Fig.21); where
iv) the first metalens 730 is integrated on a first pixel 510 of a pixel array 500 of the camera, the first metalens 730 being positioned over at least a portion of the first pixel 510; and
v) the second metalens 720 is integrated on a second pixel 510 of the pixel array 500 of the camera, the second metalens 720 being positioned over at least a portion of the second pixel 510 (Figs.17 and 21).
In this manner, the disparate wavelength bands are efficiently collected and focused to their respective pixels without bulky and complex arrays of conventional optics (pars.0005-0006 of Arbabi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kim to have the first and second metalenses formed in their corresponding layers, integrated with their respective pixels, and having different phase modulations according to their different nanostructures in order to effect efficient, compact and lightweight optics for accommodating different wavelength bands, as taught by Arbabi.
With respect to claims 2, 13 and 19, Arbabi further teaches:
vi) the first metalens 730 further includes a second thin film layer 670 (Figs.17 and 21); and
vii) at least one of the first thin film layer 650 and the second thin film layer 670 is formed with at least one low refractive index material, at least one high refractive index material, or a combination of the at least one low refractive index material and the at least one high refractive index material (par.0154).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kim to have the first and second metalenses formed in their corresponding layers, integrated with their respective pixels, and having different phase modulations according to their different nanostructures in order to effect efficient, compact and lightweight optics for accommodating different wavelength bands, as taught by Arbabi.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Kim further discloses that the nanostructure of the first metalens is configured to route thermal radiation incident upon the first metalens 711 to a thermal sensor membrane 732 of the first pixel, the first pixel being a first thermal sensor pixel, the pixel array 712, 713 having a thermal sensor array of the thermal camera (Fig.7D).
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Kim further discloses that the nanostructure of the first metalens is configured to modulate a phase of thermal radiation incident on the first metalens (Fig.7B, that’s how lenses focus. This is inherent of all lenses that alter the path of the photons passing through them).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Kim further discloses that the nanostructure of the first metalens is configured to allow thermal radiation with wavelengths between 8 and 15 μm to pass through the first metalens (8-12 μm, Fig.7B).
With respect to claim 10, Kim further discloses that the metalens array 711 is configured as a global lens of the thermal camera (Fig.7B); and a phase profile of each metalens of the metalens array is configured to vary spatially across the pixel array (inherent in all lenses, meta and traditional, for providing the desired focus across the pixel array, Fig.7B and pars.0067-0068).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Arbabi, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Heck (US 2019/0044003 A1).
With respect to claim 8, neither Kim nor Arbabi specifically disclose the extent of the phase shift imparted on the thermal radiation by the microstructure.
Heck teaches that the nanostructure of a metalens provides up to a 2π phase shift of the thermal radiation incident upon the first metalens in order to collect and focus the thermal radiation as much as possible onto the photosensitive area of the camera (Figs.3A-5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the nanostructure of Kim to impart up to a 2π phase shift on the thermal radiation as desired in order to effect the desired focus of the thermal radiation.
With respect to claim 11, neither Kim nor Arbabi specifically disclose the dimensions of the nanostructures.
However, the skilled artisan readily appreciates the fact that metamaterial nanostructures, by definition, function by having dimensions smaller than the wavelengths of the radiation being manipulated (“sub-wavelength” dimensions).
Heck teaches a concrete example where the diameters of the holes or pillars may be between 1 nm and 100 μm as required by the wavelength range or band(s) being focused (Fig.3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kim to have diameters of holes or pillars to be between 1 nm and 100 μm in order to have the proper dimensions for effecting the desired phase shifts on the wavelengths of the radiation being focused, as taught by Heck and as understood in the art.
Claims 3, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Arbabi, as applied to claims 1, 12 and 18 above, respectively, in view of Byrnes (US 2017/0082263 A1).
With respect to claims 3, 14 and 20, neither Kim nor Arbabi teach the practice of providing antireflective coatings. However, such coatings are routine in the art for improved image quality, such as optimizing the signal-noise ratio.
Byrnes teaches the common practice of providing an anti-reflective coating of a dielectric material onto the incident radiation side of a metalens in order to improve the transmissivity of the metalens for greater efficiency (par.0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kim to have an anti-reflection coating made of a dielectric material, as taught by Byrnes, in order to improve the thermal radiation efficiency of the thermal camera, as taught by Byrnes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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 neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the first metalens includes an embedded liquid crystal layer, as required by the combination of features as claimed in claim 7.
Yao (see attached PTO-892) teaches the inferiority of liquid crystal structures compared to metamaterials for effective and compact lenses (par.0059).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112: the present amendments to the claims overcome all outstanding 35 USC 112 rejections of record.
35 USC 102: Applicant's arguments with respect to the anticipation of claims 1 and 12 by Arbabi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the nanostructures of the metalenses 710 and 720 are not different from one another, and therefore do not have different phase modulations, as required by claims 1 and 12 (and previously by dependent claim 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has argued this point without proof, nor sound reasoning grounded in physics. As stated in the preceding interview, and indicated in the prior Office Action, the metalenses 710, 720 and 730 of Arbabi exactly correspond to the first and second metalenses as claimed for the following reasons:
The lenses of Arbabi are metalenses, with nanostructures having periodic arrangements with dimensions that are roughly the same order of magnitude as the incident radiation (as illustrated in Fig.17 and detailed in Figs.4 and 5). Each metalens 710, 720 and 730 effects a phase modulation on the incident radiation as a function of the dimensions and periodicity of the nanostructures. The phase modulations provide effective refractive indices not found in nature, thus enabling focusing properties not possible with unstructured, homogenous materials of similar scale. The disclosure of Heck provides excellent background reading on the nature of metalenses.
The phase modulations, and thus the nanostructures, of the metalenses 710, 720, and 730 of Arbabi are inherently different from each other because the effective refractive index is different for each one. The evidence being the fact that each of the identified metalenses in Fig.21 focus a different wavelength band of incident radiation to the same focal depth f0 (pars.0166-0170). This is possible because the phase modulation of each metalens, and thus the nanostructure of each metalens, is different from one another. Stated another way, if the metalenses 710, 720 and 730 were each structurally identical, and thus providing identical phase modulations, then each wavelength band would be focused to a different depth. In addition, par.0170 discloses tailoring differences in the nanostructures by stating that “each of the first to third lenses 710, 720, and 730 may easily implement appropriate dispersion performance when concentrating light of a desired wavelength band.” Even the depths of the nanostructures are illustrated as being different from one another (Fig.21), which would significantly alter the respective phase modulation imparted on the incident radiation. Also see Fig.16, illustrating the desired relative phase shifts among the wavelength bands by the corresponding metalenses as a function of metalens radius.
The Examiner additionally wishes to point out that Applicant repeats, throughout the Remarks, that the claimed phase modulations and nanostructures have nothing to do with focusing. The disclosure suggests otherwise. As the inventors well know, the phase modulations effected by the nanostructures creates an effective refractive index by which the incident radiation is focused onto the respective pixels. Applicant is using their claimed metalenses for efficient, wide-field-of-view focusing of light onto the detector pixels, see Applicant’s Figs.3A vs. 3B, 4B and 5, demonstrating the focusing effects of the phase modulations – the effective refractive index of each metalens.
In conclusion, Arbabi discloses that the phase modulation of the first metalens 730 varies from the phase modulation of the second metalens 720 based on the nanostructure 731/736 of the first metalens 730 varying from a nanostructure 721/726 of the second metalens 720, as currently required by claims 1 and 12 (and as previously required by dependent claim 9).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 18 as being obvious over Kim in view of Heck have been fully considered and are persuasive insofar as the prior art combination does not provide sufficient evidentiary support for two metalenses formed from layers and having different phase modulations. As such, the grounds of rejection have been changed in view of the teachings of Arbabi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached on 571.272.2273. 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights