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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new rejections set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because the limitations “the outer surface of the high contrast grating” and “the outer surface of the plasmonic metal antenna structure” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Re: claims 1-10, The term “high contrast” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high contrast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (see MPEP § 2173.05.b).
Re: claims 2-10, the meaning of the limitation “polarizer” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the term refers to the high contrast grating polarizer recited in claim 1 or whether some other polarizer is being referred to. For the purpose of examining the present application, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to the high contrast grating polarizer recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banerjee (US20160085008).
Re: claim 1, Banerjee discloses a substrate 24 (Fig. 5); and a high contrast grating 30 on the substrate (disposition disclosed in Fig. 5) and a plasmonic metal antenna structure 26 (plasmonic & metal disclosed in para. 39) interleaved with the high contrast grating (Fig. 5 discloses interleaving), wherein the high contrast grating comprises a semiconductor grating or a dielectric grating (para. 41 discloses semiconductor); and the high contrast grating is configured to transmit S-polarized light, the plasmonic metal antenna structure is configured to reflect P-polarized light (paras. 30, 42), and S-polarized light is orthogonal to P-polarized light (s-polarized light and p-polarized light are inherently orthogonal; see also para. 32).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee in view of Sato (US 2008/0137188), of record.
Re: claim 2, Banerjee discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Banerjee does not disclose that the plasmonic metal antenna structure is located in at least one of the bottom, left sidewall and right sidewall of a high contrast grating gap.
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).
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 plasmonic metal antenna structure be located in at least one of the bottom, left sidewall and right sidewall of a high contrast grating gap, as disclosed by Sato, applied to the device disclosed by Banerjee for the purpose of optimizing the extinction ratio and transmission efficiency for a predetermined application.
Re: claim 3, Banerjee discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Banerjee does not explicitly disclose that the metal antenna structure is located on at least one of the top, left sidewall and right sidewall of each high contrast grating bar; or the plasmonic metal antenna structure is located on the top of each high contrast grating bar.
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.
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 metal antenna structure be located on at least one of the top, left sidewall and right sidewall of each high contrast grating bar; or the plasmonic metal antenna structure be located on the top of each high contrast grating bar, as disclosed by Sato, applied to the device disclosed in Banerjee for the purpose of optimizing the extinction ratio and transmission efficiency for a predetermined application
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee in view of Altug (US 2013/0148194), of record.
Re: claim 4, Banerjee discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Banerjee does not explicitly disclose 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 Banerjee 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, Banerjee 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). 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 first adhesive layer comprise any one of a SiN layer, an Al2O3 layer, and a SiO2 layer for the purpose of utilizing a comparatively low cost, transparent, and non-conducting material to serve a bonding function.
Re: claim 6, Banerjee 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. ). 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 second adhesive layer be 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 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 7, Banerjee 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 Banerjee, in view of Altug and Bozhevolnyi (US 2002/0021445), of record.
Re: claim 8, Banerjee 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 Banerjee and Altug for the purpose of protecting the antenna structure from abrasions, scratches, and/or environmental or physical impact damage.
Re: claim 9, Banerjee, 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, Banerjee, 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). 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 first adhesive layer comprise any one of a SiN layer, an Al2O3 layer, and a SiO2 layer for the purpose of utilizing a comparatively low cost, transparent, and non-conducting material to serve a bonding function.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights