DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 7-8), filed 04/24/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 as anticipated by Yu et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Yu do[es] not disclose ‘wherein the structures comprise depressions extending into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction in a plane of the first layer, wherein every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction, wherein the depressions form a rectangular lattice having a rectangular unit cell’ as recited by independent claim 1 as amended.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, Yu discloses a first layer comprising a periodic two-dimensional arrangement of structures arranged to support resonance (c. 3 of Yu: two-dimensional resonant metasurface; c. 5: a symmetry-breaking perturbation applied to a PCS can produce optical resonances under illumination; c. 4: multiple sets of meta units separated into multiple layers 103; see FIGS. 2A, 3A, 4A-C) for an input signal of a target wavelength (c. 8 of Yu: 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)), wherein the structures have a first refractive index (c. 2 of Yu: the meta units can include a passive dielectric material of silicon, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, silicon nitride, or combinations thereof).
Secondly, Yu discloses that said structures comprise depressions extending into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction in a plane of the first layer (see e.g., FIGS. 4A & 4C annotated and reproduced below, showing depressions into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction “RD” in a plane of the first layer), wherein every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction (c. 9-10: orthogonal symmetry-breaking perturbations to a single metasurface… applying a dimerizing perturbation (i.e., a perturbation that doubles the period along a real-space dimension) results in a quasi-BIC mode controlled by the magnitude of the perturbation δ, and excitable from free space with a finite radiative Q-factor that varies as Q∝1/δ2 to a lattice of apertures…the rectangular apertures have a dimension of (L−δ)×(L+δ)=125 nm×375 nm; see FIGS. 4A & 4C showing lateral shift in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction via angle α and perturbation δ, i.e., shift is equivalent to (L- δ)*(cosα); see 4C annotated and reproduced below, showing every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction “ND”).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
191
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
233
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thirdly, Yu discloses that the depressions form a rectangular lattice having a rectangular unit cell (c. 7, 11-12: a rectangular lattice…meta-unit libraries of rectangular apertures; c. 15: The meta units consist of rectangular apertures in silicon; c.7: a rectangular lattice). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are insufficient to rebut the Examiner’s factual findings, and the Examiner maintains that Yu discloses and therefore anticipates each and every limitation of the newly-amended claim 1 (as detailed further below).
2. Applicant’s remarks directed to the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 as anticipated by Jones have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Yu et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 04/24/2026), as detailed below.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 12 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. wherein the structures comprise depressions extending into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction in a plane of the first layer (see e.g., FIGS. 4A & 4C annotated and reproduced below, showing depressions into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction “RD” in a plane of the first layer), wherein every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction (c. 9-10: orthogonal symmetry-breaking perturbations to a single metasurface… applying a dimerizing perturbation (i.e., a perturbation that doubles the period along a real-space dimension) results in a quasi-BIC mode controlled by the magnitude of the perturbation δ, and excitable from free space with a finite radiative Q-factor that varies as Q∝1/δ2 to a lattice of apertures…the rectangular apertures have a dimension of (L−δ)×(L+δ)=125 nm×375 nm; see FIGS. 4A & 4C showing lateral shift in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction via angle α and perturbation δ, i.e., shift is equivalent to (L- δ)*(cosα); see 4C annotated and reproduced below, showing every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction “ND”), wherein the depressions form a rectangular lattice having a rectangular unit cell (c. 7, 11-12: a rectangular lattice…meta-unit libraries of rectangular apertures; c. 15: The meta units consist of rectangular apertures in silicon; c.7: a rectangular lattice);
PNG
media_image1.png
373
191
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
233
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
C. 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);
D. 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 quasi-bound states in the continuum (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 12, Yu discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, as above. Yu further discloses: wherein the perturbed lattice of depressions comprises a first lattice constant ax in a first direction in a plane of a surface of the first layer including the perturbed lattice of depressions and a second lattice constant ay in a second direction in the plane of the surface of the first layer including the perturbed lattice of depressions, wherein a ratio of the second lattice constant ay in the second direction in the plane of an unperturbed lattice of depressions to the first lattice constant ax in the first direction in the plane of the unperturbed lattice of depressions is r multiplied by the square root of 3, and wherein r is from 0.8 to 1.2 (see FIGS. 4A-C; c. 11: meta unit has dimensions of 450 nm×900 nm (i.e., r = 1.16 which satisfies claimed ratio condition)).
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, 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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2018/0052501 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 11,675,219 B1).
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).
D. wherein the structures comprise depressions extending into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction in a plane of the first layer, wherein the depressions form a rectangular lattice having a rectangular unit cell (¶0653: The protrusions 7520 may be ridges, which are laterally elongated into and out of the page and define trenches [depressions] between neighboring protrusions; ¶0662: The plurality of nano antennas 7814 are arranged as a two-dimensional array in the X-Y plane where each nanobeam/antenna may have a rectangular shape; see FIGS. 75 & 77-78 showing structures comprise depressions (between 7520 in FIG. 75) extending into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction in a plane of the first layer, wherein the depressions form a rectangular lattice having a rectangular unit cell (FIGS. 77-78)).
Jones does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction.
Yu is related to Jones with respect to an optical combiner as claimed (see prior art rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Yu supra), and Yu teaches: the structures comprise depressions extending into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction in a plane of the first layer (see e.g., FIGS. 4A & 4C annotated and reproduced earlier, showing depressions into the first layer and arranged in rows along a first direction “RD” in a plane of the first layer), wherein every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction (c. 9-10: orthogonal symmetry-breaking perturbations to a single metasurface… applying a dimerizing perturbation (i.e., a perturbation that doubles the period along a real-space dimension) results in a quasi-BIC mode controlled by the magnitude of the perturbation δ, and excitable from free space with a finite radiative Q-factor that varies as Q∝1/δ2 to a lattice of apertures…the rectangular apertures have a dimension of (L−δ)×(L+δ)=125 nm×375 nm; see FIGS. 4A & 4C showing lateral shift in the plane of the first layer and normal to the first direction via angle α and perturbation δ, i.e., shift is equivalent to (L- δ)*(cosα); see 4C annotated and reproduced earlier, showing every other row of the depressions is shifted laterally in a second direction “ND”).
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 combiner of Jones in view of Yu to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a lateral shift of row(s) is known and would be selected to support a quasi-BIC mode that spectrally shape the light but leave untouched the direction and wavefront shape of the light with a finite Q-factor controllable by the strength of the shift, thereby resulting in a nonlocal metasurface that can modify the light at a plurality of predetermined wavelength ranges associated with a plurality of optical resonances and simultaneously transmit the light outside of the predetermined wavelength ranges without distortion, as taught in col.’s 2, 5 and 10 of Yu.
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, Jones discloses the optical combiner according to Claim 1, 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 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (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 on 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
Prosecution Insights