Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/313,234

METAMATERIAL STRUCTURE AND FORMING METHOD THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 05, 2023
Examiner
GREGORIO, GUINEVER S
Art Unit
1732
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Seoul National University R&Db Foundation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
600 granted / 825 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
853
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
57.7%
+17.7% vs TC avg
§102
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 825 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/26/2025. 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banadaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0184065). Regarding claim 1, Banadaki et al. teaches metamaterials (MMs) are composed of nanostructures, called artificial atoms, which can give metamaterials extraordinary properties that cannot be found in natural materials (paragraphs 7 and 8). Banadaki et al. teaches structure of the present invention comprises alternating layers of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of metamaterial structure comprising: first metamaterial unit structures and second metamaterial unit structures, wherein the first metamaterial unit structures and the second metamaterial unit structures are arranged alternately (paragraph 18). Regarding claim 2, Banadaki et al. teaches structure of the present invention comprises alternating layers of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride comprising n number of graphene layers and therefore meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the first metamaterial comprises hexagonal boron nitride, and the second metamaterial comprises graphite (paragraphs 18 and 25). Regarding claim 3, Banadaki et al. teaches hBN layer has an atomic thickness of 0.33 nm which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the first metamaterial unit structures comprise at least one of boron nitride nanoflakes and boron nitride nanosheets (paragraph 62). Banadaki et al. teaches n number of graphene layers includes a planar surface, wherein each of the n number of graphene layers includes a distinct thickness which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of the second metamaterial unit structures comprise at least one of exfoliated graphite nanoflakes and few-layer graphene nanosheets. Regarding claim 4, Banadaki et al. teaches the optimal thicknesses of layers included in graphene multilayer nanostructure obtained from the genetic algorithm and the refractive indices of the layers at the optimized wavelength are used in transfer matrix equations, leading to information about the transmission and reflection properties of the graphene multilayer nanostructure which meets the limitaiton wherein the properties of the metamaterial structure are controlled by the thickness and mixing ratio of the first metamaterial unit structures and the second metamaterial unit structures (paragraph 77). Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1 which is a product claim. Claims 5 and 6 recite process limitation. MPEP §2113 recites “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Per MPEP §2113, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The multilayer nanostructure taught by Banadaki et al. is comprised of the same material claimed in the pending application, i.e. alternating layers of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride and therefore the process claims are not limiting. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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. /GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 02/01/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 05, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590011
MIXED METAL DODECABORIDES AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590012
NEGATIVE THERMAL EXPANSION MATERIAL AND COMPOSITE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12545589
CARBON-BASED POROUS MATERIAL AND PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12522502
BUNDLE-TYPE CARBON NANOTUBES AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12509351
DISAGGREGATION OF NANODIAMOND PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 825 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month