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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18685998 filed on 02/23/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention Group I, claims 1-8 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-13 and 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention groups II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application of National Stage entry of application
PCT/EP2022/072733, with international filing date of 08/12/2022, that claims priority from provisional application US 63237726, filed on 08/27/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 be found allowable, claims 14,15,16,17, and 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate claims, respectably. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(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, 4-8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley et al. (hereafter Riley, of record) US 20190064532 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24, title, abstract, paragraphs [02, 04-30, 40-50,215-224,232-234]) a method (e.g. method of manufacture of metasurface lens, abstract, paragraphs [02, 04-30, 40-50] e.g. Figs. 1-2,4-6) comprising:
providing a hardmask layer (hardmask 12, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24], figs. 1-2,6) on a layer that comprises a plurality of sublayers each of which has a respective index of refraction that differs from the index of refraction of at least one of the other sublayers (i.e. as AR or filter layer on either side of the substrate 10 (40,46) with metasurface 26,26’(42,48), and between metasurface and substrate with sensor elements, and having alternating layers of high and low index materials, paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6), wherein at least one of the sublayers has an index of refraction in a range of 2 to 4 (e.g. aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, see materials in paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,222, 232]), and wherein the layer comprising the plurality of sublayers is supported by a substrate (i.e. supported by substrate e.g. 10, 40, 46, paragraphs [215-224,232-234, Figs. 1-6);
depositing a resist layer on the hardmask layer (as depositing patterning material (resist) 14 on hardmask 12, which is produced into array of features 16, paragraphs [208,215-223, 12-24], figs. 1-2,6);
pressing a surface of a tool into the resist layer (master stamp tool into patterning material 14, paragraphs [208,215-223, 12-24], Figs. 1-2), wherein the surface of the tool includes features that are imprinted into the resist layer (producing patterned features 16 in patterning material (resist) 14 by physically imprinting by a master stamp tool in a nanoimprint lithography process, paragraphs [208,215-223, 12-24], figs. 1-2,6); and
releasing the tool from the resist layer (i.e. aster physically imprinting 14 by the master stamp tool, the tool is lifted/released as in nanoimprint lithography process, depicted in Fig. 1B, paragraphs [208,215-223, 12-24], Figs. 1-2,6).
Regarding claim 2, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the method further including:
after releasing the tool form the resist layer, removing portions of a residual resist layer that is on the hardmask layer, so as to expose first portions of the hardmask layer. (i.e. after master stamp tool is lifted/released portions of patterning material are removed from hardmask 12, exposing first potions of hardmask 12 between imprinted in 14 patterned features 16, as in nanoimprint lithography process, depicted in Fig. 1B-C, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24], Figs. 1-2,6).
Regarding claim 4, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the method further including:
selectively etching the hardmask layer to expose first portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers (i.e. as portions of hardmask 12 are etched to transfer the desired feature pattern into the hard mask layer 12, see in Fig. 1B-D, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24], Figs. 1-2,6); and
selectively etching the exposed first portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers to form trenches therein (i.e. as portions of AR coating/filter are etched transferring the desired feature pattern, see Fig. 1D-G, paragraphs [215-223]).
Regarding claim 5, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the method further including:
after selectively etching the hardmask layer and selectively etching the exposed first portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers (see claim 4 above, e.g. Fig. 1B-D, D-G, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24]), removing remaining portions of the resist layer and the hardmask layer so as to expose second portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers (i.e. as removing remaining portions of 14, and removing patterned features 16 of hardmask 12, to expose second portions of AR/filter layer on 10 and leave portions 20 which are metaatoms of metasurface 18, see Fig. 1D-G, paragraphs [215-223]), wherein the second portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers define optical meta- atoms on the substrate (i.e. as exposed second portions of AR/filter layer on 10 and leave portions 20 which are metaatoms of metasurface 18, see Fig. 1D-G, paragraphs [215-223]).
Regarding claim 6, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the plurality of sublayers includes first sublayers that have an index of refraction in the range of 2-4, and second sublayers that have an index of refraction lower than that of the first sublayers, wherein the first and second sublayers are disposed in an alternating manner (i.e. as AR or filter e.g. bandpass layer has alternating layers of high range e.g. aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride and second sublayers with lower index materials e.g. silicon dioxide, see materials in e.g. paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the index of refraction of each of the second sublayers is in a range of 1-2 (as silicon dioxide sublayers, see materials in e.g. paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the plurality of sublayers have respective indices of refraction such that an index of refraction gradually changes through a thickness of the layer that includes the plurality of sublayers (i.e. as e.g. refractive index change of sublayers from silicon dioxide to aluminum oxide, see materials in e.g. paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the method further including:
selectively etching the hardmask layer to expose first portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers (i.e. as portions of hardmask 12 are etched to transfer the desired feature pattern into the hard mask layer 12, see in Fig. 1B-D, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24], Figs. 1-2,6); and
selectively etching the exposed first portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers to form trenches therein (i.e. as portions of AR coating/filter are etched transferring the desired feature pattern, see Fig. 1D-G, paragraphs [215-223]).
Regarding claim 15, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) the method further including:
after selectively etching the hardmask layer and selectively etching the exposed first portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers (see claim 4 above, e.g. Fig. 1B-D, D-G, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24]), removing remaining portions of the resist layer and the hardmask layer so as to expose second portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers (i.e. as removing remaining portions of 14, and removing patterned features 16 of hardmask 12, to expose second portions of AR/filter layer on 10 and leave portions 20 which are metaatom features of metasurface 18, see Fig. 1D-G, paragraphs [215-223]), wherein the second portions of the layer that comprises the plurality of sublayers define optical meta- atoms on the substrate (i.e. as exposed second portions of AR/filter layer on 10 and leave portions 20 which are metaatoms of metasurface 18, see Fig. 1D-G, paragraphs [215-223]).
Regarding claim 16, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the plurality of sublayers includes first sublayers that have an index of refraction in the range of 2-4, and second sublayers that have an index of refraction lower than that of the first sublayers, wherein the first and second sublayers are disposed in an alternating manner (i.e. as AR or filter e.g. bandpass layer has alternating layers of high range e.g. aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride and second sublayers with lower index materials e.g. silicon dioxide, see materials in e.g. paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6).
Regarding claim 17, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the index of refraction of each of the second sublayers is in a range of 1-2 (as silicon dioxide sublayers, see materials in e.g. paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6).
Regarding claim 18, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the plurality of sublayers have respective indices of refraction such that an index of refraction gradually changes through a thickness of the layer that includes the plurality of sublayers (i.e. as e.g. refractive index change of sublayers from silicon dioxide to aluminum oxide, see materials in e.g. paragraphs [30, 117-118,124,212,222, 232,260], Figs. e.g. 1-6).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190064532 A1 in view of Lin et al. (hereafter Lin) US 20180217395 A1
Regarding claim 3, Riley teaches (see Figs. 1-24) that the portions of the residual resist layer are removed using a directional plasma (i.e. as portions of patterning material 14,16 are removed from hardmask 12, by plasma (ion etching), as depicted in Fig. 1B-D, paragraphs [215-223, 12-24], Figs. 1-2,6), but is silent that the plasma is oxygen plasma.
However, Lin teaches in the same field of invention of Antireflection coatings for metasurfaces (see Figs. 9-15, abstract, paragraphs [07-12, 68-74, 121-128,136-142, 145-153]) and further teaches that the plasma is oxygen plasma (i.e. as resist portion may be removed by an oxygen-based plasma, providing that the underlaying layer(s) and one or more nanostructures are not substantially affected, see paragraphs [145-153]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and specify the removal plasma process of Riley is oxygen-based plasma, in order to provide that the underlaying layer(s) and one or more nanostructures are not substantially affected (see Lin see paragraphs [145-153]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Desphande et al. US 20140272295 A1 also discloses features of instant invention (see Figs. 1-4 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights