DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/10/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Riley, JR. et al (US20190064532, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024, hereafter call Riley), and further in view of Forouzmand et al. (US20240012177).
Regarding claim 1, Riley teaches an apparatus (Riley, fig. 1G, as described in paragraph [0222] “in certain embodiments where it is desirable for the metasurface to have an AR coating or mechanical protection layer, additional steps are required to complete the final metasurface element”) comprising:
an optical element (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G the optical element) that includes a metasurface (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G , metasurface features 20/18; paragraph [0222]), wherein the metasurface includes meta-atoms (fig. 1G, meta-atoms 18) disposed on a substrate (fig. 1G, metasurface features 20/18 corresponding to the claimed meta-atoms disposed on substrate 10; see paras. [0165], [0222]);and
a first anti-reflective coating (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G, the first anti-reflective coating is part of the medium 24; paragraph [0222]“an embedding medium 24 typically having a lower-index of refraction”; “embedding medium itself can potentially be used as an anti-reflection coating”) disposed on at least part of the metasurface (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G , the metasurface 20), wherein the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on top surfaces of the meta-atoms (see fig. 1G, AR coating/embedding medium 24 disposed over and extending above metasurface features 20 corresponding to the claimed first anti-reflective coating disposed on top surfaces of the meta-atoms; see para. [0222], Riley expressly states that layer 24 may fill voids 22 between metasurface features 20 and extend above the surface of the metasurface material layer).
Riley does not explicitly teach wherein i) the first anti-reflective coating leaves a portion of sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms free of the anti-reflective coating, or wherein ii) a second anti-reflective coating is disposed on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms, and a third anti reflective coating is disposed on sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms, wherein a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first or third anti-reflective coatings or wherein a thickness of the second anti reflective coating is smaller than a thickness of the first anti-reflective coating.
However, Forouzmand teaches the analogous metasurface device (figs. 1A-1C, high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b disposed on substrate 104 corresponding to the similar meta-atoms disposed on a substrate), and further teaches wherein the first anti-reflective coating (figs. 1A-1C, low-index coating 106a/106b corresponding to the first anti-reflective coating) is disposed on top surfaces of the meta-atoms (figs. 1A-1C, high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b corresponding to the meta-atoms; see figs. 1A–1C, low-index coating 106a/106b forming a cap on the top surfaces of nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b), and wherein i) the first anti-reflective coating (figs. 1A-1C, low-index coating 106a/106b) leaves a portion of sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms (figs. 1A-1C, high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b) free of the anti-reflective coating (see Forouzmand, figs. 1A-1C, low-index coating 106a/106b disposed on the top portions of high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b while portions of the sidewall surfaces of the high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b remain free of low-index coating 106a/106b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Riley to have wherein i) the first anti-reflective coating leaves a portion of sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms free of the anti-reflective coating, as taught by Forouzmand, in order to provide the low-index coating on the high-index meta-atoms while improving the optical efficiency of the metasurface device (Forouzmand, paras. [0086]-[0087]).
(Because claim 1 recites “i) … or wherein ii) …,” branch (i) is sufficient for the rejection; branch (ii) does not additionally need to be established.)
PNG
media_image1.png
694
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the Riley-Forouzmand combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Riley further teaches wherein further including a fourth anti-reflective coating on the first anti-reflective coating (see Riley, para. [0030], alternating layers of an anti-reflective coating, wherein an additional layer disposed on an underlying anti-reflective layer corresponds to the fourth anti-reflective coating on the first anti-reflective coating), wherein a composition of the fourth anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating (see Riley, para. [0030], the anti-reflective coating is composed of alternating layers of any combination of materials selected from silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, and amorphous silicon, corresponding to anti-reflective coating layers having different compositions).
(See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Riley-Forouzmand combination to have including a fourth anti-reflective coating on the first anti-reflective coating, wherein a composition of the fourth anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating, as taught by Riley, in order to provide an anti-reflective coating suitable for the operational bandwidth of the metasurface (Riley, para. [0030]).)
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Riley, JR. et al (US20190064532, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024, hereafter call Riley) in view of Forouzmand et al. (US20240012177), and further in view of Lin et al. (US20180217395, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024).
Regarding claim 6, the Riley-Forouzmand combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Riley further teaches wherein a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating (see Riley, as described in paragraph [0222] “the AR coating may comprise alternating layers of any combination of silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or amorphous silicon, where each has a thickness less than the wavelength of light within the operational bandwidth of the metasurface”; since Riley teaches the anti-reflective coating is alternating layers, it must be different of material, thus, Riley teaches a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating, for the purpose to improve the overall transmission (Riley, paragraph [0222]).
Riley does not explicitly disclose wherein further including a second anti-reflective coating on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms.
However, Lin teaches the analogous metasurfaces (Lin, abstract, antireflection coatings for metasurfaces are described herein), and further teaches wherein further including a second anti-reflective coating (see Lin, fig. 12A, the antireflection coating 1430 has been referred to as a second anti-reflective coating; paragraph [0141] “the antireflection coating 1430”) on a surface of the substrate (see fig. 12A, the antireflection coating 1430 on a surface of the substrate 1410, paragraph [0141] “the substrate 1410”) facing the meta-atoms (see fig. 12A, the nanostructures 1620 has been referred to as the meta-atoms; paragraph [0141] “The plurality of nanostructures 1620 comprises amorphous silicon”; see fig. 12A, the bottom surface 1430b of the antireflection coating 1430 facing the nanostructures 1620).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Riley to have the specific coating layer as taught by Lin to have a second anti-reflective coating on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms for the purpose of reducing the amount of reflected light (Lin, paragraph [0143]).
Regarding claim 11, the Riley-Forouzmand combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Riley further teaches wherein:
the meta-atoms are composed of a material (paragraph [0271] “metamaterial elements comprising amorphous silicon pillars embedded in a silicon dioxide”) different from the substrate (see Riley, paragraph [0011] “the substrate is formed of a material selected from the group consisting of: sapphire”; thus, Riley teaches the meta-atoms are composed of the material of silicon dioxide different from the substrate of the material of sapphire; further, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07), and
wherein a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating (see Riley, as described in paragraph [0222] “the AR coating may comprise alternating layers of any combination of silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or amorphous silicon”; since Riley teaches the anti-reflective coating is alternating layers, it must be different of material; thus, Riley teaches wherein a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating for the purpose to improve the overall transmission (Riley, paragraph [0222]).
The Riley-Forouzmand combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising the second anti-reflective coating on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms.
However, Lin teaches the similar metasurface (Lin, abstract, antireflection coatings for metasurfaces are described herein), and further teaches further comprising the second anti-reflective coating on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms (See Lin, fig. 12A, para. [0141], antireflection coating 1430 disposed on the surface of substrate 1410 facing nanostructures 1620 corresponding to the second anti-reflective coating on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional compositionally different anti-reflective coating on the substrate with a reasonable expectation of success by modifying the Riley-Forouzmand combination to have further comprising the second anti-reflective coating on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms, wherein a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating as taught by Lin and Riley, in order to reduce reflected light and improve overall optical transmission (Lin, para. [0143]; Riley, para. [0222]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Riley, JR. et al (US20190064532, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024, hereafter call Riley) in view of Forouzmand et al. (US20240012177), and further in view of Kennedy (US20100313875).
Regarding claim 9, the Riley-Forouzmand combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 8, Riley does not explicitly disclose wherein the first anti-reflective coating has an index of refraction greater than an index of refraction of the fourth anti-reflective coating.
However, Kennedy teaches the similar multilayer anti-reflective coating including a first anti-reflective coating and a further anti-reflective coating disposed thereon (see Kennedy, fig. 19, layers 30 and 32 of anti-reflective layer 28 corresponding to the similar first anti-reflective coating and fourth anti-reflective coating; paras. [0117], [0129]), and further teaches wherein the first anti-reflective coating has an index of refraction greater than an index of refraction of the fourth anti-reflective coating (see Kennedy, fig. 19, paras. [0117], [0129], titania layer 30 corresponding to the first anti-reflective coating having a high index of refraction and silica layer 32 corresponding to the fourth anti-reflective coating having a low index of refraction).
