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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 3/31/2026. Claims 25-26 are new, claims 6-7, 12, 17-18, 23-24 are canceled and claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-16, 19-22 and 25-26 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
On account of continued disagreement as to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, this section serves to explicitly clarify the breadth of the claims in light of the Specifications.
Claims 1, 10, and 21 recite “a first manipulation” of light and “does not perform said first manipulation”. A person having ordinary skill in the art, in light of the Specifications, would understand the claimed manipulations of light to include a change to a particular magnitude of reflectance, transmittance, and/or absorbance. In other words, if there is a difference in reflectance, transmittance, and/or absorbance at different separations then the structure performs a first manipulation and performs a different manipulation which is to say, not the first manipulation.
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 1-5, 8-11, 13-16, 19-22 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Dynamically Reconfigurable High Impedance and Frequency Selective Metasurfaces Using Piezoelectric Actuators” to Mavridou et al. (hereinafter Mavridou) in view of US Pat. No. 11,243,159 to Palinski et al. (hereinafter Palinski) and “Tunable millimetre-wave phase shifting surfaces using piezoelectric actuators,” IET Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 829–834, Aug. 2014.
Regarding claim 1, Mavridou discloses an apparatus comprising: a first substrate (dielectric substrate, Fig. 1) comprising an array (periodic structure, Fig. 1), said array comprising a plurality of different structures (Fig. 1), thereby forming an optical metasurface (e.g. Abstract); a mirror (upper surface of ground plane, Fig. 1) formed on a second substrate (ground plane, Fig. 1); and a mechanism (bender actuators, Fig. 1) arranged to move the first and second substrates relative to one another to alter a separation between the first and second substrates between a first separation distance and at least a second separation distance (distance “t” and “t + Δ t”, Figs. 1 & 2) wherein at said first separation distance said optical metasurface performs a first manipulation of incident light and at said second separation distance said optical metasurface does not perform said first manipulation of incident light (Fig. 2(a) shows variation of reflectance as a function of changing separation).
Mavridou discloses a first and second manipulation of incident light between 10GHz and 18GHz (or between 16.7mm and 30mm wavelengths) in Fig. 2(a) based on a range of separation values between 0.6mm and 2.2mm, amounting to as much as 13% of the wavelength. Further, Mavridou states “the use of linear piezoelectric actuators has been proposed for the dynamic control of a HIS operated as a phase shifting surface at frequencies around 60 GHz” and cites to , “Tunable millimetre-wave phase shifting surfaces using piezoelectric actuators,” IET Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 829–834, Aug. 2014. In this publication, a 2.5mm to 2.52mm gap “t” effectuates a change of the incident light manipulation at a frequency of 60-63GhZ or approximately 5mm. Mavridou evidences that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the structures matching the claimed invention could operate in the claimed mode of operation and that modifications to the claimed separation distances, incident wavelengths, and light responses are a matter of routine optimization and lack unexpected results.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “different structures” includes distinct structures positioned differently. The claim does not require particular differences between respective structures of the array, e.g. size, shape, angular orientation.
Mavridou discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: an apparatus configured to manipulate incident light having at least a first wavelength, the apparatus wherein at said first separation distance said optical metasurface performs a first manipulation of said incident light and at said second separation distance said optical metasurface does not perform said first manipulation of said incident light wherein the second separation distance is more than of said first wavelength.
Palinski discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 7) configured to manipulate incident light having at least a first wavelength (at least 400nm-900nm, Fig. 7), the apparatus wherein at said first separation distance (50nm thickness of layer 6 is a separation between “an optically thick reflective film base layer 4” and “a lossy plasmonic nanoisland film top layer 8”, Fig. 7) said optical metasurface (“a lossy plasmonic nanoisland film top layer 8”, Figs. 1-4) performs a first manipulation of said incident light (50nm reflection spectrum, Fig. 7) and at said second separation distance (160nm, Fig. 7; “reflection spectra of three examples sensors with various middle layer thicknesses according to the present subject matter”) said optical metasurface does not perform said first manipulation of said incident light (160nm reflection spectrum is not the 50nm reflection spectrum, Fig. 7) wherein the second separation distance is more than of said first wavelength (160nm > (400nm, 500nm, 500nm)/4, Fig. 7). See columns 3-12, particularly col. 8, ll. 62-col. 9, ln. 3 and col. 11, ll. 55-58.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed separation relative to the wavelength as taught by Palinski with the system as disclosed by Mavridou. The motivation would have been to effectuate the reflection spectrum change shown in Fig. 7 in light emission and sensor applications (col. 1).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Mavridou discloses said first substrate has a first side and a second side (Fig. 1), said second substrate being disposed to face said first side and said incident light being incident on said second side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Mavridou discloses said optical metasurface comprises a plasmon antenna array configured to form a gap surface plasmon metasurface when the separation between the first and second substrates is such that the optical metasurface performs a manipulation of incident light (Fig. 1). This conditional limitation is not required by the claim except when the claimed condition on separation is met. Mavridou discloses nanostructure antennas in a periodic array on a dielectric substrate separated from a ground plane and thus discloses a structure capable of the conditional function.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Mavridou discloses said optical metasurface is configured to act as a blazed grating when the separation between the first and second substrates is such that the optical metasurface performs a manipulation of incident light (Fig. 1). This conditional limitation is not required by the claim except when the claimed condition on separation is met. Mavridou discloses nanostructure antennas in a periodic array on a dielectric substrate separated from a ground plane and thus discloses a structure capable of the conditional function.
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 22, Mavridou discloses at said second separation distance said optical metasurface performs a second manipulation of incident light (Fig. 2(a) shows variation of reflectance as a function of changing separation).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Mavridou discloses the second substrate is provided by a Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) arrangement such that the second substrate is translatable upon application of a voltage (abstract & Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Mavridou discloses a feedback mechanism to regulate said separation distance and/or a degree of planarity of said second substrate (the reflection magnitude spectrum is the information by which distance may be regulated).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Mavridou discloses an optical system comprising a light source (implied by reflection magnitude spectrum of Fig. 2(a)) arranged to emit light having at least a first wavelength onto an apparatus (Fig. 2(a)), the apparatus comprising: a first substrate (dielectric substrate, Fig. 1) comprising a nanostructured surface (periodic structure, Fig. 1), thereby forming an optical metasurface (e.g. Abstract); a mirror (upper surface of ground plane, Fig. 1) formed on a second substrate (ground plane, Fig. 1); and a mechanism (bender actuators, Fig. 1) arranged to move the first and second substrates relative to one another to alter a separation between the first and second substrates between a first separation distance and at least a second separation distance wherein at said first separation distance said optical metasurface performs a first manipulation of said light (distance “t” and “t + Δ t”, Figs. 1-2) and at said second separation distance said optical metasurface does not perform said first manipulation of said light (Fig. 2(a) shows variation of reflectance as a function of changing separation).
Mavridou discloses a first and second manipulation of incident light between 10GHz and 18GHz (or between 16.7mm and 30mm wavelengths) in Fig. 2(a) based on a range of separation values between 0.6mm and 2.2mm, amounting to as much as 13% of the wavelength. Further, Mavridou states “the use of linear piezoelectric actuators has been proposed for the dynamic control of a HIS operated as a phase shifting surface at frequencies around 60 GHz” and cites to , “Tunable millimetre-wave phase shifting surfaces using piezoelectric actuators,” IET Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 829–834, Aug. 2014. In this publication, a 2.5mm to 2.52mm gap “t” effectuates a change of the incident light manipulation at a frequency of 60-63GhZ or approximately 5mm. Mavridou evidences that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the structures matching the claimed invention could operate in the claimed mode of operation and that modifications to the claimed separation distances, incident wavelengths, and light responses are a matter of routine optimization and lack unexpected results.
Mavridou discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: an apparatus configured to manipulate incident light having at least a first wavelength, the apparatus wherein at said first separation distance said optical metasurface performs a first manipulation of said incident light and at said second separation distance said optical metasurface does not perform said first manipulation of said incident light wherein the second separation distance is more than of said first wavelength.
Palinski discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 7) configured to manipulate incident light having at least a first wavelength (at least 400nm-900nm, Fig. 7), the apparatus wherein at said first separation distance (50nm thickness of layer 6 is a separation between “an optically thick reflective film base layer 4” and “a lossy plasmonic nanoisland film top layer 8”, Fig. 7) said optical metasurface (“a lossy plasmonic nanoisland film top layer 8”, Figs. 1-4) performs a first manipulation of said incident light (50nm reflection spectrum, Fig. 7) and at said second separation distance (160nm, Fig. 7; “reflection spectra of three examples sensors with various middle layer thicknesses according to the present subject matter”) said optical metasurface does not perform said first manipulation of said incident light (160nm reflection spectrum is not the 50nm reflection spectrum, Fig. 7) wherein the second separation distance is more than of said first wavelength (160nm > (400nm, 500nm, 500nm)/4, Fig. 7). See columns 3-12.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed separation as taught by Palinski with the system as disclosed by Mavridou. The motivation would have been to effectuate the reflection spectrum change shown in Fig. 7 in light emission and sensor applications (col. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Mavridou discloses the first separation distance is less than 1/10 of said first wavelength (t = 0.6mm is less than one-tenth of the wavelength at a frequency of 30-65 GHz, see Fig. 2(a)).
Regarding claim 25-26, Mavridou discloses at the second separation distance said optical metasurface performs substantially no manipulation of incident light such that the incident light is specularly reflected by the mirror (see annotated Fig. 2a below). At a second separation of t=2.2mm, there is no substantially loss to the reflection for the peak light manipulation effect centered at about 11GHz. And other disclosures associated with zero phase shift, and thus specular reflection.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues against the obviousness in view of Pallinski and disparages the modification of Mavridou in view of the Pallinski teachings. Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is obvious in view of the Pallinski teachings because Applicant’s arguments center on an embodiment that is not wholly relied upon in the rejection. Pallinski is relied upon to demonstrate the optical characteristics effectuated by the claimed range would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. With a similar structure, the relationship between the operation wavelength and a structural gap would have been an obvious modification in view of Pallinski. Further, Pallinski teaches a fixed separation sensor as well as an actuated filter – to which Applicant offers no arguments. Pallinski discloses “[w]hen operating as an actuator, the structure comprising the sensor 2 may be used in applications such as active optical switching (with switching contrasts >90% demonstrated for the instant thin-film structure), color filtering, and as a tunable resonance cavity for enhanced light emission” (col. 8, ll. 62-col. 9, ln. 3), “the structure may respond to a predetermined stimulus and change color accordingly (e.g., being driven as an actuator, with possible applications including optical switching and color displays)” (col. 11, ll. 55-58). The Pallinski publication is not relied upon to modify the structure and use of the Mavridou embodiments, but rather to evidence the claimed relationship between separation distances and operating wavelengths would have been an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Mavridou references “Tunable millimetre-wave phase shifting surfaces using piezoelectric actuators,” IET Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 829–834, Aug. 2014 which utilizes similar dimensions of separation for much smaller wavelengths lending credence to the position that the claimed ratio of separation to wavelength would have been an obvious modification of Mavridou.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
