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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/225,099 filed on July 21, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026 has been entered.
The amended claims submitted February 11, 2026 in response to the office action mailed December 16, 2025 are under consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending and allowed, all of which are amended at least by the amendments to the independent claims.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings of the previous office action have been overcome by the submission of replacement drawings February 11, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 “than field of view” should be “than the field of view”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that claim 17 was intended to be amended in the same manner as claim 7, but the portion of lines 3-4 “decreases as the periodicity of the nanostructure increases” was not properly lined through. Additionally in line 4 “than field of view” should be “than the field of view”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC § 112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. However, the following 35 USC §112 issues are raised by the amendments to the claims.
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 9 and 19 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the term “uniform” in claims 9 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniform” 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. In the instant case, Figs. 6A-6E and paragraph [0046] discuss the intensity nonuniformity of devices with nanostructures being rectangles with curved corners having different corner radii where paragraph [0046] defines:
PNG
media_image1.png
54
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, as shown in Fig. 6A a non-uniformity of zero is never achieved and corner radii between 0.25 µm and 0.5 µm apparently have acceptable uniformity given claim 14, but include measured non-uniformities greater than 0.1 and as much as 0.4. Alternatively, Fig. 8 schematically depicts the uniformity of the diffraction pattern improving due to the two predetermined regions, but no numeric or measurable values are connected thereto. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the degree of uniformity required by the claim.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein: illumination of the nanostructure layer by diverging light of the target wavelength X generates a uniform diffraction pattern” is drawn to a result obtained, where it is unclear what structures are or are not required to achieve such a function. From MPEP §2173.05(g) “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. These factors are examples of points to be considered when determining whether language is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting.”
In the instant case, (1) due to the indefinite nature of “uniform” there is no clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter. That “diverging” is also not limited to any particular degree further obfuscates the meaning of the claim (2) the language only states a result obtained, and (3) the specification discusses both the corner radii and the configuration of two predetermined regions as potentially contributing to improved uniformity, thus it is unclear which of these structures is or is not necessary to meet the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. US 2018/0246262 A1 (hereafter Zhan) in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0102563 (hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan teaches “A diffractive optical element (DOE) (low-contrast metasurface of Fig. 1a which is a diffractive optical element because it operates diffractively, not refractively, see e.g. paragraph [0002]), comprising:
a substrate layer (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “substrate”); and
a nanostructure layer (the layer containing the nanosized posts e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) comprising nanostructures,
the nanostructure layer further comprising:
a first predetermined region of the nanostructure layer (see Figs. 11a and 11b that show the presence of first regions with a first periodicity and nominal structure size), the first predetermined region comprising a first predetermined periodicity (paragraph [0111]: square lattice with periodicity 443 nm) and a first nominal nanostructure size (paragraph [0111] “We then quantize the phase profile into six linear steps from 0 to 2π corresponding to cylindrical posts with diameters d ranging from 192 nm to 420 nm” Let one of the six quantized steps be the first nominal nanostructure size),
the first predetermined periodicity being greater than a target wavelength λ and less than 3λ (paragraph [0053]: “The periodicity can also be proportionally defined by the affected wavelength. With regard to periodicity, in one embodiment, the plurality of cylindrical posts have a periodicity in a range of 0.25 times the first wavelength to 1.0 times the first wavelength” where possible target wavelengths across the visible and IR spectrums from 400 nm to 1550 nm are listed in paragraph [0052]. Given that the target wavelength is within a wavelength band, then a periodicity that is 1.0 times a first target wavelength is also greater than 1.0 for a second target wavelength in the same band that is slightly smaller than the first target wavelength. For the periodicity of 443 nm, this periodicity is 1.1 λ for a second target wavelength of 403 nm, and is 1.05 λ for a third target wavelength of 422 nm), with the target wavelength λ in the visible wavelength band or the near-infrared wavelength band (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm, which essentially spans the visible and near-IR spectra.” In the above case, for example 403 nm or 422 nm),
a second predetermined region of the nanostructure layer (see Figs. 11a and 11b that show the presence of second regions with the first periodicity and a second nominal structure size) comprising … a second nominal nanostructure size (paragraph [0111] “We then quantize the phase profile into six linear steps from 0 to 2π corresponding to cylindrical posts with diameters d ranging from 192 nm to 420 nm”. Let a second one of the six quantized steps be the second nominal nanostructure size),…
and the first nominal nanostructure size differs from the second nominal nanostructure size (there are six quantized steps in size that are different from one another),
wherein illumination of the nanostructure layer by the target wavelength λ generates a diffraction pattern (paragraphs [0057]-[0058]: “[0057] The optical activity arises when light of the first wavelength (or band comprising the first wavelength) impinges on the metasurface. In one embodiment, as disclosed in the EXAMPLES, the metasurface is configured to provide the desired optical activity when the light impinges on the metasurface… the optical activity is selected from the group consisting of diffraction and reflection. As used herein, the term “optical activity” is primarily used to describe diffraction of light as it passes through the metasurface and is affected by the plurality of posts.”).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “a second predetermined region of the nanostructure layer comprising a second predetermined periodicity… the second predetermined periodicity being greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ and the first predetermined periodicity differs from the second predetermined periodicity.”
Wang teaches microstructured pillar or hole array. In fig. 45 and paragraph [0233] Wang teaches: “a microstructured pillar and/or hole array 4500 having both variable diameters (ranging from 100 nm to 5000 nm) and variable spacing (ranging from 100 nm to 10000 nm).”
Wang further teaches (paragraph [0099]): “The center to center distance L of the structures 110 can be between λ/n.sub.1 and λ/n.sub.2 or approximately 100-2000 nm, which is referred to as the near-wavelength regime. The diffraction regime is where L (one cycle) is greater than the wavelength, while the subwavelength regime is where L is less than the wavelength.” and (paragraph [0243]): “According to some embodiments, the dimension and spacing of the voids are optimized to reduce scattering losses and to provide ease of manufacturing. Also, the void dimensions and spacing can be adjusted for certain applications… For coupling applications, the diffraction regime may be the microstructure (voids and material) dimensions and spacing. It can also be a mixture of two or more regimes to optimize a device performance.”
(paragraph [0236]): “A patterned grating effect can be used to further optimize the optical path lengths and increase the enhancement factor for absorption coefficient. Other uses include forming a light trap by using constructive and destructive optical interference, generating a fresnel lens, matching the mode of the optical signal, forming a filter in wavelength selectivity in wavelength division multiplexing for example, or as a wavelength selector for spectroscopy and sensor applications. It should be noted that by varying the dimensions and spacing of the microstructured pillars and holes in an array can also result in constructive and destructive optical interferences that can also increase the enhancement factor of the absorption coefficient, improve light trapping, create fresnel lens, mode matching of radiation patterns of the optical signal.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two regions to have both different sizes and different periodicities as taught by Wang in the device of Zhan to achieve a variety of desirable optical effects as taught by Wang (paragraph [0236]).
Note that the limitation “the second predetermined periodicity being greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ” is considered to be met by the combination of references, because both Zhan and Wang teach that the periodicities can be greater than or equal to the wavelength (see explanation for Zhan above, and paragraphs [0099] and [0243] of Wang).
Regarding claim 2, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches “The DOE of claim 1,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein the nanostructures comprise pillar-shaped nanostructures (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) formed on a surface of the substrate layer (see Fig. 1a and e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts formed from a first material on a substrate”), holes formed in the substrate layer (this is optional), or a combination thereof (this is optional).”
Regarding claim 3, the Zhan -Wang combination teaches “the DOE of claim 2,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein a size of the nanostructures is greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ (paragraph [0047]: “the plurality of cylindrical posts have a thickness in a range of 0.5 times the first wavelength to 1.0 times the first wavelength.” and/or paragraph [0045]: “wherein the individual posts of the plurality of cylindrical posts have a diameter in a range of ⅛ of the first wavelength to ⅔ of the first wavelength.” Both of these are considered to meet the limitation wherein a size of the nanostructures is greater than λ and less than 3λ because the target wavelengths in paragraph [0052] span selected ranges, such that, for example a diameter of 460 nm, which is 2/3 of 690 nm, is also 1.15 times 400 nm. Thus Zhan discloses the diameters and thicknesses of the posts with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.), with the target wavelength λ in the visible wavelength band or the near-infrared wavelength band (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm, which essentially spans the visible and near-IR spectra.”).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of an ellipse, a square, or a rectangle.” Instead teaching cylindrical posts with a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a circle, previously included in the list of claimed shapes.
Wang teaches “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of an ellipse, a square, or a rectangle (paragraph [0137]: “According to some embodiments, the shape of the pillars can be circular, oval, rectangle, chevron, hexagon, double-circle, crescent, star, or any shape to optimize absorption and collection efficiency.” emphasis added).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the shape to be an oval or a rectangle as taught by Wang in the DOE of the Zhan – Wang combination because Wang teaches that these shapes can be chosen to optimize absorption and collection efficiency (Wang paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 5, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches “The DOE of claim 2,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein the nanostructures comprise pillar-shaped nanostructures (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) formed on the surface of the substrate layer (see Fig. 1a and e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts formed from a first material on a substrate”), and
a refractive index of the nanostructures (paragraph [0049]: “The first material has a refractive index of 2.1 or less. This includes CMOS-compatible materials such as … silicon nitride (RI ˜2.0).” and paragraph [0093]: “To validate our theory, we fabricated and characterized metasurface lenses and vortex beam generators in silicon nitride (n ˜2).”) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate layer (paragraph [0049]: “silicon dioxide (RI ˜1.5)” paragraph [0093]: “on a 500 μm thick quartz substrate” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that quartz is silicon dioxide. Thus the refractive index of the silicon nitride nanostructures of 2.0 is greater than the refractive index of the silicon dioxide substrate of 1.5).”
Regarding claim 6, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches the DOE of claim 2, however, Zhan fails to teach “wherein the nanostructures comprise holes formed in the substrate layer, and a refractive index of the nanostructures is less than a refractive index of the substrate layer.”
Wang teaches “wherein the nanostructures comprise holes (e.g. paragraph [0080]: “As used herein the terms “microstructures” and “microstructured” refer to: pillars, voids, holes and mesas, of various shapes and sizes having at least one dimension in the micrometer scale, submicrometer scale, and/or sub-wavelength scale.” emphasis added) formed in the substrate layer, and a refractive index of the nanostructures is less than a refractive index of the substrate layer (e.g. paragraph [0082]: “holes (which can be filled with low index material, and/or regrowth)”).”
Zhan discloses the claimed invention except that nanoposts are used instead of nanoholes. Wang shows that microstructured holes and posts are equivalent structures in the art. Therefore, because these two meta-optical nanostructures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute nano-holes as taught by Wang for the nanoposts of Zhan, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
When making the above modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the refractive index of the nanostructures to be less than a refractive index of the substrate layer as taught by Wang in the device and method of the Zhan – Wang combination, because Wang teaches that such a selection is appropriate to the operation of a nano-hole based device.
Regarding claim 8, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches “The DOE of claim 7,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein the substrate layer comprises silicon dioxide (paragraph [0049]: “silicon dioxide (RI ˜1.5)” paragraph [0093]: “on a 500 μm thick quartz substrate” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that quartz is silicon dioxide), and
the nanostructures comprise pillar-shaped nanostructures (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) and comprise silicon nitride (paragraph [0049]: “The first material … includes CMOS-compatible materials such as … silicon nitride (RI ˜2.0).” and paragraph [0093]: “To validate our theory, we fabricated and characterized metasurface lenses and vortex beam generators in silicon nitride (n ˜2).”).
Regarding claim 9, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches “The DOE of claim 2, wherein:
illumination of the nanostructure layer by diverging light of the target wavelength λ generates a uniform diffraction pattern (the Zhan – Wang combination, introduced above, teaches a DOE having the claimed structures of claims 1 and 2. Thus the DOE of the Zhan – Wang combination generates a uniform diffraction pattern when illuminated by diverging light of the target wavelength λ at least in the sense of having greater uniformity of the diffraction pattern than would be achieved without the variations in size and periodicity. Note that the claim does not specify a particular divergence or a particular numerical value for the non-uniformity, and thus any structure which improves upon the uniformity is considered to meet the claim.).”
Regarding claim 11, Zhan teaches “A method to fabricate (see steps that follow) a diffractive optical element (DOE) (low-contrast metasurface of Fig. 1a which is a diffractive optical element because it operates diffractively, not refractively, see e.g. paragraph [0002]), the method comprising:
forming a substrate layer (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “substrate”); and
forming a nanostructure layer (the layer containing the nanosized posts e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) comprising nanostructures
the nanostructure layer further comprising:
a first predetermined region of the nanostructure layer (see Figs. 11a and 11b that show the presence of first regions with a first periodicity and nominal structure size), the first predetermined region comprising a first predetermined periodicity (paragraph [0111]: square lattice with periodicity 443 nm) and a first nominal nanostructure size (paragraph [0111] “We then quantize the phase profile into six linear steps from 0 to 2π corresponding to cylindrical posts with diameters d ranging from 192 nm to 420 nm” Let one of the six quantized steps be the first nominal nanostructure size),
the first predetermined periodicity being greater than a target wavelength λ and less than 3λ (paragraph [0053]: “The periodicity can also be proportionally defined by the affected wavelength. With regard to periodicity, in one embodiment, the plurality of cylindrical posts have a periodicity in a range of 0.25 times the first wavelength to 1.0 times the first wavelength” where possible target wavelengths across the visible and IR spectrums from 400 nm to 1550 nm are listed in paragraph [0052]. Given that the target wavelength is within a wavelength band, then a periodicity that is 1.0 times a first target wavelength is also greater than 1.0 for a second target wavelength in the same band that is slightly smaller than the first target wavelength. For the periodicity of 443 nm, this periodicity is 1.1 λ for a second target wavelength of 403 nm, and is 1.05 λ for a third target wavelength of 422 nm), with the target wavelength λ in the visible wavelength band or the near-infrared wavelength band (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm, which essentially spans the visible and near-IR spectra.” In the above case, for example 403 nm or 422 nm),
a second predetermined region of the nanostructure layer (see Figs. 11a and 11b that show the presence of second regions with the first periodicity and a second nominal structure size) comprising … a second nominal nanostructure size (paragraph [0111] “We then quantize the phase profile into six linear steps from 0 to 2π corresponding to cylindrical posts with diameters d ranging from 192 nm to 420 nm”. Let a second one of the six quantized steps be the second nominal nanostructure size),…
and the first nominal nanostructure size differs from the second nominal nanostructure size (there are six quantized steps in size that are different from one another),
wherein illumination of the nanostructure layer by the target wavelength λ generates a diffraction pattern (paragraphs [0057]-[0058]: “[0057] The optical activity arises when light of the first wavelength (or band comprising the first wavelength) impinges on the metasurface. In one embodiment, as disclosed in the EXAMPLES, the metasurface is configured to provide the desired optical activity when the light impinges on the metasurface… the optical activity is selected from the group consisting of diffraction and reflection. As used herein, the term “optical activity” is primarily used to describe diffraction of light as it passes through the metasurface and is affected by the plurality of posts.”).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “a second predetermined region of the nanostructure layer comprising a second predetermined periodicity… the second predetermined periodicity being greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ and the first predetermined periodicity differs from the second predetermined periodicity.”
Wang teaches microstructured pillar or hole array. In fig. 45 and paragraph [0233] Wang teaches: “a microstructured pillar and/or hole array 4500 having both variable diameters (ranging from 100 nm to 5000 nm) and variable spacing (ranging from 100 nm to 10000 nm).”
Wang further teaches (paragraph [0099]): “The center to center distance L of the structures 110 can be between λ/n.sub.1 and λ/n.sub.2 or approximately 100-2000 nm, which is referred to as the near-wavelength regime. The diffraction regime is where L (one cycle) is greater than the wavelength, while the subwavelength regime is where L is less than the wavelength.” and (paragraph [0243]): “According to some embodiments, the dimension and spacing of the voids are optimized to reduce scattering losses and to provide ease of manufacturing. Also, the void dimensions and spacing can be adjusted for certain applications… For coupling applications, the diffraction regime may be the microstructure (voids and material) dimensions and spacing. It can also be a mixture of two or more regimes to optimize a device performance.”
(paragraph [0236]): “A patterned grating effect can be used to further optimize the optical path lengths and increase the enhancement factor for absorption coefficient. Other uses include forming a light trap by using constructive and destructive optical interference, generating a fresnel lens, matching the mode of the optical signal, forming a filter in wavelength selectivity in wavelength division multiplexing for example, or as a wavelength selector for spectroscopy and sensor applications. It should be noted that by varying the dimensions and spacing of the microstructured pillars and holes in an array can also result in constructive and destructive optical interferences that can also increase the enhancement factor of the absorption coefficient, improve light trapping, create fresnel lens, mode matching of radiation patterns of the optical signal.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two regions to have both different sizes and different periodicities as taught by Wang in the device of Zhan to achieve a variety of desirable optical effects as taught by Wang (paragraph [0236]).
Note that the limitation “the second predetermined periodicity being greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ” is considered to be met by the combination of references, because both Zhan and Wang teach that the periodicities can be greater than or equal to the wavelength (see explanation for Zhan above, and paragraphs [0099] and [0243] of Wang).
Regarding claim 12, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches “The method of claim 11,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein the nanostructures comprise pillar-shaped nanostructures (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) formed on the surface of the substrate layer (see Fig. 1a and e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts formed from a first material on a substrate”), holes formed within the substrate layer (this is optional), or a combination thereof (this is optional).”
Regarding claim 13, the Zhan -Wang combination teaches “the method of claim 12,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein a size of the nanostructures is greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ (paragraph [0047]: “the plurality of cylindrical posts have a thickness in a range of 0.5 times the first wavelength to 1.0 times the first wavelength.” and/or paragraph [0045]: “wherein the individual posts of the plurality of cylindrical posts have a diameter in a range of ⅛ of the first wavelength to ⅔ of the first wavelength.” Both of these are considered to meet the limitation wherein a size of the nanostructures is greater than λ and less than 3λ because the target wavelengths in paragraph [0052] span selected ranges, such that, for example a diameter of 460 nm, which is 2/3 of 690 nm, is also 1.15 times 400 nm. Thus Zhan discloses the diameters and thicknesses of the posts with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.), with the target wavelength λ in the visible wavelength band or the near-infrared wavelength band (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm, which essentially spans the visible and near-IR spectra.”).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of an ellipse, a square, or a rectangle.” Instead teaching cylindrical posts with a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a circle, previously included in the list of claimed shapes.
Wang teaches “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of an ellipse, a square, or a rectangle (paragraph [0137]: “According to some embodiments, the shape of the pillars can be circular, oval, rectangle, chevron, hexagon, double-circle, crescent, star, or any shape to optimize absorption and collection efficiency.” emphasis added).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the shape to be an oval or a rectangle as taught by Wang in the DOE of the Zhan – Wang combination because Wang teaches that these shapes can be chosen to optimize absorption and collection efficiency (Wang paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 15, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches “The method of claim 12,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein the nanostructures comprise pillar-shaped nanostructures (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) formed on the surface of the substrate layer (see Fig. 1a and e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts formed from a first material on a substrate”), and
a refractive index of the nanostructures (paragraph [0049]: “The first material has a refractive index of 2.1 or less. This includes CMOS-compatible materials such as … silicon nitride (RI ˜2.0).” and paragraph [0093]: “To validate our theory, we fabricated and characterized metasurface lenses and vortex beam generators in silicon nitride (n ˜2).”) is greater than a refractive index of the substrate layer (paragraph [0049]: “silicon dioxide (RI ˜1.5)” paragraph [0093]: “on a 500 μm thick quartz substrate” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that quartz is silicon dioxide. Thus the refractive index of the silicon nitride nanostructures of 2.0 is greater than the refractive index of the silicon dioxide substrate of 1.5).”
Regarding claim 16, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches the method of claim 12, however, Zhan fails to teach “wherein the nanostructures comprise holes formed in the substrate layer, and a refractive index of the nanostructures is less than a refractive index of the substrate layer.”
Wang teaches “wherein the nanostructures comprise holes (e.g. paragraph [0080]: “As used herein the terms “microstructures” and “microstructured” refer to: pillars, voids, holes and mesas, of various shapes and sizes having at least one dimension in the micrometer scale, submicrometer scale, and/or sub-wavelength scale.” emphasis added) formed in the substrate layer, and a refractive index of the nanostructures is less than a refractive index of the substrate layer (e.g. paragraph [0082]: “holes (which can be filled with low index material, and/or regrowth)”).”
Zhan discloses the claimed invention except that nanoposts are used instead of nanoholes. Wang shows that microstructured holes and posts are equivalent structures in the art. Therefore, because these two meta-optical nanostructures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute nano-holes as taught by Wang for the nanoposts of Zhan, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
When making the above modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the refractive index of the nanostructures to be less than a refractive index of the substrate layer as taught by Wang in the device and method of the Zhan – Wang combination, because Wang teaches that such a selection is appropriate to the operation of a nano-hole based device.
Regarding claim 18, the Zhan -Wang combination teaches “The method of claim 12,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein the substrate layer comprises silicon dioxide (paragraph [0049]: “silicon dioxide (RI ˜1.5)” paragraph [0093]: “on a 500 μm thick quartz substrate” One of ordinary skill in the art knows that quartz is silicon dioxide), and
the nanostructures comprise pillar-shaped nanostructures (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “a plurality of cylindrical posts”) and comprise silicon nitride (paragraph [0049]: “The first material … includes CMOS-compatible materials such as … silicon nitride (RI ˜2.0).” and paragraph [0093]: “To validate our theory, we fabricated and characterized metasurface lenses and vortex beam generators in silicon nitride (n ˜2).”).
Regarding claim 19, the Zhan -Wang combination teaches “The method of claim 12, wherein illumination of the nanostructure layer by diverging light of the target wavelength λ generates a uniform diffraction pattern (the Zhan – Wang combination, introduced above, teaches a DOE having the claimed structures of claims 1 and 2. Thus the DOE of the Zhan – Wang combination generates a uniform diffraction pattern when illuminated by diverging light of the target wavelength λ at least in the sense of having greater uniformity of the diffraction pattern than would be achieved without the variations in size and periodicity. Note that the claim does not specify a particular divergence or a particular numerical value for the non-uniformity, and thus any structure which improves upon the uniformity is considered to meet the claim.).”
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. US 2018/0246262 A1 (hereafter Zhan) in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0102563 (hereafter Wang) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Han et al. US 2019/0049235 A1 (hereafter Han).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zhan teaches the DOE of claim 2 and the method of claim 12, and Zhan further teaches “wherein a size of the nanostructures is greater than the target wavelength λ and less than 3λ (paragraph [0047]: “the plurality of cylindrical posts have a thickness in a range of 0.5 times the first wavelength to 1.0 times the first wavelength.” and/or paragraph [0045]: “wherein the individual posts of the plurality of cylindrical posts have a diameter in a range of ⅛ of the first wavelength to ⅔ of the first wavelength.” Both of these are considered to meet the limitation wherein a size of the nanostructures is greater than λ and less than 3λ because the target wavelengths in paragraph [0052] span selected ranges, such that, for example a diameter of 460 nm, which is 2/3 of 690 nm, is also 1.15 times 400 nm. Thus Zhan discloses the diameters and thicknesses of the posts with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.), with the target wavelength λ in the visible wavelength band or the near-infrared wavelength band (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm, which essentially spans the visible and near-IR spectra.”).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of an ellipse, a square, or a rectangle.” Instead teaching cylindrical posts with a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a circle, previously included in the list of claimed shapes.
Han teaches “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape Figs. 5A to 5D paragraph [0067]: “Referring to FIGS. 5A to 5D, the nano-post may have various shapes. The nano-post may have a pillar structure. For example, the nano-post may have a cross-section having one of a circular shape, an oval shape, a rectangular shape, and a square shape.”) of an ellipse (paragraph [0067]: an oval shape is considered to be the shape of an ellipse because ovals and ellipses would be indiscernible from one another when manufactured), a square (paragraph [0067]: “a square shape”), or a rectangle (paragraph [0067]: “a rectangular shape”).”
Han further teaches (paragraph [0067]): “When the nano-post has an asymmetric cross-section, the nano-post may be able to adjust light polarization.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the shape of the nanoposts of Zhan to have an ellipse-shaped cross section or a rectangle shapes cross section as taught by Han because Han teaches that circular, oval and rectangular shapes can all be used and that asymmetric shapes provide the additional functionality of adjusting the polarization of the light (Han paragraph [0067]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. US 2018/0246262 A1 (hereafter Zhan) in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0102563 (hereafter Wang) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Park et al. US 2021/0271000 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Park).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches the DOE of claim 2 and the method of claim 12, however, Zhan fails to teach “wherein the nanostructures comprise holes formed in the substrate layer, and a refractive index of the nanostructures is less than a refractive index of the substrate layer.”
Park teaches a meta-optical device (Fig. 15) “wherein the nanostructures comprise holes formed in the substrate layer (paragraph [0182]: “The first nanostructure NS1 has a hole shape surrounded by the first surrounding material EN15”), and
a refractive index of the nanostructures is less than a refractive index of the substrate layer (paragraph [0182]: “The first nanostructure NS1 has a refractive index of 1, and has a lower refractive index than the first surrounding material EN15.”).”
Park also teaches a meta-optical device (Fig. 6) comprising a substrate (SU) with nonstructures NS1 formed thereon.
Zhan discloses the claimed invention except that nanoposts are used instead of nanoholes. Park shows that nano-holes and nano-posts are equivalent structures in the art. Therefore, because these two meta-optical nanostructures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute nano-holes as taught by Park for the nanoposts of Zhan, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
When making the above modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the refractive index of the nanostructures to be less than a refractive index of the substrate layer as taught by Park in the device and method of the Zhan – Park combination, because Park teaches that such a selection is appropriate to the operation of a nano-hole based device.
Claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhan et al. US 2018/0246262 A1 (hereafter Zhan) in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0102563 (hereafter Wang) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Forouzmand et al. US 2024/0012177 A1 (hereafter Forouzmand).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches the DOE of claim 2 and the method of claim 12,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a square (the plan-view cross-sectional shape of the nanostructures of Fig. 1a is a circle comprising four rounded corners relative to a square that encompasses the circle) or a rectangle (this is optional)… and a rounded corner comprising a corner radius of greater than 0.25 µm and less than 0.5 µm (the corner radius of a square whose corners have been fully rounded until the square is a circle is the radius of that circle. Zhan teaches in paragraph [0045]: wherein the individual posts of the plurality of cylindrical posts have a diameter in a range of ⅛ of the first wavelength to ⅔ of the first wavelength, and in paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm.” Thus Zhan teaches corner radii of 1/16 to 1/3 of the first wavelength for wavelengths between 400 and 1550 nm. This includes radii such as 300 nm=0.3 µm for a wavelength of 900 nm, which is within the claimed range. Thus Zhan discloses the diameters of the posts with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “and a plan-view cross-sectional shape of at least one nanostructure comprises a first pair of line segments extending in a first parallel direction, a second pair of line segments extending in a second parallel direction, the second parallel direction being orthogonal to the first parallel direction, and a rounded corner… connects the first pair of line segments to the second pair of line segments.”
Forouzmand teaches “wherein: at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a square or a rectangle (Fig. 2 squircle 206 paragraph [0091]: “quadrilateral 206 (e.g., rectangle, square, squircle, and concentric rectangles)”), and a plan-view cross-sectional shape of at least one nanostructure comprises a first pair of line segments extending in a first parallel direction (two parallel sides of the squircle), a second pair of line segments extending in a second parallel direction (the other two sides of the squircle), the second parallel direction being orthogonal to the first parallel direction (the squircle is a rounded square and thus the pairs of parallel sides are orthogonal to one another), and a rounded corner (the four rounded corners of the squircle)… connects the first pair of line segments to the second pair of line segments (the rounded corners of the squircle connect the pairs of line segments).”