Since it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first anti-reflective coating with a greater index of refraction than the fourth anti-reflective coating with a reasonable expectation of success by modifying the Riley-Forouzmand combination to have wherein the first anti-reflective coating has an index of refraction greater than an index of refraction of the fourth anti-reflective coating as taught by Kennedy, in order to minimize surface reflections (Kennedy, para. [0024]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Riley, JR. et al (US20190064532, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024, hereafter call Riley) in view of Forouzmand et al. (US20240012177) and Lin et al. (US20180217395, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024), and further in view of Kuznetsov et al. (US20190018176).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Riley-Forouzmand-Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 11, Riley further teaches wherein the meta-atoms (fig. 1G, the meta-atoms 18) are composed of silicon (see paragraph [0271] “metamaterial elements comprising amorphous silicon pillars embedded in a silicon dioxide”; thus, the meta-atoms are composed of silicon), the first anti-reflective coating is composed of silicon nitride (Riley, as described in paragraph [0222] “an embedding medium 24 typically having a lower-index of refraction. Exemplary embedding materials include, for example, and/or a solid film such as silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, silicon nitride”; thus, the first anti-reflective coating is composed of silicon nitride),
the substrate is composed of glass (see paragraph [0011] the substrate is formed of a material selected from the group consisting of fused silica, sapphire, borosilicate glass and rare-earth oxide glasses.”; thus, the substrate is composed of glass).
Riley does not explicitly disclose wherein the second anti-reflective coating is composed of magnesium fluoride.
However, Kuznetsov teaches the analogous anti-reflection coating (see Kuznetsov, fig. 1E, paragraph [0068] “The polarization device 100 may further include a further anti-reflection coating 110 on the cover layer 108. The anti-reflection coating 106 and the cover layer 108 may be on opposing surfaces of the substrate 102”; paragraph [0074] “The polarization elements 104a, 104b etc. may have subwavelength dimensions”; paragraph [0075] the substrate may, include or consist of silicon oxide), and further teaches wherein the second anti-reflective coating (Kuznetsov, fig. 1E, The anti-reflection coating 106 has been referred to as the second anti-reflective coating) is composed of magnesium fluoride (see paragraph [0077] In various embodiments, the anti-reflection coating 106 include magnesium fluoride (MgF2)”).
Since it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327; thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Riley to have the specific material as taught by Kuznetsov for the purpose of reducing the amount of reflected light (Kuznetsov, paragraph [0008).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 9/10/2026, see Remarks, pages 6-9, have been considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that:
1. Riley fails to disclose or suggest the newly added limitations of amended claim 1 because Riley's layer 24 fills the voids between the metasurface features and therefore does not disclose the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on top surfaces of the meta-atoms, and wherein i) the first anti-reflective coating leaves a portion of sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms free of the anti-reflective coating.
2. Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are patentable because Riley fails to disclose the newly added limitations of claim 1 and Lin, Kennedy, and Kuznetsov do not cure this deficiency.
In response to Applicant's argument(s) of 1:
Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Riley teaches the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on top surfaces of the meta-atoms (fig. 1G, AR coating/embedding medium 24 disposed over and extending above metasurface features 20; para. [0222]). Riley, however, does not explicitly teach wherein i) the first anti-reflective coating leaves a portion of sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms free of the anti-reflective coating, because Riley teaches that layer 24 may fill the voids 22 between metasurface features 20. However, Forouzmand teaches the analogous metasurface device (figs. 1A-1C, high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b disposed on substrate 104 corresponding to the similar meta-atoms disposed on a substrate), and further teaches wherein i) the first anti-reflective coating leaves a portion of sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms free of the anti-reflective coating (figs. 1A-1C, low-index coating 106a/106b disposed on the top portions of high-index nanogratings 102a/nanopillars 102b while portions of the sidewall surfaces remain free of the coating).
Therefore, Applicant's argument directed to Riley individually is not persuasive because the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Riley and Forouzmand, with Forouzmand teaching the limitation not explicitly disclosed by Riley.
In response to Applicant's argument(s) of 2:
Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Amended claim 1 recites alternative limitations i) ... or wherein ii) .... As discussed above, the combination of Riley and Forouzmand teaches alternative (i). Therefore, it is not necessary for the rejection to additionally establish alternative (ii). Further, claims 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected based upon the modified combinations of references set forth above, which teach the respective additional limitations of those claims.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights