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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11 and 13-24 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 13 and 15-16 are currently amended; claims 2, 14 and 17-18 are original; claims 3-5, 8-9 and 12 are canceled; claims 6-7, 10-11 and 19-20 are previously presented; and claims 21-24 are newly added. The amendment dated December 11, 2025 has been entered into the record.
Claim 6 was previously rejected under 35 USC §112(a). The rejections are now withdrawn as the applicant has provided support (Paragraph [0041]) in Remarks.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully disagrees that Smith or Hong anticipates claim 11. Claim 11 recites that "each meta-atom has an annular shape." By contrast, Smith's and Hong's elements all include cores and therefore do not have an annular shape” (Remarks, Page 7).
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 11 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive based on the definition of the term “annular”. The examiner considers Merriam-Webster dictionary, defining “annular” as “of, relating to, or forming a ring” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annular).
For example, imagine a ring worn by a person - the annular shape of the ring would not change whether the ring was worn by the person or not (i.e., the ring shape does not change with or without cores or fingers therein).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (KR 2018/0103662 A), of record.
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses an apparatus (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs [0027], [0042]) comprising:
an optical element (Figure 1-2 and 3b) comprising:
an optical metasurface (200) including meta-atoms (202, 203, 204), wherein, in a top view, each meta-atom has an annular shape (Figure 2), and
wherein the annular shape comprises a first metamaterial surrounded laterally by a second different metamaterial (202 surrounded by 203; see also Paragraphs [0061] “202p … silver (Ag)” and [0063] “203p may include silicon oxide” regarding the materials).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2016/0071990), of record.
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses an apparatus (Figures 1-2; see Paragraphs [0015]-[0018] and [0109] identifying the embodiment shown in Figures 1-2) comprising:
an optical element (200; Paragraph [0109]) comprising:
an optical metasurface (200) including meta-atoms (201a- 201p, comprising 104 and/or 107; Paragraph [0109]), wherein, in a top view, each meta-atom has an annular shape (Figure 1A), and
wherein the annular shape comprises a first metamaterial (104) surrounded laterally by a second different metamaterial (107).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10 and 13-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Hong et al. (KR 2018/0103662 A), of record, disclose an apparatus (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs [0027], [0042]) comprising: a substrate (102); an optical element (200, 106 in Figure 1-2 and 3b) on the substrate, the optical metasurface (200) including meta-atoms (202, 203, 204), wherein at least some of the meta-atoms have a first height and others of the meta-atoms have a second height that differs from the first height (see Figure 3b; 202, 203 and 204 having different heights), and wherein metamaterial of each of the meta-atoms has an annular shape in a top view (Figures 1-2); and a polymeric layer (106) between the substrate and the metamaterial of each of the meta-atoms.
However, Hong fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specification, “the polymeric layer exposes portions of the substrate spaced apart from the meta-atoms”. The examiner considered Han et al. (US 2020/0264343, hereinafter “Han”), Riley, Jr. (US 2019/0064532, hereinafter “Riley, Jr.”), Byrnes (US 2017/0082263, hereinafter “Byrnes”) and Lee (KR 20140026814). For example, Han teaches providing a polymer layer between the substrate and the metamaterial of each of the meta-atoms (130 between 110 and NS2 in Fig. 1; Paragraph [0060]), but fails to disclose sidewalls of the polymeric layer are aligned with sidewalls of the metamaterial, and wherein the polymeric layer exposes portions of the substrate spaced apart from the meta-atoms. The prior art of Hong, Smith, Han, Riley, Jr., Byrne and Lee, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 6-7 and 10 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses a method of manufacturing an optical element (Figure 8) comprising: imprinting a polymeric layer (201 in Figure 8a; Paragraphs [0034], [0060]) that is disposed on a substrate (106), wherein the imprinting results in formation of projections (see Figure 8a), extending away from the substrate, of material of the polymeric layer; forming meta-atoms (forming 202 in Figure 8b; Paragraph [0061]) composing a first metamaterial layer (202p), wherein forming the meta-atoms includes depositing the first metamaterial layer over the projections (see Figure 8a); and removing a portion of the first metamaterial layer to expose a surface of the projections of the material of the polymeric layer (Figure 8b; Paragraph [0062]), to form a second polymeric layer (106) between the substrate and the first metamaterial layer of each of the meta-atoms.
However, Hong fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specification, “removing a residual portion of the polymeric layer, to form a second polymeric layer between the substrate and the first metamaterial layer of each of the meta-atoms, wherein sidewalls of the second polymeric layer are aligned with sidewalls of the first metamaterial layer, and wherein the second polymeric layer exposes portions of the substrate spaced apart from the meta-atoms”. The examiner considered Han, Riley, Jr., Byrnes and Lee. For example, Han teaches providing a polymer layer between the substrate and the metamaterial of each of the meta-atoms (130 between 110 and NS2 in Fig. 1; Paragraph [0060]), but fails to disclose sidewalls of the polymeric layer are aligned with sidewalls of the metamaterial, and wherein the polymeric layer exposes portions of the substrate spaced apart from the meta-atoms. The prior art of Hong, Smith, Han, Riley, Jr., Byrne and Lee, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 13.
Dependent claims 14-24 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871