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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embedded liquid crystal layer of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 18 are each indefinite at least because the nature and position of the second metalens is not clear.
The first metalens is defined as being part of a metalens array, where the first metalens is defined as having a nanostructure formed within a first thin film layer, and the first metalens is further defined as being “integrat[ed]…on a first pixel of a pixel array”, which appears to be defined as “being positioned over at least a portion of the first pixel.”
The second metalens is defined as being part of the metalens array; however, it is defined as having a thin film, which is apparently separate from the first thin film in which the nanostructure is formed that defines first metalens. The claim does not set forth any nanostructure formed in this additional thin film to confer meta properties to the second metalens. The only claim that further references the second metalens is dependent claim 9, which requires that the nanostructure of the first metalens confers different phase modulations than those of the second metalens. This is true in the apparent case where the second metalens has no nanostructure and is simply a uniform thin film. As such, the second metalens does not appear to have any meta properties as currently claimed.
Additional confusion comes from the fact that the second metalens is defined in the claim as “integrating…on a second pixel of the pixel array” which appears to be defined by “being positioned over at least a portion of the second pixel.” There is no clear description or illustration of the inventive metalens array having any thin film layers, or portions thereof, that contain regions without nanostructures (excluding the anti-reflective layer). Conversely, there is no clear description that a given pixel would receive radiation that does not pass through a nanostructure. Figs.2 and 9 each illustrate the possibility of different portions of a given metalens array having discrete zones of different nanostructure types or dimensions; however, it is not clear from the disclosure that any of those zones may be devoid of nanostructures.
Finally, the directions “top”, “bottom”, and “being positioned over” are not clearly defined for either metalens with respect to the corresponding pixels.
For any of the above reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the meets and bounds of the claims.
Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under this paragraph by virtue of their dependence upon claims 1, 12 or 18, respectively, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
Claims 3, 14 and 20 are each further indefinite at least because the terms “a photoresist” an “electron-beam resist” are not clearly defined. While the terms themselves are generally known, the terms do not define a clear set of materials or compositions from which to select a desired material, particularly in the instant case where the material is being used for a completely unrelated purpose. These terms stand in contrast to another alternative in the claim, “a dielectric material,” which is a term that is extremely broad but is also clearly defined and recognizable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is further indefinite at least because the claim requires that the phase profile of each metalens of the metalens array is configured to vary spatially across the pixel array based at least on the nanostructure. However, parent claim 1 defines the first metalens as having the nanostructure. Claim 1 does not provide the second metalens with any defined nanostructure, and there are no other metalenses set forth by either claim 10 or parent claim 1 from which to draw any basis for the claim limitation at issue to function.
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, 9, 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
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 9, Arbabi further discloses that a 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).
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 (same focal length for different wavelengths, Fig.21).
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, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0372856 A1) in view of Heck (US 2019/0044003 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Kim discloses a method of forming a metalens array 711 of a thermal camera (Fig.7B) and a thermal camera, including:
a) forming a first thin film layer of a first metalens of the metalens array 711;
b) forming a nanostructure in the first thin film layer (Fig.7B, pars.0067-0068);
c) forming at least one thin film layer of a second metalens of the metalens array (pars.0067-0068);
d) 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); and
e) 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);
(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 that are merely schematically illustrated in the figures, since such structures are generally well-known in the art.
Heck teaches the practice of providing a metalens having nanostructures formed therein (Figs.1-5B) in order to collect and focus the incident thermal radiation as efficiently as possible (pars.0037-0042), where the nanostructures include a hole through the first thin film layer or a pillar extending from a bottom surface of the first thin film layer (Figs.2-5B, par.0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kim to form a nanostructure in the first thin film layer, including a hole through the first thin film layer or a pillar extending from a bottom surface of the first thin film layer, in order to provide the desired phase shift of the incident thermal radiation for effective collection and focusing of the thermal radiation onto the photodetector, as taught by Kim (par.0040).
With respect to claims 2, 13 and 19, Heck further teaches:
f) forming a second thin film layer of the first metalens (par.0040-0041); where
g) at least one of the first thin film layer and the second thin film layer 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 (Si/SiO2 or Si/chalcogenides: pars.0040-0041 and 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kim to have the second thin film layer whether at least one of the first or second thin film layers are formed of at least one high refractive index material or at least one low refractive index material as known in the art in order to effect the desired phase shifts for efficient thermal radiation collection and focusing, as taught by Heck.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Kim further discloses that the nanostructure 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 is configured to modulate a phase of thermal radiation incident on the first metalens (Fig.7B).
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Kim further discloses that the nanostructure 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 8, Kim does not specifically disclose the extent of the phase shift imparted on the thermal radiation by the microstructure.
Heck teaches that the nanostructure of the first 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 9, Kim further discloses that 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).
With respect to claim 10, Kim further discloses that the metalens 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 for providing the desired focus across the pixel array, Fig.7B and pars.0067-0068).
With respect to claim 11, Kim does not specifically disclose the details 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 Heck, 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, Heck further teaches the practice of providing an anti-reflection coating as is routine in the art for efficient thermal radiation collection and focusing (par.0043).
However, Heck does not specifically disclose the material of the anti-reflective coating.
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, as taught by Heck, made of a dielectric material, as taught by Byrnes, in order to improve the thermal radiation efficiency of the thermal camera, as taught by Heck and 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining prior art made of record further fleshes out the state of the art in metamaterial microlenses in optical and infrared applications.
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