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Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 of figs. 1, 2 (claims 1-10, 16-18 readable thereon, claims 11-15 withdrawn) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson et al. (US PGPub 2017/0178059; hereinafter “Gibson”).
Re claim 1: Gibson teaches (e.g. figs. 1, 2A-C, 3A-B) a security code comprising: a substrate (301; e.g. paragraph 42); metamaterials (conductive regions 106 of the resonant structures; e.g. paragraph 34) on the substrate (301); a signal modulation pattern (photoconductor 108; e.g. paragraph 36) on the metamaterials (106); and a capping layer (layer 307 such an optical filler material; e.g. paragraph 39) covering the signal modulation pattern (108) and the metamaterials (106), wherein the metamaterials (106) comprise a pair of metal patterns (106 of 104a and 106 of 104b) facing each other, the signal modulation pattern (108) covers a portion (inner walls of interstitial regions of resonant structures 104a-104d are provided with 108) of the metal patterns (106), and expose remaining (upper surface of resonant structures 104a-104d) of the metal patterns (106), and the signal modulation pattern (108) has a different material (106 is formed of conductive materials and 108 is formed from photoconductive materials; e.g. paragraphs 34, 36) from each of the metal patterns (106).
Re claim 2: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 1, wherein each of the pair of metal patterns (106 of 104a and 106 of 104b) has a split ring (each resonant structure 104a, 104b is a ring with a slit removed to make a split ring).
Re claim 3: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 2, wherein any one of the metal patterns (fig. 3a shows the upper row of resonant structures is in mirror relationship to the lower row) has a relationship of a mirror image with another metal pattern.
Re claim 4: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 1, wherein the signal modulation pattern comprises any one of a semiconductor material, a two-dimensional material, or a metal compound (photoconductive material 108 formed from selenium, tellurium, zinc oxide, or titanium dioxide; e.g. paragraph 38).
Re claim 5: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 4, wherein the semiconductor material comprises any one of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), silicon-germanium (Si-Ge), or gallium arsenide (GaAs) (since the material being a semiconductor in claim 4 is recited as an alternative material, therefore the limitation of claim 4 is not required since the prior art teaches the material being a metal compound).
Re claim 6: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 1, wherein each of the metal patterns comprises any one of gold (Au), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), or platinum (Pt) (Examiner takes official notice that the conductive material as recited in paragraph 34 would comprise as least copper or silver).
Re claim 7: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 1, wherein the substrate (301) comprises polymer (adhesive backing 302; e.g. paragraph 42) or semiconductor.
Re claim 10: Gibson teaches the security code of claim 1, wherein the signal modulation pattern (108) covers all the pair of metal patterns (106 of 104a and 106 of 104b), wherein a planar area covering the any one of the pair of metal patterns (106 of 104a and 106 of 104b) is greater than a planer area covering another (these planar areas can be arbitrarily chosen to meet the claim limitation since there is no structural specificity recited in the claim).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchar et al. (US PGPub 2017/0329230; hereinafter “Buchar”).
Re claim 8: Gibson teaches substantially the entire structure of claim 1 except explicitly teaching the security code wherein each thickness of the metal patterns is about 80 nm to about 300 nm.
Buchar teaches (e.g. figs. 1 and 2) wherein each thickness of the metal patterns (resonator structure 104) is about 80 nm to about 300 nm (metal layer 402 has thickness of about 100nm; e.g. paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the thickness of resonator metal as taught by Buchar in the device of Gibson in order to have the predictable result of simplifying manufacture by using a known thickness of metal which is capable of resonating.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibson et al. (US PGPub 2016/0358058; hereinafter “Gibson2”).
Re claim 9: Gibson teaches substantially the entire structure of claim 1 except explicitly teaching the security code wherein the signal modulation pattern covers any one of the pair of metal patterns, and does not cover another.
Gibson2 teaches (e.g. fig. 3A) wherein the signal modulation pattern (105) covers any one of the pair of metal patterns (104A), and does not cover another (104B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the selective deposition of conductive material over a resonator as taught by Gibson2 in the device of Gibson in order to have the predictable result of reducing costs by selectively not requiring the deposition of signal modulation pattern in certain instances.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibson et al. (US PGPub 2016/0358058; hereinafter “Gibson2”).
Re claim 16: Gibson teaches (e.g. figs. 1, 2A-C, 3A-B) a security code comprising: a substrate (301; e.g. paragraph 42); a metamaterial array (conductive regions 106 of the resonant structures 104a-d; e.g. paragraph 34) on the substrate (301); a plurality of signal modulation patterns (photoconductor 108; e.g. paragraph 36) on the metamaterial array (106); and a capping layer (layer 307 such an optical filler material; e.g. paragraph 39) covering the signal modulation pattern (108) and the metamaterial array (106), wherein the metamaterial array (106) comprises a plurality of unit cells (104a-d), each of the unit cells (four unit cells shown in fig. 3A, each unit cell comprising an upper part and a lower part; hereinafter “UC”) comprises a first metal pattern (upper part of resonant structure as shown in fig. 3A; hereinafter “1MP”) and a second metal pattern (lower part of resonant structure as shown in fig. 3A; hereinafter “2MP”) spaced apart (upper and lower parts are spaced apart) from each other along a first direction parallel to a top surface of the substrate (301), the first metal pattern (1MP) and the second metal pattern (2MP) have a symmetric shape (fig. 3A,B shows the 1MP and 2MP to be symmetric), the signal modulation patterns (108) are respectively disposed on the unit cells (UC), and the signal modulation pattern (108) has a different material (106 is formed of conductive materials and 108 is formed from photoconductive materials; e.g. paragraphs 34, 36) from the first metal pattern (1MP) and the second metal pattern (2MP).
Gibson is silent as to explicitly teaching the signal modulation pattern (108) asymmetrically covers the first metal pattern (1MP) and the second metal pattern (2MP).
Gibson2 teaches (e.g. fig. 3A) wherein the signal modulation pattern (105) asymmetrically covers the first metal pattern (upper 104A) and the second metal pattern (lower 104A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the selective deposition of conductive material over a resonator as taught by Gibson2 in the device of Gibson in order to have the predictable result of reducing costs by selectively not requiring the deposition of signal modulation pattern in certain instances.
Re claim 17: Gibson in view of Gibson2 teaches the security code of claim 16, wherein the signal modulation pattern (108) covers an entirety of the first metal pattern (1MP), and exposes at least a portion of the second metal pattern (2MP).
Re claim 18: Gibson in view of Gibson2 teaches the security code of claim 16, wherein the signal modulation pattern (108) covers the first metal pattern (1MP) and the second metal pattern (2MP), and a planar area vertically overlapping the first metal pattern (2MP) of the signal modulation pattern (108) is larger than a second planar area (these planar areas can be arbitrarily chosen to meet the claim limitation since there is no structural specificity recited in the claim) vertically overlapping the second metal pattern (2MP) of the signal modulation pattern (108).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2017/0116808 and US 2020/0371022 teach structures of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898