DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 2 and 12 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.
The term “minimal” in claims 2 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal” 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. For examination purposes, examiner assumes that the border region is no more than double width of the metasurface chip as shown in Fig. 2 of the instant application.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 2020/0259307).
Regarding Claim 1, Sharma discloses a metasurface module comprising:
a secondary substrate (Fig. 15, substrate 1520, Paragraph 0120); and
a metasurface chip mounted on the secondary substrate (Fig. 15, nanopillars 1540 and 1550 configured as a metamaterial, Paragraph 0120),
wherein the secondary substrate laterally extends from all sides of the metasurface chip to completely surround the metasurface chip (Fig. 15, the substrate 1520 completely surround the nanopillars 1540 and 1550, Paragraph 0120).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the metasurface chip has a minimal border region (Fig. 15, the substrate 1520 completely surround the nanopillars 1540 and 1550 and provides a border region, Paragraph 0120).
Regarding Claim 3, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the secondary substrate is coated with a coating (Paragraph 0044, antireflective coating).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the coating is at least one selected from the group consisting of: an opaque optical aperture, an anti-reflection coating (Paragraph 0044, antireflective coating), an optical filter coating (Paragraph 0045, lines 11-15, coating may change color of the light), an electrical circuit, and a conductive layer.
Regarding Claim 8, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the metasurface chip is mounted to the secondary substrate by an optically transparent bond (Paragraph 0145, lines 17-19, the nanostructures are deposited on the substrate, no bonding material was used, so it would be optically transparent).
Regarding Claim 9, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein further comprising a housing, wherein the secondary substrate is mounted to the housing (Paragraph 0116, Fig. 14, device 1400 represents the housing).
Regarding Claim 10, Sharma discloses a metasurface module comprising
a metasurface chip completely surrounded by a polymer material (Fig. 14, metamaterial layer 1430, surrounded by 1440 and 1410, Paragraph 0116, Paragraph 0131, 8-13 gaps filled with a polymer material).
Regarding Claim 11, Sharma discloses a metasurface module comprising wherein the polymer material is coplanar with a top surface of the metasurface chip (Fig. 14, the top of the metamaterial layer 1430 is coplanar with the top of 1440 polymer material),
Regarding Claim 13, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the metasurface chip is coated with a coating (Paragraph 0044, antireflective coating).
Regarding Claim 18, Sharma discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein further comprising a housing, wherein the metasurface chip is mounted to the housing through the polymer material (Paragraph 0116, Fig. 14, device 1400 represents the housing).
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0259307) in view of Hunter (US 2017/0307794).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Sharma discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical filter coating comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: a high-pass coating, a low-pass coating, and a band-pass coating.
However, Hunter, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
the optical filter coating comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: a high-pass coating, a low-pass coating, and a band-pass coating (Paragraphs 0047-0048, bandpass thin film coatings), for the purpose of providing tinted sunglasses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the module of Sharma with the optical filter coating comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of: a high-pass coating, a low-pass coating, and a band-pass coating of Hunter, for the purpose of providing tinted sunglasses.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2020/0259307) in view of Fergason (US 5,519,522).
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, Sharma discloses as is set forth above but does not specifically disclose wherein the conductive layer is configured to provide eye safety.
However, Fergason, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the conductive layer is configured to provide eye safety (Col. 24, lines 1-10, indium tin oxide layers protect the eyes of the wearer), for the purpose of blocking infrared light while transmitting visible light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the module of Sharma with the wherein the conductive layer is configured to provide eye safety of, Fergason, for the purpose of blocking infrared light while transmitting visible light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claims 7 and 17, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a module including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations wherein the coating includes patterned features and the metasurface chip is aligned with the patterned features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Riley, Jr. et al. (US 2020/0271941), Riley, Jr. et al. (US 2019/0064532), Ellenbogen et al. (US 2020/0284960), Devlin et al. (US 2021/0028215), and Devlin et al. (US 2022/0052093) are cited to show similar modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872