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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has 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.
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 1, 2 and 4-21 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 1, 2 and 4-21, the limitation "wherein each of the plurality of repeating unit cells comprises at least one nanostructure with a period in the x- and y-directions, a length, a width, and a height; wherein the period is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light” in claim 1 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation " wherein the period is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light” is not defined by the claim. The specification does not provide an explanation to which one of the periods (if not both) are less than the wavelength in free space of an operating light what is the means of a Teller-type technique. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation “wherein the period is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light” is understood by the examiner to mean wherein the one of the periods in the x-direction or y-direction is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4-21, the limitation "wherein each of the plurality of repeating unit cells comprises at least one nanostructure with a period in the x- and y-directions, a length, a width, and a height… wherein each of the length and the width is less than the period” in claim 1 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation " wherein each of the length and the width is less than the period” is not defined by the claim. The specification does not provide an explanation to which one of the periods (if not both) are less than the wavelength in free space of an operating light. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation “wherein the period is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light” is understood by the examiner to mean wherein the one of the periods in the x-direction or y-direction is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation wherein the electromagnetic metasurface is configured to be a part of a band-stop filter, a beam deflector, a lens, a beam splitter, or a hologram. and then claim 15 recites wherein the lens has a numerical aperture of greater than or equal to 0.8. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma (US Patent Number 11,314,145 B1) in view of (Barton (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0132255 A1).
Sarma teaches, as claimed in claim 1, an apparatus comprising: an electromagnetic metasurface (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of repeating unit cells (100) conformally disposed on a substrate (see substrate 100 is disposed on in Fig. 1) ; wherein each of the plurality of repeating unit cells (100) comprises at least one nanostructure with a period in the x- and y-directions (Col 9, lines 56-57 “periodicity (p) of the array of the resonators along x and y was fixed to be 3 a length (“ total thickness of the multi-QW stack was 852 nm”), a width (R ), and a height (h); wherein the one of the periods in the x-direction or y-direction is less than a wavelength in free space of an operating light1; wherein each of the length and the width is less than the period2; and wherein at least two different Mie-modes (Col. 10, lines 8-13 “Rabi splitting of the MD resonance can be seen, indicating strong light-matter coupling between the MD resonance and the IST, leading to formation of intersubband polaritons. MD, ED, MQ, and EQ correspond to magnetic dipole, electric dipole, magnetic quadrupole, and electric quadrupole modes”), with one Mie-mode being a higher order (Col. 10, line 14 “magnetic quadrupole”), interfere within each of the plurality of repeating unit cells (100), the interference enables the apparatus to achieve a resonance in transmission or reflection (115) such that the apparatus; wherein the apparatus controls the phase of the transmitted light or reflected light in two dimensions3 ( Col. 9, lines 22-24 “cylindrical Mie resonators”), Sarma fails to teach a quality factor of at least 200. In a related art, Barton teaches an apparatus comprising an electromagnetic metasurface comprising a plurality of repeating unit cells, controls a phase of the operating light in transmission or reflection using a localized mode with a quality factor of at least 200 (¶0033 “quality factor Q of the selected at least one of the in-plane guided mode resonances is preferably 100 or more, and is more preferably 1,000 or more.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma, with the quality factor of at least 200, as taught by Barton, for the purpose of providing bars of different widths that act as phase pixels, collectively generating a desired wavefront for transmitted light (¶0034).
Sarma teaches, as in claim 2, wherein the at least two Mie-modes are selected from the group consisting of: an electric dipole, a magnetic dipole (Col. 10, lines 8-13 “Rabi splitting of the MD resonance can be seen, indicating strong light-matter coupling between the MD resonance and the IST, leading to formation of intersubband polaritons. MD, ED, MQ, and EQ correspond to magnetic dipole, electric dipole, magnetic quadrupole, and electric quadrupole modes”).
Sarma teaches, as in claim 4, wherein the wavelength is selected from the group consisting of: a visible wavelength from 380 nm to 800 nm (Col 8. lines 10-11 “a wavelength slightly detuned from the fundamental IST wavelength of 7.8 μm”).
Sarma teaches, as in claim 5, wherein the plurality of repeating unit cells is arranged in an array (See Figs 1 and 2).
Sarma teaches, as in claim 6, wherein the at least one nanostructure has a shape selected from the group consisting of a cylinder (Col. 9, lines 22-24 “cylindrical Mie resonators” and Fig. 1).
Sarma fails to teach, as in claim 7, wherein the at least one nanostructure has a non- symmetric shape. In a related art, Barton teaches wherein the at least one nanostructure has a non- symmetric shape (Fig. 1c, see element 106c the right side is not symmetric with left side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the nanostructure having a non- symmetric shape, as taught by Barton, for the purpose of providing bars of different widths that act as phase pixels, collectively generating a desired wavefront for transmitted light (¶0034).
Sarma teaches, as in claim 10, wherein the at least one nanostructure comprises a material silicon oxide (Col 6, lines 61-62 cylindrical resonator body capped with a low-refractive-index layer 105 of silicon dioxide”).
