DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response To First Action On Merits
The 8 DEC 2025 amendments to claims 1-3, 6, and 10 have been entered.
The 8 DEC 2025 cancellation of claims 8-9 has been entered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the following reason(s):
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 1’s: “a plurality of third pillar elements formed within the second region on the substrate, … the plurality of third pillar elements has a third sectional profile, the second sectional profile and the third sectional profile are of different trapezoidal shapes.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted, 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.
Applicant is advised to employ services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. PTO no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and all subsequent depending claims therein are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not support the following: “a plurality of third pillar elements formed within the second region on the substrate, … the plurality of third pillar elements has a third sectional profile, the second sectional profile and the third sectional profile are of different trapezoidal shapes. See intrinsic evidence at FIGS. 4 to 7 and paragraphs [0032] to [0035] and [0038] of US 20240266393, pre-grant publication of the claimed invention.
New Grounds of Rejection
A new ground of rejection, prior art reference Sun et al. (US 20230221489), appears below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
See previous Office action for a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (CN 216670309; below, “SUN” – previously cited 11 OCT 2023 IDS noted prior art reference) with evidence from and/or in view of SUN et al. (US 20230221489; below, “489”). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known device” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 1, insofar as supported, SUN, in FIG. 3 and related text, e.g., Abstract, [0001] to [0071], discloses a metasurface structure (300), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
802
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (302) having a first region (310), a second region (330), and a third region (320) not overlapping with one another;
a plurality of first pillar elements (312) formed within the first region (310) on the substrate (302);
a plurality of second pillar elements (332) formed within the second region (330) on the substrate (302);
a plurality of third pillar elements (336) formed within the second region (330) on the substrate (100), wherein the plurality of first pillar elements (312) has a first sectional profile, the plurality of second pillar elements (322/332) has a second sectional profile, the plurality of third pillar elements (336) has a third sectional profile, wherein the first sectional profile is of a rectangular shape (e.g., 312 parallelogram section profile), the second sectional profile and the third sectional profile are of different trapezoidal shapes (e.g., [0057]-[0064]).
SUN and 489 are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify SUN as taught by 489 because 489 shows a trapezoidal shape to be a functionally equivalent alternate expedient (e.g., [0057]).
RE 2, insofar as supported, modified SUN discloses the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first pillar elements (312), the plurality of second pillar elements (322/332), and the plurality of third pillar elements (336) comprise amorphous silicon (e.g., [0053]).
RE 3, insofar as supported, modified SUN discloses the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first pillar elements (312), the plurality of second pillar elements (322/332), and the plurality of third pillar elements (336) are surrounded by an encapsulation material (306).
RE 4, insofar as supported, modified SUN discloses the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 3, wherein the encapsulation material (306) comprises silicon oxide (e.g., [0068]).
RE 5, insofar as supported, modified SUN discloses the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 1, wherein the substrate (302) comprises silicon (e.g., [0036]).
RE 6, insofar as supported, modified SUN discloses the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 1 further comprising:
a dielectric layer (e.g., dielectric reflective layer) on the substrate (302), wherein the plurality of first pillar elements (312), the plurality of second pillar elements (322/332), and the plurality of third pillar elements (336) are disposed on the dielectric layer (e.g., [0067], [0068]).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over SUN with evidence from and/or in view of 489 with further evidence from and/or in further view of Abdollahramezani et al. (US 20230288773; below, “Abdollahramezani” – previously cited). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 7, insofar as supported, modified SUN is silent regarding the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 6, wherein the dielectric layer (110) comprises silicon oxide. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a dielectric layer (110) comprises silicon oxide; since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As evidence, see Abdollahramezani’s 240 of Fig. 3B.
RE 10, insofar as supported, modified SUN is silent regarding the metasurface structure (300) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first pillar elements (312), the plurality of second pillar elements (322/332), and the plurality of third pillar elements (336) have substantially the same height (FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
922
1108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of modified SUN wherein the plurality of first pillar elements, the plurality of second pillar elements, and the plurality of third pillar elements have substantially the same height, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As evidence, see Abdollahramezani’s 220 of Fig. 3A.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ 8 DEC 2025 rebuttal arguments (REM pages 4-6) are found to be unpersuasive in light of the arguments and positions detailed in the claim rejections supra. Additionally, the new ground of rejection was necessary due to the applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments vis-à-vis patentability have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 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 Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. 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.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815