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 .
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the present application.
Claim 1 is currently amended and claims 2-10 are original.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 20 November 2025 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 103 is improper because: (1) prior art reference of record Sato does not disclose that the dielectric wires are not configured to transmit light of a first polarization direction, (2) the present specification recites that s-polarized light is transmitted and p-polarized light is reflected, while para. 6 in the background section of prior art reference Sato states that in conventional WGPs, TM light is transmitted and TE light is reflected, and (3) prior art reference Ellenbogen has no recitation regarding the specific structure of a plasmonic antenna and how to arrange the metal antenna with a grating. None of these arguments are persuasive.
Regarding the first argument, claim 1 does not recite or otherwise require that the dielectric wires by themselves transmit light of a first polarization direction. Rather, claim 1 requires that the high contrast grating in its entirety must transmit light of a first polarization direction. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below, Sato makes this disclosure.
Regarding the second argument, claim 1 does not recite that s-polarized light is transmitted and p-polarized light is reflected. Rather, all claim 1 requires is that light of a first polarization direction is transmitted and that light of a second polarization direction is reflected. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below, Sato makes this disclosure. In addition, paragraph 6 of Sato sets forth only what is known in the art and does not set forth or otherwise disclose a feature or characteristic of the device disclosed therein.
Regarding the third argument, this argument is merely conclusory in that it alleges only generally that prior art reference Ellenbogen does not disclose the structure of a plasmonic antenna. However, applicant does discuss specifically how it believes Ellenbogen fails to disclose a plasmonic metal antenna structure configured to reflect light of a second polarization direction, and that the first polarization direction is opposite to the second polarization direction, as specifically recited in claim 1. In addition, the specific rationale or motivation to combine does not need to be explicitly described in prior art (see MPEP § 2144(I): “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 November 2025 was considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2008/0137188), of record, in view of Ellenbogen (US 2019/0265498), of record.
Re: claim 1, Sato discloses a substrate 11 (Fig. 1); and a high contrast grating 12 on the substrate (Fig. 1) and a metal antenna structure 13 interleaved with the high contrast grating (interleaved disclosed in Fig. 1), wherein the high contrast grating comprises a semiconductor grating or a dielectric grating (para. 31 discloses glass, PMMA, PC, PS, PET, PEN, etc.); and the high contrast grating is configured to transmit light of a first polarization direction (configuration disclosed in at least paras. 31, 35 & Fig. 1).
Sato does not explicitly disclose that the metal antenna structure is a plasmonic metal antenna structure and is configured to reflect light of a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction.
Ellenbogen discloses that the metal antenna structure is a plasmonic metal antenna structure 52 (Fig. 5; para. 116 discloses that element 52 is comprised of gold, silver, aluminum, etc., para. 123 discloses plasmonic, and para. 127 discloses antenna) and is configured to reflect light of a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction (paras. 136-137 disclose that element 52 “provides, at the output, an optical field…that has a first profile when the input field 54 has a first polarization, and another profile when the input field 54 has a second polarization” and that “the first and second polarizations are…orthogonal to each other.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the metal antenna structure be a plasmonic metal antenna structure and be configured to reflect light of a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction, as disclosed by Ellenbogen, applied to the device disclosed by Sato for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations associated with the optical system.
Re: claim 2, Sato and Ellenbogen disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Sato further discloses that the metal antenna structure 13 is located in at least one of the bottom, left sidewall and right sidewall of a high contrast grating gap 15 (Fig. 1 disclosed left and right sidewalls), and where Ellenbogen discloses that the metal antenna structure is plasmonic (para. 123).
Re: claim 3, Sato and Ellenbogen disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Sato further discloses that the metal antenna structure 13 is located on at least one of the top, left sidewall and right sidewall of each high contrast grating bar 12 (Fig. 1 discloses left and right sidewalls); or the plasmonic metal antenna structure is located on the top of each high contrast grating bar.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Ellenbogen and Altug (US 2013/0148194), of record.
Re: claim 4, Sato and Ellenbogen disclose the limitations of claim 1; however, neither reference explicitly discloses that a first adhesive layer is further provided between the substrate and the high contrast grating, and/or between the substrate and the plasmonic metal antenna structure.
Altug discloses that a first adhesive layer is further provided between the substrate and the high contrast grating, and/or between the substrate and the plasmonic metal antenna structure (para. 22 discloses adhesive layer is between the support and the plasmonic antenna structures).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first adhesive layer be further provided between the substrate and the high contrast grating, and/or between the substrate and the plasmonic metal antenna structure, as disclosed by Altug, applied to the device disclosed by Sato and Ellenbogen for the purpose of ensuring that the layers of the device do not separate and for fixing the positions of the layers of the device with respect to each other.
Re: claim 5, Sato, Ellenbogen , and Altug disclose the limitations of claim 4. While none of the references explicitly discloses that the first adhesive layer comprises any one of a SiN layer, an Al2O3 layer, and a SiO2 layer, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness (MPEP §2144.07).
Re: claim 6, Sato, Ellenbogen , and Altug disclose the limitations of claim 4. While none of the references explicitly discloses that a second adhesive layer is further provided between the plasmonic metal antenna structure and the high contrast grating, and/or between the plasmonic metal antenna structure and the first adhesive layer, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP §2144.04). Currently there is no evidence of record that recites or suggest any new and unexpected results are produced by the presence of a second adhesive layer.
Re: claim 7, Sato, Ellenbogen, and Altug disclose the limitations of claim 6, and Altug further discloses that an adhesive layer comprises any one of a Ti layer, a Ge layer, and an Al layer (para. 265 discloses titanium).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, in view of Ellenbogen, Altug, and Bozhevolnyi (US 2002/0021445), of record.
Re: claim 8, Sato, Ellenbogen, and Altug disclose the limitations of claim 6; however, none of the references explicitly discloses that the outer surface of the high contrast grating and the outer surface of the plasmonic metal antenna structure are covered with a protective layer.
Bozhevolnyi discloses the outer surface of the high contrast grating and the outer surface of the plasmonic metal antenna structure are covered with a protective layer (para. 131; Figs. 2A-2D).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer surface of the high contrast grating and the outer surface of the plasmonic metal antenna structure be covered with a protective layer, as disclosed by Bozhevolnyi, applied to the device disclosed by Sato, Ellenbogen, and Altug for the purpose of protecting the antenna structure from abrasions, scratches, and/or environmental or physical impact damage.
Re: claim 9, Sato, Ellenbogen, Altug, and Bozhevolnyi disclose the limitations of claim 8, and Bozhevolnyi further discloses that grooves of the plasmonic metal antenna structure and/or grooves formed by gaps between the plasmonic metal antenna structure and the high contrast grating are further filled with the protective layer, respectively (para. 131 states “the metal film 12, and any periodic modulations formed thereon can be protected…by coating”).
Re: claim 10, Sato, Ellenbogen, Altug, and Bozhevolnyi disclose the limitations of claim 8, and while none of the references specifically discloses that the protective layer comprises any one of a SiN layer, an Al203 layer, and a SiO2 layer, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie indicator of obviousness (MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871