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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 29 September 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2310433 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
See the Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report of 28 February 2025 which indicates that the electronic retrieval of the priority document failed.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claims 17-23 and 25-26 have been deemed to contain allowable subject matter and are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “350A” and “350B” (Fig. 3B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that “transparent substrate” be changed to “the transparent substrate” in order to more clearly reference the transparent substrate initially claimed in claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that, in line 2, “comprises silicon oxide” should be changed to “comprising silicon oxide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-23 and 25-26 are 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.
Claim 17 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method of forming the metasurface and the first anti-reflection stack comprising forming on a silicon wafer a first stack comprising at least a first layer made of a third material different from the first material, the first stack having a fifth face corresponding to a face of the first layer, and a sixth face opposite the fifth face and facing the silicon wafer; after forming the metasurface layers, removing the silica wafer; and forming a second stack comprising at least a second layer on the sixth face of the first stack, the first stack and the second stack forming the first anti-reflection stack, as generally set forth in claim 17, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 16, from which claim 17 depends.
Claims 18-23 and 25-26 are objected to for at least the reason that they depend from claim 17.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 24, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanania et al. (US 2023/0228909) (hereafter Hanania), in view of Kao (US 2013/0069189) made of record in the IDS filed 9/24/2024 (hereafter Kao).
Regarding claim 1, Hanania discloses an optical device, comprising: a metasurface comprising a metasurface substrate having at least a first metasurface layer made of a first material, and an array of pillars extending through the first metasurface layer, the pillars being made of a second material different from the first material, the metasurface having a first face and a second face opposite the first face (see at least Figs. 1A and 1B and paragraph [0043], where metalens 100 includes an array of pillars 104 and 106); a first anti-reflection stack having a third face and a fourth face opposite the third face, wherein the fourth face of the first ant-reflection stack is positioned over the first face of the metasurface (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0048], where 210 is an antireflection layer); and a metal trace (see at least Fig. 8A and paragraph [0059], where 804 and 806 are metal traces).
Hanania does not specifically disclose that the metal trace has a portion which is exposed at the third face of the first anti-reflection stack.
However, Kao teaches an optical device comprising a metal trace that has a portion which is exposed at the upper face of a substrate (see at least Fig. 2E and paragraph [0031], where conductor structure 230 is a metal trace).
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 the optical device of Hanania to include the teachings of Kao so that the metal trace has a portion which is exposed at the third face of the first anti-reflection stack for the purpose of providing electrical coupling (see Fig. 2E and paragraph [0005] of Kao).
Regarding claim 2, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the first metasurface layer extends at the first face of the metasurface (see at least Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kao also teaches that the metal trace is included in a first substrate, and further comprises a first opening extending through multiple layers down to the portion of the metal trace which is exposed (see at least Fig. 2E).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao to include the further teachings of Kao so that the metal trace is included in the metasurface substrate, and further comprising a first opening extending through the first anti-reflection stack and the metasurface substrate down to the portion of the metal trace which is exposed for the purpose of protecting and insulating the metal trace.
Regarding claim 4, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Hanania also discloses that the optical device can comprise multiple metasurface layers (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0050]).
Hanania as modified by Kao does not specifically disclose that the metal trace is embedded in a second metasurface layer of the metasurface in contact with the first meta surface layer, the metasurface substrate further comprising a third metasurface layer in contact with the second metasurface layer and covering the metal trace, the second metasurface layer being between the first metasurface layer and the third metasurface layer.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao in order to rearrange the metal trace and the various metasurface layers so that the metal trace is embedded in a second metasurface layer of the metasurface in contact with the first meta surface layer, the metasurface substrate further comprising a third metasurface layer in contact with the second metasurface layer and covering the metal trace, the second metasurface layer being between the first metasurface layer and the third metasurface layer for the purpose of providing electrical connections at various depths within the optical device.
Regarding claim 5, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania as modified by Kao does not specifically disclose that the metal trace is positioned over the third face of the first anti-reflection stack.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao in order to rearrange the metal trace so that the metal trace is positioned over the third face of the first anti-reflection stack for the purpose of providing electrical connections at the desired depth and location within the optical device.
Regarding claim 6, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Kao also teaches that the metal trace corresponds to at least a portion of a contact pad (see at least Fig. 2E and the abstract, where the metal trace is a bonding pad).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao to include the further teachings of Kao so that the metal trace corresponds to at least a portion of a contact pad for the purpose of allowing for electrical connections.
Regarding claim 7, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses a transparent substrate, the second face of the metasurface being over a fifth face of the transparent substrate (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0050], where spacer layers, such as 313, can be beneath and between metasurfaces and are transparent substrates).
Regarding claim 9, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Hanania as modified by Kao does not specifically disclose a second anti-reflection layer, and wherein a sixth face of the transparent substrate which is opposite the fifth face of said transparent substrate is over said second anti-reflection layer.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao so that the optical device includes a second anti-reflection layer, wherein a sixth face of the transparent substrate which is opposite the fifth face of said transparent substrate is over said second anti-reflection layer for the purpose of eliminating stray light and extraneous reflections within the optical device.
Regarding claim 10, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the first anti-reflection stack comprises a stack of dielectric layer with alternately high and low refractive indexes (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the first anti-reflection stack comprises a stack of dielectric layers comprising silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride layers in alternance with silicon nitride layers (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the metasurface may use a variety of materials including polycrystalline silicon and silicon oxide (see at least paragraph [0040]).