Forouzmand further teaches that the nanostructure shapes could be many cross-sections including the circles of Zhan or squircles.
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Zhan teaches a nano-pillar which differs from the claimed nano-pillar by the substitution of a squircle shape for a circle shape;
(2) the component having a squircle shape and its function were known in the art in view of Forouzmand;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a squircle for a circle, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been a greater degree of anisotropy.
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a squircle shaped nanostructure as taught by Forouzmand for a circle shaped nanostructure in the device of Zhan and the results thereof would have been predictable.
In the above combination it would be reasonable to maintain the general size of the nanostructure, but no particular reason why one would keep the radius of curvature the same.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the Zhan -Wang combination as introduced for claims 1 and 12 above teaches the DOE of claim 2 and the method of claim 12, and further teaches “wherein the second predetermined periodicity is greater than the first predetermined periodicity (the two predetermined periodicities are different from one another, thus one is free to identify the second predetermined region as the one with the larger periodicity.).”
However, Zhan fails to explicitly teach “the field of view of the first predetermined region is greater than field of view of the second predetermined region.”
Like Zhan, Forouzmand teaches a meta-surface device of high index nano-pillars.
Forouzmand further teaches “wherein the second predetermined periodicity is greater than the first predetermined periodicity, and the field of view of the first predetermined region is greater than field of view of the second predetermined region (paragraph [0079]: “The enlargement of unit-cell (>λ/2) may decrease the angle-of-view.”).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the nanostructures of Zhan such that the field of view of the diffraction pattern decreases as the periodicity of the nanostructure increases as taught by Forouzmand because Forouzmand teaches that such a property is inherent to such a meta-surface device of high index nano-pillars.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. US 2018/0246262 A1 (hereafter Zhan) in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0102563 (hereafter Wang) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lin et al. US 2018/0217395 A1 (hereafter Lin).
Regarding claim 10, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches the DOE of claim 1 however, Zhan fails to teach “further comprising an anti-reflective coating formed on at least one of the substrate layer and the nanostructure layer.”
Lin teaches a metasurface (Fig. 10) “further comprising an anti-reflective coating (antireflection coating 1430) formed on (paragraph [0121]: “the antireflection coating 1430 fills the spaces between the nanostructures 1420 such that no air or other material is disposed between the nanostructures 1420 and the antireflection coating 1430, at least over the majority of the expanse of the metasurface 1418”) at least one of the substrate layer (substrate 1410) and the nanostructure layer (nanostructures 1420).”
Lin further teaches (paragraph [0122]): “the antireflection coating 1430 has a substantially flat top surface 1430a. The antireflection coating 1430 may function as a planarization layer for the underlying uneven topology of the nanostructures 1420.”
(paragraph [0124]): “the antireflection coating 1430 may provide impedance matching between an overlying medium (e.g., air) and one or both of the nanostructures 1420 and the substrate 1410, to reduced occurrence of reflections. It is also believed that the antireflection coating 1430 may cause destructive interference between light reflected from the top surface of the antireflection coating 1430a and bottom surface of the antireflection coating 1430b and/or light backscattered from the surfaces of the nanostructures 1420 and/or the surface of the substrate 1410. This interference is believed to lead to a reduction or elimination in the amount of light perceived to be reflected from the optical structure 1400. In some embodiments, the ability of the antireflection coating 1430 to reduce or eliminate reflected light from the optical structure 1400 may depend on the thickness of the antireflection coating 1430 and the wavelength of light impinging on the antireflection coating 1430. Preferably, the thickness 1422 is chosen, relative to the refractive index and dimensions of nanostructures 1420, and the wavelengths of light for which destructive interference is desired, to provide destructive interference as noted above.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an antireflective coating onto the surface of the nanostructures and substrate of the metasurface as taught by Lin in the device of Zhan for the purpose of reducing or eliminating unwanted reflected light as taught by Lin (paragraph [0124]) and providing a planarization layer as taught by Lin (paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 20, the Zhan -Wang combination teaches the method of claim 11 however, Zhan fails to teach “further comprising forming an anti-reflective coating on at least one of the substrate layer and the nanostructure layer.”
Lin teaches a method of making a metasurface (Fig. 10) “further comprising forming an anti-reflective coating (antireflection coating 1430) on at least one of the substrate layer (substrate 1410) and the nanostructure layer (nanostructures 1420, paragraph [0121]: “the antireflection coating 1430 fills the spaces between the nanostructures 1420 such that no air or other material is disposed between the nanostructures 1420 and the antireflection coating 1430, at least over the majority of the expanse of the metasurface 1418”).”
Lin further teaches (paragraph [0122]): “the antireflection coating 1430 has a substantially flat top surface 1430a. The antireflection coating 1430 may function as a planarization layer for the underlying uneven topology of the nanostructures 1420.”
(paragraph [0124]): “the antireflection coating 1430 may provide impedance matching between an overlying medium (e.g., air) and one or both of the nanostructures 1420 and the substrate 1410, to reduced occurrence of reflections. It is also believed that the antireflection coating 1430 may cause destructive interference between light reflected from the top surface of the antireflection coating 1430a and bottom surface of the antireflection coating 1430b and/or light backscattered from the surfaces of the nanostructures 1420 and/or the surface of the substrate 1410. This interference is believed to lead to a reduction or elimination in the amount of light perceived to be reflected from the optical structure 1400. In some embodiments, the ability of the antireflection coating 1430 to reduce or eliminate reflected light from the optical structure 1400 may depend on the thickness of the antireflection coating 1430 and the wavelength of light impinging on the antireflection coating 1430. Preferably, the thickness 1422 is chosen, relative to the refractive index and dimensions of nanostructures 1420, and the wavelengths of light for which destructive interference is desired, to provide destructive interference as noted above.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an antireflective coating onto the surface of the nanostructures and substrate of the metasurface as taught by Lin in the method of Zhan for the purpose of reducing or eliminating unwanted reflected light as taught by Lin (paragraph [0124]) and providing a planarization layer as taught by Lin (paragraph [0122]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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:
Reference will be made to Zhan et al. US 2018/0246262 A1 (hereafter Zhan), Wang et al. US 2022/0102563 (hereafter Wang) and Forouzmand et al. US 2024/0012177 A1 (hereafter Forouzmand).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the Zhan – Wang combination teaches the DOE of claim 2 and the method of claim 12,” and Zhan further teaches “wherein at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a square (the plan-view cross-sectional shape of the nanostructures of Fig. 1a is a circle comprising four rounded corners relative to a square that encompasses the circle) or a rectangle (this is optional)… and a rounded corner comprising a corner radius of greater than 0.25 µm and less than 0.5 µm (the corner radius of a square whose corners have been fully rounded until the square is a circle is the radius of that circle. Zhan teaches in paragraph [0045]: wherein the individual posts of the plurality of cylindrical posts have a diameter in a range of ⅛ of the first wavelength to ⅔ of the first wavelength, and in paragraph [0052]: “in one embodiment the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 1550 nm … the first wavelength is in the range of 400 nm to 950 nm.” Thus Zhan teaches corner radii of 1/16 to 1/3 of the first wavelength for wavelengths between 400 and 1550 nm. This includes radii such as 300 nm=0.3 µm for a wavelength of 900 nm, which is within the claimed range. Thus Zhan discloses the diameters of the posts with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.).”
However, Zhan fails to teach “and a plan-view cross-sectional shape of at least one nanostructure comprises a first pair of line segments extending in a first parallel direction, a second pair of line segments extending in a second parallel direction, the second parallel direction being orthogonal to the first parallel direction, and a rounded corner… connects the first pair of line segments to the second pair of line segments.”
Forouzmand teaches “wherein: at least one nanostructure comprises a plan-view cross-sectional shape of a square or a rectangle (Fig. 2 squircle 206 paragraph [0091]: “quadrilateral 206 (e.g., rectangle, square, squircle, and concentric rectangles)”), and a plan-view cross-sectional shape of at least one nanostructure comprises a first pair of line segments extending in a first parallel direction (two parallel sides of the squircle), a second pair of line segments extending in a second parallel direction (the other two sides of the squircle), the second parallel direction being orthogonal to the first parallel direction (the squircle is a rounded square and thus the pairs of parallel sides are orthogonal to one another), and a rounded corner (the four rounded corners of the squircle)… connects the first pair of line segments to the second pair of line segments (the rounded corners of the squircle connect the pairs of line segments).”
Forouzmand further teaches that the nanostructure shapes could be many cross-sections including the circles of Zhan or squircles.
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Zhan teaches a nano-pillar which differs from the claimed nano-pillar by the substitution of a squircle shape for a circle shape;
(2) the component having a squircle shape and its function were known in the art in view of Forouzmand;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a squircle for a circle, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been a greater degree of anisotropy.
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a squircle shaped nanostructure as taught by Forouzmand for a circle shaped nanostructure in the device of Zhan and the results thereof would have been predictable.
In the above combination it would be reasonable to maintain the general size of the nanostructure, but no particular reason why one would keep the radius of curvature the same. The area occupied by the rounded corner has fundamental limits, but the curvature radius thereof could be infinite (a flat, beveled corner) or close to zero (a corner whose roundness occurs due solely to manufacturing tolerances), which is an exceedingly broad range. Furthermore, the specification demonstrates unexpected results within the claimed range, see Figs. 6A-6E and discussion thereof, such that obtaining the claimed range is not just a matter of routine optimization.
Thus, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a rounded corner comprising a corner radius of greater than 0.25 µm and less than 0.5 µm connects the first pair of line segments to the second pair of line segments.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872