Sarma teaches, as in claim 13, wherein the wavelength is a near infrared wavelength from 800 nm to 2500 nm Col 8. lines 10-11 “a wavelength slightly detuned from the fundamental IST wavelength of 7.8 μm”), the at least two different Mie-modes are an electric dipole mode and an electric octupole mode (Col. 10, lines 8-13 “Rabi splitting of the MD resonance can be seen, indicating strong light-matter coupling between the MD resonance and the IST, leading to formation of intersubband polaritons. MD, ED, MQ, and EQ correspond to magnetic dipole, electric dipole, magnetic quadrupole, and electric quadrupole modes”), Sarma the quality factor is from 202 to 1475. In a related art, Barton teaches the quality factor is from 202 to 1475 (¶0028 “the quality factor Q of the selected at least one of the in-plane guided mode resonances is preferably 100 or more, and is more preferably 1,000 or more”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the quality factor of at least 200, as taught by Barton, for the purpose of providing bars of different widths that act as phase pixels, collectively generating a desired wavefront for transmitted light (¶0034).
Sarma fails to teach, as in claim 14, wherein the electromagnetic metasurface is configured to be a part of a hologram. In a related art, Barton teaches wherein the electromagnetic metasurface is configured to be a part of a beam splitter. (¶0015 “FIGS. 4A-C show an example of a high-Q metasurface beam splitter”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the beam-splitter, as taught by Barton, for the purpose of providing bars of different widths that act as phase pixels, collectively generating a desired wavefront for transmitted light (¶0034).
Sarma fails to explicitly teach, as in claim 15, wherein the lens has a numerical aperture of greater than or equal to 0.8. However, claim 14 has a variety of choices such as band-stop filter, a beam deflector, a lens, a beam splitter, or a hologram and is not only limited to a lens. The rejection of claim 14 relies on the beam splitter therefore the limitations in claim 15 are considered moot and are taught by the rejection of claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the beam-splitter, as taught by Barton, for the purpose of providing bars of different widths that act as phase pixels, collectively generating a desired wavefront for transmitted light (¶0034).
Sarma fails to teach, as in claim 18, wherein a refractive index of each of the plurality of repeating unit cells is dynamically varied using a mechanism selected from the group consisting of: a thermo-optic effect, an electro-optic effect, a magneto optic effect, a nonlinear Kerr effect, and by electrical or optical injection of free charges in to a material of each of the plurality of repeating unit cells. In a related art, Barton teaches wherein a refractive index of each of the plurality of repeating unit cells is dynamically varied using a mechanism selected from the group consisting of: a thermo-optic effect (¶0047 “thermal changes to the refractive index can produce large changes in the diffraction efficiency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the apparatus with the thermo-optic effect, as taught by Barton, for the purpose of providing bars of different widths that act as phase pixels, collectively generating a desired wavefront for transmitted light (¶0034).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma (US Patent Number 11,314,145 B1) in view of Barton (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0132255 A1) and in further view of Iyoda (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0060281 A1).
Sarma and Barton fail to teach, as in claim 11, wherein the substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: glass. In a related art, Iyoda teaches a metamaterial comprising wherein the substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: glass (¶0124 “quartz glass substrate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the substrate material, as taught by Iyoda, for the purpose of providing a more efficient method for manufacturing a metamaterial (¶0009).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma (US Patent Number 11,314,145 B1) in view of Barton (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0132255 A1) and in further view of Park (US Patent Publication Number 8,072,226 B2).
Sarma and Barton fail to teach, as in claim 17, wherein the electromagnetic metasurface is configured to be a part of a sensor in a liquid environment or in a gaseous environment. In a related art, Park teaches an optical device wherein the electromagnetic metasurface is configured to be a part of a sensor in a liquid environment or in a gaseous environment (Col. 5 lines 55-59 “the carrier can be liquid, such as water, or a gas”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electromagnetic metasurface, as taught by Sarma and Barton, with the sensor in a liquid environment or in a gaseous environment, as taught by Park, for the purpose of providing a way to vary an electrical characteristic according to an object to be sensed. (Col. 1, lines 40-41).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 20, 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 8 which includes wherein the at least one nanostructure comprises a lossless dielectric material with an imaginary refractive index less than or equal to 0.5 at the wavelength of operation.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 9 which includes wherein the substrate comprises a material with a real part of the refractive index less than the real part of the refractive index at the wavelength of operation of the at least one nanostructure.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 12 which includes wherein the quality factor is observed in an area with a diameter of less than or equal to 100 pm due to the localized mode.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 16 which includes wherein the apparatus is polarization independent.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 19 which includes wherein a refractive index of at least one layer of the substrate is varied using a mechanism selected from the group consisting of: a thermo-optic effect, an electro- optic effect, a magneto-optic effect, a nonlinear Kerr effect, and by electrical or optical injection of free charges in to a material of each of the plurality of repeating unit cells.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 20 which includes wherein the substrate is a deformable substrate, and each of the plurality of repeating unit cells is dynamically displaced from one another by stretching the deformable substrate such that the displacement changes the period.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all the limitations of claim 21 which includes comprising a plurality of the electromagnetic metasurfaces, wherein the plurality of electromagnetic metasurfaces are stacked on top of each other to manipulate a monochromatic light in a consecutive manner, or manipulate broadband illuminated light at separate wavelengths.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
29 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Wavelength is 7.8 μm and the Period= 3R = 4.2µm Therefore wavelength > period
2 Radius = 1.4µm therefore the width is 2(1.4) = 2.8µm; Period= 3R = 4.2µm and Length = 852nm. Therefore, Period > Radius and Length.
3 cylindrical Mie resonators when arranged in two-dimensional (2D) arrays or metasurfaces—inherently control the phase of light in two dimensions
Prosecution Insights