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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 01/22/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 reads “firs photoresist” instead of “first photoresist”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balimann et al. (USPG Pub No. 2025/0155607), hereinafter “Balimann”.
Regarding claim 1, Balimann discloses a method for manufacturing a metasurface (10) lens assembly (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 28), comprising: providing a substrate (12) comprising a first region, a second region, and a third region connecting the first and second regions (Paragraph 31 – a large substrate/wafer forming multiple meta optical elements would have an several regions); etching the third region to form support structures (18) which are micron-sized (Paragraph 39 – having a thickness greater than a height of a nanostructure is interpreted as micron-sized); etching one side of the first region to form metasurface lenses connected to the support structures (Paragraph 39), the metasurface lenses are nanosized (Paragraph 28); and removing the support structures to separate the metasurface lenses from the second region, thereby obtaining the metasurface lens assembly (Paragraphs 31, 34 – dicing step requires cutting of the structure in order to separate).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (USPG Pub No. 2023/0236414), hereinafter “Qiu”.
Regarding claim 12, Qiu discloses a metasurface lens assembly (400) (see Fig. 4B), comprising: a body (see Fig. 4B); a metasurface lens (420) arranged on one side of the body, the metasurface lens comprising multiple nanoscale protrusions, and the nanoscale protrusions being configured to refract light (see Fig. 4B, Paragraphs 67, 68); and a moth-eye structure (433) arranged on the other side of the body, and the moth-eye structure being configured to enhance light transmittance of the metasurface lens (see Fig. 4B, Paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 14, Qiu discloses wherein the metasurface lens is made of one of silicon, gold, silver, and aluminum (Paragraph 43).
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balimann (USPG Pub No. 2025/0155607) in view of Matsuzaki et al. (USPG Pub No. 2014/0141596), hereinafter “Matsuzaki”.
Regarding claim 2, Balimann discloses wherein the support structures (16, 18, 50) and the metasurface lenses (10) are respectively located on two surfaces of the substrate (12) (see Figs. 1-9 – formed on separate regions/surfaces of the substrate), wherein etching the third region to form the support structures comprises (Paragraph 39). Balimann discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify forming a first photoresist on one of the two surfaces of the substrate, the first photoresist having openings corresponding to the third region to expose a portion of the third region; etching the exposed portion of the third region to form the support structures; and removing the firs photoresist. In the same field of endeavor, Matsuzaki discloses forming a first photoresist on one of the two surfaces of the substrate, the first photoresist having openings corresponding to the third region to expose a portion of the third region; etching the exposed portion of the third region to form the support structures; and removing the firs photoresist (Paragraphs 45, 46). 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 the method of Balimann with forming a first photoresist on one of the two surfaces of the substrate, the first photoresist having openings corresponding to the third region to expose a portion of the third region; etching the exposed portion of the third region to form the support structures; and removing the firs photoresist of Matsuzaki for the purpose of providing a method which can reliably divide a wafer into the individual devices without reduction in die strength of the devices (Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 11, Balimann discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the third region is etched by a inductively coupled plasma etching process to form the support structures; the first region is etched by the inductively coupled plasma etching process to form the metasurface lenses. In the same field of endeavor, Matsuzaki discloses wherein the third region is etched by a inductively coupled plasma etching process to form the support structures; the first region is etched by the inductively coupled plasma etching process to form the metasurface lenses (Paragraph 46). 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 the method of Balimann with wherein the third region is etched by a inductively coupled plasma etching process to form the support structures; the first region is etched by the inductively coupled plasma etching process to form the metasurface lenses of Matsuzaki for the purpose of providing a method which can reliably divide a wafer into the individual devices without reduction in die strength of the devices (Paragraph 8).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balimann (USPG Pub No. 2025/0155607) in view of Matsuzaki (USPG Pub No. 2014/0141596) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zalkovskij et al. (USPG Pub No. 2024/0361496), hereinafter “Zalkovskij”.
Regarding claim 3, Balimann and Matsuzaki disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein etching one side of the first region to form the metasurface lenses comprises: forming a second photoresist on another of the two surfaces of the substrate, the second photoresist having openings corresponding to the first region to expose a portion of the first region; etching the exposed portion of the first region to form the metasurface lenses; and removing the second photoresist. In the same field of endeavor, Zalkovskij discloses wherein etching one side of the first region to form the metasurface lenses comprises: forming a second photoresist on another of the two surfaces of the substrate, the second photoresist having openings corresponding to the first region to expose a portion of the first region; etching the exposed portion of the first region to form the metasurface lenses; and removing the second photoresist (see Figs. 1A-1J). 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 the method of Balimann and Matsuzaki with wherein etching one side of the first region to form the metasurface lenses comprises: forming a second photoresist on another of the two surfaces of the substrate, the second photoresist having openings corresponding to the first region to expose a portion of the first region; etching the exposed portion of the first region to form the metasurface lenses; and removing the second photoresist of Zalkovskij for the purpose of manufacturing meta-lenses with improved optical performance (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 4, Balimann, Matsuzaki and Zalkovskij teach the method set forth above for claim 3, Matsuzaki further discloses wherein the substrate further comprises a fourth region connecting the first and second regions, wherein etching the third region to form the support structures further comprises: removing a portion of the fourth region to form a first groove, and etching one side of the first region to form the metasurface lenses further comprises: removing another portion of the fourth region to form a second groove, and the first groove connecting the second groove to form a hollow region (see Figs. 7A, 7B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the metho of Balimann and Zalkovskij with the teachings of Matsuzaki for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Balimann, Matsuzaki and Zalkovskij teach the method set forth above for claim 4, Zalkovskij further discloses wherein the first photoresist comprises a first photoresist layer and a second photoresist layer, the first photoresist layer is disposed between the second photoresist layer and one side of the substrate, forming the first photoresist on one of the two surfaces of the substrate comprises: forming the first photoresist layer on the one of the two surfaces of the substrate, the first photoresist layer having openings corresponding to the first region and the third region to expose a portion of the first region and the third region; forming the second photoresist layer on the first photoresist layer, the second photoresist layer having through-holes corresponding to the first region and the third region, and each of the through-holes corresponding to one of the openings (see Figs. 3A-4H). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the metho of Balimann and Matsuzaki with the teachings of Zalkovskij for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Balimann, Matsuzaki and Zalkovskij teach the method set forth above for claim 4, Zalkovskij further discloses wherein the second photoresist comprises a third photoresist layer and a fourth photoresist layer, the third photoresist layer is provided between the fourth photoresist layer and the other side of the substrate, forming the second photoresist on another of the two surfaces of the substrate comprises: forming the third photoresist layer on the another one of the two surfaces of the substrate, and the third photoresist layer having openings corresponding to the first region and the fourth region; forming the fourth photoresist layer on the third photoresist layer, the fourth photoresist layer having through-holes corresponding to the first region and the fourth region, and each of the through-holes corresponding to one of the two openings (see Figs. 3A-4H). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the metho of Balimann and Matsuzaki with the teachings of Zalkovskij for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Balimann, Matsuzaki and Zalkovskij teach the method set forth above for claim 7, Zalkovskij further discloses wherein: the first photoresist is a positive photoresist and the second photoresist is a negative photoresist (Paragraphs 25-28). It is known in the art for a photoresist to be either positive photoresist or negative photoresist. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the metho of Balimann and Matsuzaki with the teachings of Zalkovskij for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balimann (USPG Pub No. 2025/0155607) in view of Matsuzaki (USPG Pub No. 2014/0141596) and Zalkovskij (USPG Pub No. 2024/0361496) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Groever et al. (USPG Pub No. 2021/0149081), hereinafter Groever.
Regarding claim 5, Balimann, Zalkovskij and Matsuzaki disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the first photoresist has openings corresponding to the first region to expose a portion of the first region, the method further comprising: etching the exposed portion of the first region through the openings to form moth-eye structures, and the moth-eye structures being opposite to the metasurface lenses. In the same field of endeavor, Groever discloses wherein the first photoresist has openings corresponding to the first region to expose a portion of the first region, the method further comprising: etching the exposed portion of the first region through the openings to form moth-eye structures, and the moth-eye structures being opposite to the metasurface lenses (Paragraphs 105-108). 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 the method of Balimann, Zalkovskij and Matsuzaki with wherein the first photoresist has openings corresponding to the first region to expose a portion of the first region, the method further comprising: etching the exposed portion of the first region through the openings to form moth-eye structures, and the moth-eye structures being opposite to the metasurface lenses of Groever for the purpose of providing a compact and inexpensive lens assembly (Paragraph 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balimann (USPG Pub No. 2025/0155607) in view of Wang et al. (USP No. 12,585,043), hereinafter “Wang”.
Regarding claim 10, Balimann discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the substrate is pre-treated with a plasma cleaning process before etching the third region. In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses wherein the substrate is pre-treated with a plasma cleaning process before etching the third region (Col. 19, Lines 29-47). 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 the method of Balimann with wherein the substrate is pre-treated with a plasma cleaning process before etching the third region of Wang for the purpose of providing a manufacturing approach applicable to a scalable production of optical element (Col. 2, Lines 28-29).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (USPG Pub No. 2023/0236414) in view of Hu et al. (USPG Pub No. 2026/0029558), hereinafter “Hu”.
Regarding claim 13, Qiu discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify further comprising a light-blocking element, wherein the light-blocking element is disposed on one side of the body, the light-blocking element defines a light-transmitting hole, and the metasurface lens is exposed to the light-transmitting hole. In the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses further comprising a light-blocking element, wherein the light-blocking element is disposed on one side of the body, the light-blocking element defines a light-transmitting hole, and the metasurface lens is exposed to the light-transmitting hole (Paragraph 61). 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 the method of Qiu with further comprising a light-blocking element, wherein the light-blocking element is disposed on one side of the body, the light-blocking element defines a light-transmitting hole, and the metasurface lens is exposed to the light-transmitting hole of Hu for the purpose of providing selective transmission of light in order to obtain the desired optical effect (Paragraph 61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: none of the references, alone or in combination, disclose or teach the method for manufacturing a metasurface lens assembly as recited in 7, and specifically comprising wherein before providing the third photoresist layer on the another of the two surfaces of the substrate, the method further comprising: forming a light-blocking element on the another of the two surfaces of the substrate, the light-blocking element having a light-transmitting hole for exposing the metasurface lens as presented in claim 8.
Prior Art Citations
Lezec et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0386749) is being cited herein to show a metasurface lens assembly relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights