DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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, 8-11, 29-32, 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2024/0053195) by Ku et al (“Ku”) in view of (US-2025/0237829) by Hetzl et al (“Hetzl”).
Regarding claim 1, Ku discloses in FIGs. 2A-C and related text, e.g., an apparatus, comprising:
a multi-spectral sensor (the whole device; see par. 28; red, yellow, green, blue, magenta, infrared and short-wave infrared, are specifically mentioned; hence, “multi-spectral”) including a spectrometer (110) having:
a first optical filter (110A) including a first lattice of nanowires (various 112’s; regarding “nanowires”, Ku calls them a “nanostructure”, which is a broader term, which by definition, includes every type of “nano” structure, including “nanowire”, hence, these limitations are at the very least obvious; regarding “lattice”, a side view is shown of various 112’s, in alternating format with 114’s; hence, “lattice”), the first lattice of nanowires configured to detect light within a first spectral band (lots of options are mentioned in par. 28; hence, for example “red” spectral band, in the instant case), and a second optical filter (110B) including a second lattice of nanowires (second group of 112’s), the second lattice of nanowires configured to detect light within a second spectral band (for example, “green” spectral band from par. 28), the first spectral band and the second spectral band at least partially defining a spectral resolution of the spectrometer (by definition; they each handle specific portion of wavelengths, out of all the options listed in par. 28; hence, meeting limitations); and
an image sensor (various 104’s) including a first pixel (104 under 110A) configured to generate a first signal in response to receiving the light within the first spectral band (it stores the “red” signal, in the instant case), and a second pixel (104 under 110B) configured to generate a second signal in response to receiving the light within the second spectral band (it stores the “green” signal, in the instant case).
Ku does not explicitly state the nanowires (he states “nanostructures” instead).
Ku does not disclose “detect light within a first spectral band based on a first electromagnetic coupling between at least one nanowire from the first lattice of nanowires and remaining nanowires from the first lattice of nanowires and configured to detect light within a second spectral band based on a second electromagnetic coupling between at least one nanowire from the second lattice of nanowires and remaining nanowires from the second lattice of nanowires”.
Hetzl discloses in FIGs. 1-3B and related text, e.g., that “coupling of electromagnetic radiation between the nanowires can take place”, if the distances are smaller than the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation and that this effect can be achieved by carefully selecting diameter and spacing of nanowires (par. 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Ku with “nanowires”, and with “detect light within a first spectral band based on a first electromagnetic coupling between at least one nanowire from the first lattice of nanowires and remaining nanowires from the first lattice of nanowires and configured to detect light within a second spectral band based on a second electromagnetic coupling between at least one nanowire from the second lattice of nanowires and remaining nanowires from the second lattice of nanowires”, since Ku teaches in par. 29 that nanostructures may have “circular shape” (hence, having shape of “nanowires”, specifically), and since Hetzl explicitly teaches that the careful selection of diameter and spacing of nanowires, one can achieve the detection of specific wavelengths of light (par. 62; hence, choosing diameter and spacing of nanowires to detect specific wavelength, in different spectral bands, is at the very least obvious in light of Hetzl’s explicit teachings; hence, using Hetzl’s principles, for multiple bandwidths, is simply a matter of using the same concept for multiple desired wavelengths), respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., at least one of:
a lattice pitch of the first lattice of nanowires between about 100 nm and about 300 nm,
each nanowire from the first lattice of nanowires has a cylindrical nanowire shape,
each nanowire from the first lattice of nanowires has a nanowire diameter between about 50 nm and about 130 nm, or
each nanowire from the first lattice of nanowires has a nanowire length to diameter ratio between about 15 and about 40 (see FIG. 2A; different “lattice patterns” are explicitly shown; also, see par. 29; different shapes and lengths are explicitly taught; by overlapping range, several of the above are taught; also, “cylindrical nanowire” is taught by the “circular shape”; also, see FIG. 3B of Hetzl).
When the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). More precisely, diameter and spacing of nanowires is among many other variable parameters that has been a matter of routine optimization, as Hetzl makes clear. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that diameter and spacing of nanowires affects device properties (again, as Hetzl makes clear) and depending on the desired device properties (for example, specific desired wavelengths of light to be detected), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited diameter and spacing of nanowires through routine experimentation, in order to achieve the desired performance.
Regarding claim 8, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially, the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state further comprising: a camera including the multi-spectral sensor and the image sensor, the camera configured to generate, based on the first signal and the second signal, a representation of a spectral signature of an object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Ku and Hetzl with “further comprising: a camera including the multi-spectral sensor and the image sensor, the camera configured to generate, based on the first signal and the second signal, a representation of a spectral signature of an object”, in order to use the Ku’s device in one of the most notoriously well-known application for the sensor devices (image sensors are used by cameras, as is notoriously well-known; one just has to look at their cellphone (which includes camera), or their laptop (which also includes camera)).
Regarding claim 9, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein a nanowire length of the first lattice of nanowires is substantially the same as a nanowire length of the second lattice of nanowires (all 112’s are shown to be the same length in FIGs. 2A-C), the nanowire length of the first lattice of nanowires and the nanowire length of the second lattice of nanowires being relative to a surface that includes the first lattice of nanowires and the second lattice of nanowires (by definition), and a nanowire diameter of the first lattice of nanowires is different from a nanowire diameter of the second lattice of nanowires (see FIGs. 2A-C and par. 29; various diameters are shown in FIGs. 2A-C, and there are differences between 110A and 110B, for example; also, see par. 29; “The dimension of each of the plurality of nanostructures 112 from top view may be between 2 nm and 2000 nm.”; hence, differing diameters are also taught that way).
Examiner’s Note: if Applicant wishes to argue regarding differing diameters, see secondary reference of Park, FIG. 5B, nanowires 572a and nanowires 572b; also, see Park’s par. 39; Park gives a visual presentation of how such things would look like; such limitations are at the very least obvious, in light of Park’s explicit teachings.
Regarding claim 10, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the image sensor is configured to generate, based on the first signal and the second signal, an image that is representative of a spectral signature of a material (pars. 3-4; the device is meant to produce an image of multiple spectrums).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising:
a compute device (par. 3), and a camera (see claim 8 above; same logic applies) at least partially disposed within and electrically coupled to the compute device (check your cellphone or laptop; these are notoriously well-known features), the camera including the multi-spectral sensor and the image sensor (see par. 3; sensors are to be part of laptops and cellphones).
Regarding claim 29, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
the spectrometer includes a plurality of optical filters (such as 110A-E), each optical filter from the plurality of optical filters being a nanowire lattice configured to have a spectral response different from remaining optical filters from the plurality of optical filters in response to an interaction with light (as was described above; various colors and various infrareds are explicitly taught by Ku), the image sensor includes a plurality of pixels (various 104’s), each pixel from the plurality of pixels configured to be mechanically coupled to a different optical filter from remaining optical filters from the plurality of optical filters (as was discussed above; also, see FIG. 2A), the first optical filter and the second optical filter is each from the plurality of optical filters (as was discussed above, regarding claim 1), and the first pixel and the second pixel is each from the plurality of pixels (again, as was discussed regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 30, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
the spectrometer is a first spectrometer (the first 110A-E, would be the first “spectrometer”), the multi-spectral sensor includes a second spectrometer (there can be any number of 110A-E patterns; hence, there could be thousands of them, in a big array; hence, a “second spectrometer” is present by definition; also, if Applicant wishes to argue, see secondary reference by Park; in FIG. 5B, there is a repeating pattern of 9 pixels each; each such repeating pattern is a separate “spectrometer”; hence, this provides a visual presentation for Applicant, as to how such an arrangement might look like; such limitations are at the very least obvious, in light of Park’s explicit teachings),
the second spectrometer has a plurality of optical filters (repeat of the first, for example), each optical filter from the plurality of optical filters being a nanowire lattice configured to have a spectral response different from remaining optical filters from the plurality of optical filters in response to an interaction with light (same as first one), the image sensor has a plurality of pixels, each pixel from the plurality of pixels configured to be mechanically coupled to a different optical filter from remaining optical filters from the plurality of optical filters (same as first one), and the second spectrometer is mechanically coupled to the first spectrometer (they are all on the same chip; thus meeting limitations; again, see FIG. 5B of Park, for visual presentation; such limitations are at the very least obvious in light of Park’s explicit teachings).
Regarding claim 31, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
the first spectrometer and the second spectrometer define a spatial resolution of the multi- spectral sensor (various 110A-E, repeated multiple times across chip, by definition would “define a spatial resolution”; that is what a completed sensor does0, the image sensor is configured to generate, based on at least the first signal and the second signal, a representation of a spectral signature of an object, and the representation has the spatial resolution of the multi-spectral sensor (again, by definition).
Regarding claim 32, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
the spectral resolution of the first spectrometer is different from a spectral resolution of the second spectrometer (by considering, for example, 110A-B to be “first spectrometer” and 110C-E to be “second spectrometer”, such limitations are met, since each of 110’s is different from the others).
Regarding claim 35, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein: each of the first optical filter and the second optical filter is from a first plurality of optical filters, the plurality of optical filters of the second spectrometer is a second plurality of optical filters, and the first plurality of optical filters and the second plurality of optical filters each having a same amount of nanowire lattices (both in the case where first one is first 110A-E, and second one is a second 110A-E, AND in a case where first one is 110A-B, and second one is 110C-D, the limitations would be met, either way).
Regarding claim 36, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising:
a compute device, and a camera at least partially disposed within and electrically coupled to the compute device, the camera including the multi-spectral sensor and the image sensor (see claims 8 & 11).
Regarding claim 37, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising:
a camera including the multi-spectral sensor and the image sensor, the camera configured to generate, based on the first signal and the second signal, a representation of a spectral signature of an object (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 38, the combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
the first lattice of nanowires has a lattice pitch no more than 500 nm (see claims 1 & 3; same logic applies; “lattice pitch” is a different way to say “nanowire spacing”; Hetzl makes clear that spacing matters as far as detecting specific wavelengths; hence, spacing of less than 500 nm, is just a matter of detecting specific wavelength),
a strength of the first electromagnetic coupling is defined at least in part by the lattice pitch of the first lattice of nanowires (as Hetzl makes clear; spacing of nanowires changes the electromagnetic coupling; hence, meeting limitations),
the second lattice of nanowires has a lattice pitch no more than 500 nm (same idea as first, but for a different lattice), and a strength of the second electromagnetic coupling is defined at least in part by the lattice pitch of the second lattice of nanowires (same idea as first, but for different lattice).
Claims 4-7 & 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2024/0053195) by Ku et al (“Ku”) in view of (US-2025/0237829) by Hetzl et al (“Hetzl”) and further in view of (US-2015/0214261) by Park et al (“Park”).
Regarding claim 4, combined device of Ku and Hetzl disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., substantially the entire claim structure, as recited in above claims, including wherein the first spectral band (“red” spectral band, in instant case) is a subset of a third spectral band (for example, visible light, in the instant case).
Ku and Hetzl do not disclose that the third spectral band having a bandwidth defined by a semiconductor material of the first lattice of nanowires.
To elaborate briefly on the above, Ku teaches metal and dielectric for material of 112 (see par. 30). Ku does not teach semiconductor nanowires, specifically.
Park discloses in FIGs. 2A-C and related text, e.g., having a bandwidth defined by a semiconductor material of the first lattice of nanowires (lattice of nanowires is shown as various 210’s; various semiconductor materials for 210’s are taught in par. 32; material defining the “bandwidth” of the nanowires is also taught in par. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Ku and Hetzl with “a bandwidth defined by a semiconductor material of the first lattice of nanowires” as taught by Park, in order to simplify the processing steps of making a device by making it from notoriously well-understood materials and by well-understood methods (it is a semiconductor industry; no material is more obvious for making a semiconductor device, than a semiconductor; by definition).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device of Ku, Hetzl and Park disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the third spectral band is at least one of a visible spectral band or a near infrared spectral band, the semiconductor material of the first lattice of nanowires including at least one of silicon (Si), amorphous silicon (a-Si), germanium (Ge), amorphous Germanium (a-Ge), or an alloy including at least one of Si or a-Si and at least one of Ge or a-Ge (see par. 32; such materials are explicitly taught).
Regarding claim 6, the combined device of Ku, Hetzl and Park disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the third spectral band is at least one of a near infrared spectral band or a mid-wave infrared spectral band, the semiconductor material of the first lattice of nanowires including at least one of indium antimonide (InSb), indium arsenide (InAs), an alloy including InSb, or an alloy including InAs (see par. 32; “InGaAs” is explicitly taught; hence, “an alloy including InAs” is taught).
Regarding claim 7, the combined device of Ku, Hetzl and Park disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein each nanowire from the first lattice of nanowires includes a first semiconductor material and each nanowire from the second lattice of nanowires includes a second semiconductor material different from the first semiconductor material (see par. 32 of Park; such combination of limitations is possible, per explicit teachings; for example, Silicon for first, and Germanium for second).
Regarding claim 33, the combined device of Ku, Hetzl and Park disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
each of the first optical filter and the second optical filter is from a first plurality of optical filters (by definition), the plurality of optical filters of the second spectrometer is a second plurality of optical filters (again, by definition),the first plurality of optical filters includes a first semiconductor material configured to have a first spectral range (such as Silicon, as Park teaches), and the second plurality of optical filters includes a second semiconductor material configured to have a second spectral range different from the first spectral range (such as InGaAs, as Park teaches).
Regarding claim 34, the combined device of Ku, Hetzl and Park disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein:
each of the first optical filter and the second optical filter is from a first plurality of optical filters, the plurality of optical filters of the second spectrometer is a second plurality of optical filters, the first plurality of optical filters includes at least one of silicon (Si), amorphous silicon (a-Si), germanium (Ge), amorphous Germanium (a-Ge), or an alloy including (1) at least one of Si or a-Si and (2) at least one of Ge or a-Ge, and the second plurality of optical filters includes at least one of indium antimonide (InSb), indium arsenide (InAs), an alloy including InSb, or an alloy including InAs (see claim 33 and claims 5-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to above claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. 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 applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
03/07/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818