DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 12/09/2022, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 07/09/2025. The Office required election between patentably distinct Species I-IV. Applicant’s election of Species II in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is acknowledged. Election was made with traverse. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/09/2025. As a preliminary matter, Examiner corrects the typo within articulation of Species IV (correction underlined): “Species IV…drawn to an optical combiner specifying cylindrical depressions, classified in…”.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “The Office has not made a prima facie showing that the species meet the criteria of distinctness required by MPEP § 808.02 and MPEP § 806.05” (pg. 2 of Remarks). However, the Examiner notes that ‘MPEP § 806.05’ as cited by the Applicant is concerned with restrictions directed to ‘related inventions’, which bears no relevance to the restriction at hand, which is solely an Election of Species type restriction (see pgs. 2-3 of Restriction). Regarding Applicant’s citing of MPEP § 808.02, Applicant has not addressed the Examiner’s clearly delineated reasons for establishing that a search burden is met, namely that (1) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search for the claims (see pg. 3 of Restriction showing examples of different fields of search), and (2) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, as detailed in the Restriction requirement (see pg. 2 of Restriction). Thus, the Office has met the requirements of establishing burden as set forth in MPEP § 808.02.
Applicant asserts that “the hexagonal unit cell arrangement is perturbed to form a rectangular unit cell” (pg. 3 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “Species may be either independent or related under the particular disclosure” as stated in MPEP 806.04(b) while simultaneously sustaining a restriction requirement under Election of Species, as in the present case. Therefore, a perturbation process of transforming the unit cell shape (as disclosed in the instant specification) does not address the fact that a hexagonal unit cell shape and a rectangular unit cell shape as recited in the apparatus and method claims are drawn to specific mutually exclusive characteristics delineated in Species I-II, wherein the embodiment of a rectangular unit cell is different from the embodiment of a hexagonal unit cell; similarly, the embodiment comprising rectangular depressions is different from the embodiment comprising cylindrical depressions. Furthermore, claims 9 and 16-19 correspond to the hexagonal unit cell shape (Species I) and claim 10 corresponds to the rectangular unit cell shape (Species II). Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding the relationship between the current claims to different species (pg. 2 of Remarks) are incorrect and do not appear to address the mutually exclusive features evidenced within each of the patentably distinct Species I-IV (see pg. 2 of Restriction). Applicant is respectfully reminded that “Claims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species.” See MPEP § 806.04(e). Applicant has not persuasively rebutted the Office’s establishment of search burden along with particular reasons for patentable differences between the species, and consequently, the restriction requirement of 07/09/2025 is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Accordingly, Claims 1-8, 10, 12 and 15 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 9, 11, 13-14 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/28/2023 and 03/06/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. Claim 8 recites the abbreviation “QBIC” which creates ambiguity regarding the meaning of the term (QBIC is not a widely used term in the art) and thereby renders the claim scope unclear. Examiner respectfully requests recitation of the full term “quasi-bound states in the continuum”.
2. Claim 10 depends upon withdrawn claim 9 (see Election/Restriction section supra), thereby requiring changes to antecedent basis for the claimed structures recited in claim 10. For the purpose of prosecution, claim 10 will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 1 and will be interpreted as “wherein a perturbed lattice of depressions comprised within the structures has a rectangular unit cell”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation: “wherein the perturbed lattice of depressions has a ratio of a lattice constant ay in the second direction in the plane of an unperturbed lattice of depressions to a lattice constant ax in the first direction in the plane of the unperturbed lattice of depressions of r(3)1/2, and wherein r is from 0.8 to 1.2”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “r(3)1/2” i.e., it may refer to “r” as a function of the term within the parenthesis, or as r multiplied by the term in the parenthesis. Furthermore, it’s unclear what the relationship between ax and ay is with regards to the term “r(3)1/2” since there appears to be no equation recited in the claim to clearly depict the relationship between all the parameters. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the perturbed lattice of depressions has a ratio of a lattice constant ay in the second direction in the plane of an unperturbed lattice of depressions to a lattice constant ax in the first direction in the plane of the unperturbed lattice of depressions”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Claim 3 is recited as depending upon itself (see claims filed 12/09/2022). Therefore, Claim 3 does not appear to further limit the claim upon which it depends. For the purposes of prosecution, claim 3 is interpreted as depending upon claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 2018/0052501 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jones discloses: An optical combiner (¶0005-07), comprising:
A. a first layer comprising a periodic two-dimensional arrangement of structures arranged to support resonance for an input signal of a target wavelength, wherein the structures have a first refractive index (¶0658-59: Metasurfaces may be formed in two-dimensional (2D) nano structures…light is reflected when the wavelength is matched with the resonant wavelength);
B. a second layer that overlies the structures on the first layer, wherein the second layer comprises a second material with a second refractive index (¶0660-63: The metasurface may further include a first dielectric layer that fills the region between the nano antennas/beams 7824 and covers the nano antennas/beams; see e.g., FIG. 78D showing second layer 7825 overlying first layer 7824), and wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index, measured at 587.5 nm, is less than 1.5 (¶0660-63: nanobeams 7724 may comprise TiO2…first dielectric layer 7725 may comprise a material having a refractive index in a range between 1.4 and 1.5; the Examiner notes that TiO2 has a refractive index of n ≈ 2.6 at 587.5 nm, thereby satisfying the claimed condition);
C. and wherein the periodic arrangement of structures is configured such that the optical combiner produces, for the input signal incident on the first layer from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than 20°, an output signal comprising a reflection peak with an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ±5° range of the elevation angle (¶0365, 0368, 0615, 0638, 0649, 0667: reflectance as high as 100% and 75% for TM polarization....angular range from about −30 degrees to about 30 degrees; see FIGS. 71, 76, 79, 81).
Regarding Claim 2, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the elevation angle is 20° to 70° (¶0365, 0368, 0615, 0638, 0649, 0667).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 3, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the input signal is TM polarized (p-polarized) (¶0667-68; FIGS. 81-82).
Regarding Claim 4, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 3, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the input signal comprises red, blue and green (RGB) wavelengths of visible light (¶0630-31, 0634, 0636-37, 0647: a first reflectance spectrum having a reflectance peak in the red wavelength region, a second reflectance spectrum having a reflectance peak in the green wavelength region, and a third reflectance spectrum having a reflectance peak in the blue wavelength region).
Regarding Claim 5, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the output signal comprises the reflection peaks over a wavelength range of 400 nm to 2 microns (µm) (FIGS. 71, 74, 76, 79-82; ¶0365, 0647: 400 nm to 2 μm).
Regarding Claim 6, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the optical combiner produces the output signal over an azimuthal angular range of -5° to 5° in a plane normal to a plane of incidence of the input signal (¶0365, 0658, 0664, 0666, 0677-78: angle of reflection is same range as angle of incidence with accompanying tilt angle to reach viewer’s eye; see FIGS. 71, 76, 79, 81, 86F showing -5° to 5° range).
Regarding Claim 7, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the arrangement of structures is perturbed (¶0435, 0649-50, 0659-61, 0663).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 9, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the perturbed lattice of depressions has a rectangular unit cell (¶0662: each nanobeam/antenna may have a rectangular shape; see FIG. 78 showing rectangular unit cell of depressions).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 10, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the perturbed lattice of depressions has a ratio of a lattice constant ay in the second direction in the plane of an unperturbed lattice of depressions to a lattice constant ax in the first direction in the plane of the unperturbed lattice of depressions of r(3)1/2, and wherein r is from 0.8 to 1.2 (¶0656-58: the protrusions have a width of 125 nm, a thickness of 25 nm, the masses of material have a thickness of 75 nm, the pitch is 340 nm).
Regarding Claim 15, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Jones further discloses: wherein the first layer comprises a polymeric material with a refractive index of 1.2 to 1.55, and the second layer comprises TiO2 (¶0659: nanobeams may comprise TiO2).
Claims 1, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 11,675,219 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu discloses: An optical combiner (c. 1: A system for modulating light; c.7), comprising:
A. a first layer comprising a periodic two-dimensional arrangement of structures arranged to support resonance for an input signal of a target wavelength, wherein the structures have a first refractive index (FIG. 12; c. 3: two-dimensional resonant metasurface; c. 5: a symmetry-breaking perturbation applied to a PCS can produce optical resonances under illumination; c. 8: the disclosed system for manipulating light originating from out-of-plane can act as a reflective lens for incident circularly polarized light of specific wavelengths (e.g., a red light at 600 nm, a green light at 530 nm, blue light at 430 nm, and near-infrared light at 950 nm); c. 4: multiple sets of meta units separated into multiple layers 103; see FIG. 2A; c. 2: the meta units can include a passive dielectric material of silicon, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or combinations thereof);
B. a second layer that overlies the structures on the first layer, wherein the second layer comprises a second material with a second refractive index (c. 1, 5, 8: structures patterned on a glass or silicon substrate transparent to light [second layer]), and wherein a difference between the first refractive index and the second refractive index, measured at 587.5 nm, is less than 1.5 (the Examiner notes that TiO2 has a refractive index of n ≈ 2.6 at 587.5 nm, thereby satisfying the claimed condition);
C. and wherein the periodic arrangement of structures is configured such that the optical combiner produces, for the input signal incident on the first layer from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than 20°, an output signal comprising a reflection peak with an average reflection of greater than 50% within a ±5° range of the elevation angle (c. 13: 85% to 100% of optical power is reflected back and steered towards an oblique angle; c. 11: beam steering (to a 33° angle) only occurs on resonance for the light of converted handedness; see FIGS. 2B, 4A showing input signal incident on the first layer from air at an oblique elevation angle of greater than 20° and an output signal within a ±5° range of elevation angle).
Regarding Claim 7, Yu discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Yu further discloses: wherein the arrangement of structures is perturbed (c. 5: perturbation can transform the PCS supporting BICs into a metasurface supporting quasi-BICs with a finite Q-factor controllable by the strength of the perturbation).
Regarding Claim 8, Yu discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Yu further discloses: wherein the structures comprise QBIC structures (c. 13: Each perturbation introduces a distinct quasi-BIC whose geometric phase is controllable by the α of one set of apertures).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Yu discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 9, as above. Yu further discloses: wherein the perturbed lattice of depressions has a rectangular unit cell (c. 15: The meta units consist of rectangular apertures in silicon; c.7: a rectangular lattice; c. 9-10: Hyperspectral wavefront shaping can also be achieved by successively adding orthogonal symmetry-breaking perturbations to a single metasurface…dimerization perturbation of magnitude δ to a lattice of apertures).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Barton et al. (US 2021/0132255 A1) and West et al. (US 2019/0206136 A1) disclose An optical combiner comprising: a first layer comprising a periodic two-dimensional arrangement of structures arranged to support resonance for an input signal of a target wavelength, wherein the structures have a first refractive index, a second layer that overlies the structures on the first layer, wherein the second layer comprises a second material with a second refractive index, and wherein the periodic arrangement of structures is configured such that the optical combiner produces, for the input signal incidence angle of greater than 20°, an output signal comprising a reflection peak, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872