Hanania as modified by Kao does not specifically disclose that the pillars are made of polycrystalline silicon and the metasurface substrate is made of a silicon oxide.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a determination of prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao so that the pillars are made of polycrystalline silicon and the metasurface substrate is made of a silicon oxide for the purpose of using known materials for metasurfaces in order to obtain predictable results such as a desired difference in refractive index, durability, and light transmission.
Regarding claim 13, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the array of pillars comprise one or more of: first pillars thoroughly crossing the first metasurface layer; and second pillars crossing a partial thickness of the first metasurface layer (see at least Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047])
Regarding claim 14, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the array of pillars comprise pillars having one or more of cylindrical or conical shapes with main axes all parallel to one another (see at least Figs. 1A and 1B and paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hanania also discloses that the array of pillars comprise pillars having one or more of: cross-sections of different widths and cross-sections of different diameters (see at least Fig. 1A and paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 16, Hanania discloses a method of manufacturing of an optical device, comprising: forming a metasurface comprising a metasurface substrate including at least a first metasurface layer made of a first material, and an array of pillars extending through the first metasurface layer, the pillars being made of a second material different from the first material, the metasurface having a first face and a second face opposite the first face (see at least Fig. 9 and paragraph [0060]); and forming a first anti-reflection stack over the first face of the metasurface, the first anti-reflection stack having a third face and a fourth face opposite the third face and positioned over the metasurface (see at least Figs. 2 and 9 and paragraph [0060]).
Hanania does not specifically disclose forming a metal trace having a portion which is exposed at the third face of the first anti-reflection stack.
However, Kao teaches a method of manufacturing an optical device comprising forming a metal trace that has a portion which is exposed at the upper face of a substrate (see at least Fig. 2E and paragraph [0031], where conductor structure 230 is a metal trace).
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 the method of Hanania to include the teachings of Kao so that the method includes forming a metal trace having a portion which is exposed at the third face of the first anti-reflection stack for the purpose of providing electrical coupling (see Fig. 2E and paragraph [0005] of Kao).
Regarding claim 24, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Kao also teaches that the metal trace corresponds to at least a portion of a contact pad (see at least Fig. 2E and the abstract, where the metal trace is a bonding pad).
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 the method of Hanania as modified by Kao to include the further teachings of Kao so that forming the metal trace with the portion which is exposed comprises forming a metal layer with a contact pad on the first anti-reflection stack, the metal trace corresponding to at least a portion of the metal layer.
Regarding claim 27, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Hanania also discloses that the metasurface may use a variety of materials including polycrystalline silicon and silicon oxide (see at least paragraph [0040]).
Hanania as modified by Kao does not specifically disclose that the pillars are made of polycrystalline silicon and the metasurface substrate is made of a silicon oxide.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a determination of prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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 the method of Hanania as modified by Kao so that the pillars are made of polycrystalline silicon and the metasurface substrate is made of a silicon oxide for the purpose of using known materials for metasurfaces in order to obtain predictable results such as a desired difference in refractive index, durability, and light transmission.
Regarding claim 28, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Hanania also discloses that the first anti-reflection stack comprises a stack of dielectric layer with alternately high and low refractive indexes (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 29, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Hanania also discloses that the first anti-reflection stack comprises a stack of dielectric layers comprising silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride layers in alternance with silicon nitride layers (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 30, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Kao also teaches that the metal trace is formed in a first substrate, and further comprises forming a first opening extending through multiple layers down to the portion of the metal trace which is exposed (see at least Fig. 2E).
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 the method of Hanania as modified by Kao to include the further teachings of Kao so that the metal trace is formed in the metasurface substrate, the method further comprising: forming an opening through the first anti-reflection stack and metasurface substrate to reach a portion of the metal trace, and forming a contact pad at the opening in contact with the portion of the metal trace for the purpose of protecting and insulating the metal trace.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanania et al. (US 2023/0228909) (hereafter Hanania), in view of Kao (US 2013/0069189) made of record in the IDS filed 9/24/2024 (hereafter Kao) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2023/0368012) (hereafter Yu).
Regarding claim 8, Hanania as modified by Kao discloses all of the limitations of claim 7.
Hanania as modified by Kao does not specifically disclose that the transparent substrate is a glass substrate.
However, Yu teaches an optical device comprising a metasurface (see at least the title) and a glass substrate (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a determination of prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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 the optical device of Hanania as modified by Kao to include the teachings of Yu so that the transparent substrate is a glass substrate for the purpose of being obvious to use a known material in the art in order to obtain predictable results such as transparency and durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0065407 to Wei et al. discloses an optical device comprising: a metasurface comprising a metasurface substrate having at least a first metasurface layer made of a first material, and an array of pillars extending through the first metasurface layer, the pillars being made of a second material different from the first material, the metasurface having a first face and a second face opposite the first face (see at least Fig. 1C and paragraphs [0026] and [0030], where metalens 193 has a planar metasurface including an array of nano-pillars); and a metal trace that has a portion which is exposed at the upper face of the metasurface (see at least Fig. 1C and paragraph [0026], where 141 and 142 are electrical traces).
US 2012/0170114 to Domash et al. discloses an optical device comprising a metamaterial that includes a patten of metal traces on a substrate (see at least paragraph [0067]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights