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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/17/2024.
Cancellation of claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34-36, filed 4/17/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendment to claim 4, filed 4/17/2024, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to the specification, filed 4/17/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
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 (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 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 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecora et al (NPL entitled Broadband Antireflection Coatings Employing Multiresonant Dielectric Metasurfaces¸ hereinafter “Pecora”) in view of Chattopadhyay et al (NPL entitled Anti-reflecting and photonic nanostructures, hereinafter “Chattopadhyay”).
Regarding claim 1, Pecora discloses an antireflective coating (or ARC) for reducing reflection of a wave off the coating (ARC), the wave having a spectral band, comprising a layer, having discrete arrays of resonators (nanowires (NWs) detailed on pgs. 4457-4460 and in FIGs. 2-3. Note on pg. 4458: “we fabricated arrays of Si NW [i.e. a layer having discrete arrays of resonators] on a Si substrate”) characterized by a resonant wavelength within the spectral band (pg. 4457: “It is well-established that Si NWs support optical, Mie resonances at specific wavelengths”), wherein at least two arrays are characterized by different resonant wavelengths such that a set of resonant wavelengths of all layers discretely spans over the spectral band. (Pecora analyzes dual-width NW configurations – each NW width corresponding to a resonant mode and a minimum in the reflection spectrum; see FIG. 3 and pgs. 4459-4460:
“To identify what resonances these features [i.e. reflection minima in FIGs. 3a and 3d] can be associated with, we analyze… antireflection behavior at the different wavelengths is primarily managed by one of the [two] NWs”,
“With the use of differently sized resonators[,] multiresonant ARCs can be realized that outperform traditional antireflection coatings and achieve near-unity transmission efficiency over a very broad spectral range [or band].”)
Pecora does not disclose a stack of layers, each having a discrete array of resonators with at least two layers characterized by different resonant wavelengths.
Pecora and Chattopadhyay commonly relate to nanostructured antireflective coatings.
Chattopadhyay discloses (see FIG. 2.10a, 2.11; sec. 2.2.4-2.2.5) a stack of layers (Chattopadhyay details multi-level surface profiles for pyramidal subwavelength structures), each having a discrete array of resonators with at least two layers characterized by different resonant wavelengths (as established in Pecora’s pg. 4459 and with respect to claim 1 above, the resonant modes correspond to resonator dimensions/geometry – and thus similarly correspond to each level/layer in (Pecora in view of )Chattopadhyay’s multi-level stack)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Pecora and Chattopadhyay (i.e. Pecora’s side-by-side resonator arrangements and Chattopadhyay’s stacked arrangements), in order to extend the multiresonator design space and search for optimal or otherwise desirable optical properties (reflection/transmission profiles, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Pecora discloses the coating of claim 1.
Pecora further discloses being formed on a substrate, wherein a material of said coating (ARC) is identical to a material of said substrate. (See pg. 4458: “we fabricated arrays of Si NW on a Si substrate”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses wherein at least two adjacent resonators (NWs) at each layer are spaced apart from each other. (See FIGs. 2-3 with NW distributions/spacings)
Regarding claim 8, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses the being devoid of resonators characterized by a resonant wavelength below a shortest wavelength of the spectral band. (As was already established in regards to claim 1 above, the resonant wavelengths span the spectral band. This already implies that the system is devoid of resonant wavelengths lying outside of the band.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses wherein said resonators (NWs) comprise at least one resonator (NW) having a base and at least one wall perpendicular to said base. (See FIGs. 2(a,c) and 3(a,b), with FIG. 3b annotated below – the NWs have either square or rectangular cross-sections, which directly produces perpendicular walls and bases)
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 3b’s cross-sectional view of Pecora’s antireflection coating (ARC) is annotated to identify nanowire (NW) walls and bases)]
PNG
media_image1.png
623
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses wherein said resonators (NWs) comprise at least one resonator (NW) having at least one rectangular wall. (FIGs. 2(a,c) and 3(a,b) show the NWs as rectangular prismatically shaped)
Regarding claim 14, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses wherein said resonators (NWs) comprise at least one resonator (NW) having two or more rectangular walls. (FIGs. 2(a,c) and 3(a,b) show the NWs as rectangular prismatically shaped)
Regarding claim 16, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses wherein said resonators (NWs) comprise a plurality of resonators (NWs), each having a base and at least one wall perpendicular to said base. (See FIGs. 2(a,c) and 3(a,b), with FIG. 3b annotated above – the NWs have either square or rectangular cross-sections, which directly produces perpendicular walls and bases)
Regarding claim 18, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses wherein at least one layer (of NWs) comprises a plurality of resonators (of NWs), each having at least one wall perpendicular to said layer (of NWs). .(See FIGs. 2(a,c) and 3(a,b), with FIG. 3b annotated above – the NWs have either square or rectangular cross-sections, with walls perpendicular to the NW extension (FIG. 3b’s in-out) and arrangement (FIG. 3b’s left-right) directions; walls are thus perpendicular to the layer of NWs)
Regarding claim 20, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses a method of transmitting a wave (pg. 4460: “ARCs can… achieve near-unity transmission…”), comprising directing the wave to the coating (ARC) (pg. 4458: “Figure 2a shows a map of the simulated reflectivity as a function of the illumination wavelength [i.e. of the directed wave]”, pg. 4459: “Structures are illuminated”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 1.
Pecora further discloses an optical element, comprising a substrate and the coating (ARC) formed thereon (Pg. 4458: “we fabricated arrays of Si NW [i.e. a layer of NWs for the ARC] on a Si substrate”), wherein the spectral band is an electromagnetic spectral band (ARCs reduce reflection of light, which is an electromagnetic wave).
Regarding claim 24, modified Pecora discloses the optical element according to claim 22.
Pecora further discloses a display device, comprising the optical element (ARC+substrate). (Pg. 4456: "design of ARCs has seen tremendous developments. The rapid expansion of the solar, display, ... markets has further increased the need and required a level of sophistication of these specialty optical coatings.”)
Regarding claim 29, modified Pecora discloses the optical element according to claim 22.
Pecora further discloses a diffraction grating, comprising the optical element (ARC+substrate). (Pg. 4458: "change in behavior takes place at a dividing line [FIG. 2a's black line] where the light wavelength in the high-index Si substrate matches the array period. Below this line, first-order diffracted beams are generated in the substrate". Thus, the NWs serve as a diffraction grating when NW spacings/periods approach the wavelength of light, in accordance with standard optics.)
Regarding claim 31, modified Pecora discloses the optical element according to claim 22.
Pecora further discloses an imager, comprising the optical element (ARC+substrate). (Pg. 4456: "design of ARCs has seen tremendous developments. The rapid expansion of the ... imaging, … markets has further increased the need and required a level of sophistication of these specialty optical coatings.”)
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecora in view of Chattopadhyay, as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced by OptoCity (NPL entitled Silicon Crystal).
[Examiner’s note regarding arguments pertinent to claims 4 and 6:
OptoCity discloses a transmission range of 1.2 to 15 μm (1200 to 15000 nm) and a refractive index of 3.4223 for Si.
Rejections of claims 4 and 6 are thus supported by the fact that Pecora’s substrate is made of silicon and possesses these intrinsic/material properties.]
Regarding claim 4, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim l.
Pecora further discloses being formed on a substrate (pg. 4458: “we fabricated arrays of Si NW on a Si substrate”), wherein a material of said substrate is transparent to a wave at a range of wavelengths (1200 to 15000 nm; see Examiner’s note above), and wherein a periodicity (FIG. 3’s data spans “several arrays with periods in the range from 180 to 340 nm”; see pg. 4460) of said array of resonators (NWs) is less than a shortest wavelength (= 1200 nm) of said range of wavelengths divided by a refractive index (= 3.4223; see Examiner’s note above) of said material. (340 nm < (1200 nm)/3.4223 ≈ 350.6 nm)
Regarding claim 6, modified Pecora discloses the coating according to claim 4.
Pecora further discloses wherein said periodicity (FIG. 3’s data spans “several arrays with periods in the range from 180 to 340 nm”; see pg. 4460) is more than 80% of said shortest wavelength (= 1200 nm) of said range of wavelengths divided by said refractive index (= 3.4223) of said material. (340 nm > 0.8×(1200 nm)/3.4223 ≈ 280.5 nm).
Claims 26, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecora in view of Chattopadhyay, as applied to claims 22 and 24 above, and in further view of Radcliffe et al (US 20070286993 A1, hereinafter “Radcliffe”).
Regarding claim 26, modified Pecora discloses the display device according to claim 24.
Modified Pecora does not disclose the display device being a display device of a mobile device selected from the group consisting of a smartphone, a tablet, a smartwatch, and an electronic book reader device, such as, but not limited to, a kindle.
Pecora and Radcliffe commonly relate to antireflective coatings.
Radcliffe discloses the display device being a display device of a mobile device selected from the group consisting of a smartphone, a tablet, a smartwatch, and an electronic book reader device, such as, but not limited to, a kindle. (See ¶ 118 describing various applications for antireflective films, including electronic books)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also combine teachings of Pecora and Radcliffe, in order to identify popular device applications for implementing (modified) Pecora’s antireflection solutions which can outperform more traditional coatings (Pecora pg. 4460) and provide superior broadband antireflection (Pecora pg. 4456).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Pecora discloses the optical element according to claim 22.
Modified Pecora does not disclose a lens device, comprising the optical element.
Pecora and Radcliffe commonly relate to antireflective coatings.
Radcliffe discloses a lens device, comprising the optical element. (See ¶ 119 describing various applications for antireflective films, including camera, eyeglass, and binocular lenses.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also combine teachings of Pecora and Radcliffe, in order to identify popular device applications for implementing (modified) Pecora’s antireflection solutions which can outperform more traditional coatings (Pecora pg. 4460) and provide superior broadband antireflection (Pecora pg. 4456).
Regarding claim 37, Modified Pecora discloses the optical element according to claim 22.
Modified Pecora does not directly disclose an optical device, comprising the optical element, wherein said optical device is selected from the group consisting of an optical coupler, an image projector system, and windshield.
Pecora and Radcliffe commonly relate to antireflective coatings.
Radcliffe discloses an optical device, comprising the optical element, wherein said optical device is selected from the group consisting of an optical coupler, an image projector system, and windshield. (See ¶s 117 and 119 describing various applications for antireflective films, including projectors.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also combine teachings of Pecora and Radcliffe, in order to identify popular device applications for implementing (modified) Pecora’s antireflection solutions which can outperform more traditional coatings (Pecora pg. 4460) and provide superior broadband antireflection (Pecora pg. 4456).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecora in view of Chattopadhyay, as applied to claim 31 above, and in further view of Lenchenkov and Yi (US 20140078359 A1, hereinafter “Lenchenkov”).
Regarding claim 33, modified Pecora discloses the imager according to claim 31.
Pecora does not disclose wherein said coating is positioned to reduce crosstalks among pixels of the imager.
Pecora and Lenchenkov commonly relate to antireflective coatings.
Lenchenkov discloses wherein said coating (antireflective coating material 218) is positioned to reduce crosstalks among pixels of the imager (camera module 12) (see ¶ 27: “to reduce crosstalk and increase pixel efficiency, antireflective coating (ARC) material 218 may be deposited …”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also combine teachings of Pecora and Lenchenkov, in order to reduce optical crosstalk and increase pixel efficiency using (modified) Pecora’s antireflection solutions, which can outperform more traditional coatings (Pecora pg. 4460) and provide superior broadband antireflection (Pecora pg. 4456).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872