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 a reply filed 5/6/2026.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2024 and 4/29/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (claims 1-16) and Species III (the embodiment of Fig. 2C) without traverse in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 is acknowledged. Upon consideration of the claims and the elected species, claim 4 is drawn to Species II since it recites the feature of “the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on top and sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms”, claim 5 is drawn to Species II since it recites the feature of “first anti-reflective coating is disposed on top and sidewall surfaces of the meta-atoms”, claim 7 is drawn to Species II since it recites the feature of “the first anti-reflective coating extends beyond edges of the meta-atoms”, claim 10 is drawn to Species II since it recites the feature of “the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on the meta-atoms and on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms”, and claim 13 is drawn to Species IV since it recites the feature of “the metasurface includes meta-atoms disposed on an etch stop layer”, as outlined in the restriction of office action mailed 03/02/2026.
Claims 4-5, 7 and 10 are therefore withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected Species II.
Claim 13 is therefore withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected Species IV.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn as containing the deficiencies of claim 13 through their dependency from claim 13.
Claims 17-24 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected Group.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9 and 11-12 are examined herein.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley, JR. et al (US20190064532, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024, hereafter call Riley).
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 , the metasurface 20; the metasurface features 20 in fig. 1G; paragraph [0222] “the metasurface features 20”) 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Riley discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Riley further teaches wherein the metasurface (fig. 1G, the 20) is structured (as described in paragraph [0222] “metasurface material layer 18”; see Riley, fig. 1G, the metasurface 20 is structured).
Regarding claim 3, Riley discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Riley further teaches wherein the metasurface (fig. 1G, the 20) includes meta-atoms (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G , the metasurface 20 includes meta-atoms; paragraph [0165] “Numerous other embodiments are directed to a metasurface element including: an array of metasurface features disposed atop a substrate transparent to light over a specified operational bandwidth, the array comprising a plurality of metasurface features having feature sizes smaller than the wavelength of light within the specified operational bandwidth and configured to impose a phase shift on impinging light within the plane of plurality of metasurface features, and wherein the plurality of metasurface features are formed from one of the group consisting of: amorphous-Si metasurface features embedded in SiO2 having a pillar height from 500 to 1000 nm and a pillar diameter from 100 to 300 nm”; since the metasurface recites the feature as described above, thus, the metasurface features includes meta-atoms 18) disposed on a substrate (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G, the substrate 10), the first anti-reflective coating being disposed on the meta-atoms (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G, the first anti-reflective coating being disposed on the meta-atoms 18).
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 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), and further in view of Lin et al. (US20180217395, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Riley discloses the invention as described in Claim 3, 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, Riley discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Riley further teaches wherein the metasurface includes meta-atoms disposed on a substrate (see paragraph [0165] “an array of metasurface features disposed atop a substrate”; paragraph [0165] “Numerous other embodiments are directed to a metasurface element including: an array of metasurface features disposed atop a substrate transparent to light over a specified operational bandwidth, the array comprising a plurality of metasurface features having feature sizes smaller than the wavelength of light within the specified operational bandwidth and configured to impose a phase shift on impinging light within the plane of plurality of metasurface features, and wherein the plurality of metasurface features are formed from one of the group consisting of: amorphous-Si metasurface features embedded in SiO2 having a pillar height from 500 to 1000 nm and a pillar diameter from 100 to 300 nm”),
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 (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),
the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on the meta-atoms (see annotated image, Riley, fig. 1G, the first anti-reflective coating is disposed on the meta-atoms 18), 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]).
Riley does not explicitly disclose wherein a second anti-reflective coating is 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 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”) is 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 is on a surface of the substrate facing the meta-atoms for the purpose of reducing the amount of reflected light (Lin, paragraph [0143]).
Claim 8 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).
Regarding claim 8, Riley discloses the invention as described in Claim 3, Riley further teaches wherein further including a second anti-reflective coating on the first anti-reflective coating, 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, the AR coating comprises two layers, it includes a second anti-reflective coating on the first anti-reflective coating, wherein a composition of the second anti-reflective coating differs from a composition of the first anti-reflective coating; therefore, 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 for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the specific layers as taught by Riley for the purpose to improve the overall transmission (Riley, paragraph [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), and further in view of Kennedy (US20100313875).
Regarding claim 9, Riley 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 second anti-reflective coating.
However, Kennedy teaches the analogous antireflection optical member (Kennedy, abstract, the coatings are multilayered structures comprising solar absorbent layers 26 applied to the meta surface of the absorber tubes 50, typically stainless steel, topped with antireflective Savers 28 comprising at least two layers 30, 32, of refractory metal or metalloid oxides, such as titania and silica, with substantially differing indices of refraction in adjacent layers), and further teaches wherein the first anti-reflective coating (see annotated image, Kennedy, fig. 19, the first anti-reflective coating 30) has an index of refraction (paragraph [0117] material: titania 30) greater than an index of refraction of the second anti-reflective coating (see annotated image, Kennedy, fig. 19, second anti-reflective coating 32; [0117] “The indices of refraction of the layers 30 and 32 making up the antireflective layer 28 should differ from one layer to another, with high and low indices alternating; paragraph [0129] “with the titania layer 30 having a high index of refraction and the silica layer 32 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 for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Riley to have the specific index of refraction as taught by Kennedy for the purpose to increase solar absorption and minimize surface reflections. (Kennedy, paragraph [0024]).
PNG
media_image2.png
738
1052
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Lin et al. (US20180217395, of record, see IDS dated 4/11/2024), and further in view of Kuznetsov et al. (US20190018176).
Regarding claim 12, Riley 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), and 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), and
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singh et al. (US20210223700), Wang et al. (US20090041971), Yasuda et al.(US20170315270), and PERRILLAT-BOTTONET et al. (US20230079303) are cited to show similar metasurface of optical elements.
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
Prosecution Insights