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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4, filed 04/28/2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objection of Claim 1 and the Specification Objection for subletters b-d, have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Section C of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Office Action, p. 2. Applicant notes that the PTO's specification objection appears to be erroneously included in the Office Action since (1) the PTO objected to paragraph ¶[0099] as the specification does not include a paragraph ¶[0099]”. Examiner agrees. The paragraph number should have read states the paragraph ¶[0009].
In Section D of the Remarks, Applicant argues the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection of Claim 1 and “Applicant directs the PTO to paragraphs [0036] and [0037] of the as-filed specification and FIG. 1, each of which provide significant guidance to the meaning of this recitation and demonstrate that this recitation of independent claim 1 is enabled.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments to Claim 1 do not overcome the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection of Claim 1. Newly amended claims are examined below.
In Section E of the Remarks, Applicant argues 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments to Claims 1, 3, and 4 do not overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-7. Newly amended claims are examined below.
In Section F of the Remarks, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2 under 35 USC § 102 have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 04/28/206, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 02/04/2026. Newly amended claims are examined below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Specification, ¶[0009] states “wherein the composite structure is, Air|(ABP)N1 CGM C(ABP)N2/Air wherein M, N1, and N2 each represent a quantity of spatial cycles, the dielectric layer A is made of a ZrO2 material, the dielectric layer B is made of a Si material, and the dielectric layer P is made of an anisotropic plasma material”. Is “Air|(ABP)N1 CGM C(ABP)N2/Air” a formula for the structure or an actual structure?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: The variables cannot be read/determined due to unclear reproduction. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling.
With respect to claim 1, the disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without definitions of whether the limitation “wherein the composite structure is Air|(ABP)N1 CGM C(ABP)N2/Air” is a formula for a structure or a structure, alone, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
Claims 1 -7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to claims 1 and 4, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments to Claims 1 and 4 are not supported by the Specification. This is considered new matter.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 inherit the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1, lines 10-13 recites “wherein the composite structure is, Air|(ABP)N1 CGM C(ABP)N2/Air wherein M, N1, and N2 each represent a quantity of spatial cycles, the dielectric layer A is made of a ZrO2 material, the dielectric layer B is made of a Si material, and the dielectric layer P is made of an anisotropic plasma material”. Is “Air|(ABP)N1 CGM C(ABP)N2/Air” a formula for the structure or an actual structure?
For examination purposes, “wherein the composite structure is, Air|(ABP)N1 CGM C(ABP)N2/Air wherein M, N1, and N2 each represent a quantity of spatial cycles, the dielectric layer A is made of a ZrO2 material, the dielectric layer B is made of a Si material, and the dielectric layer P is made of an anisotropic plasma material” will be treated as “wherein the composite structure comprises wherein the dielectric layers are made of a ZrO2 material, a silicone material, and an anisotropic plasma material”.
Claim 3, line 2, it is unclear what “[Symbol font/0x65]a = 4.21” means since this limitation “[Symbol font/0x65]a” has not been defined in the Specification or the Claim; and in Claim 3, line 3 it is unclear what “[Symbol font/0x65]b = 7.95” means since this limitation also has not been defined. For examination Because “[Symbol font/0x65]a = 4.21” and “[Symbol font/0x65]b = 7.95” have not been defined, the scope of the claims is so unclear that it will not be further treated on the merits or examined.
Claim 3, lines 2-4, it is unclear which variables are called in the amended claims. The reproduction of the claims and the font size make the amendments difficult to read.
Claim 4, lines 3-4 state “wherein thicknesses of the layers in the composite structure are respectively as follows: da = 30um, db = 21.28um, dp = 60um, dc = 30um, and dg = 0.33nm and M = 1, N1 = 2, and N2 = 3”. The limitations, da, db, dp, dc, and dg are indefinite as these terms have not been defined in the Specification and the Claim. The limitations, da, db, dp, dc, and dg, are not shown in any formula, definition, etc., in the Specification or the Claim. In addition, what unit of measure is “um” since da, db, dp, dc claim this as a unit of measuring the thickness? In addition, the reproduction of the claims and the font size make the amendments difficult to read. For examination purposes, the scope of the claims is so unclear that it will not be further treated on the merits or examined,
Claims not specifically address inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) from which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouderkirk et al. (hereafter Ouderkirk) (US 2022/0276483 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 1, Ouderkirk discloses a graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure, the graphene-based optical bistable device comprising: a composite structure suitable for a terahertz band (Figure 7), wherein the composite structure is formed by two ternary photonic crystal structure (one or more layers, ¶[0046], ternary crystals, ¶[0057] and ¶[0066]), a defect layer C (¶[0066]), and a graphene layer G (¶[0066]) through permutation and combination (¶[0066]); wherein the ternary photonic crystal structure (one or more layers, ¶[0046], ternary crystals, ¶[0057] and ¶[0066]) is a periodic photonic crystal structure (one or more layers, ¶[0046], ternary crystals, ¶[0057] and ¶[0066]) formed by three alternately-arranged dielectric layers A, B, and P (Figure 7) with different dielectric constants (¶[0119]), two defect layers C (¶[0066]) are embedded between (electrodes may be spaced apart and separated by a layer of electroactive material, ¶[0068]) the two ternary photonic crystal structure (one or more layers, ¶[0046], ternary crystals, ¶[0057] and ¶[0066]), and the graphene layer G (¶[0066]) is embedded between the two defect layers C (¶[0066]); the composite structure (Figure 7) comprises wherein the dielectric layer A (Figure 7) is made of a zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) material (¶[0058]), the dielectric layer B is made of a silicon (Si) material (¶[0084]), and the dielectric layer P is made of an anisotropic plasma material (¶[0060]); and wherein the defect layer C (¶[0066]) is filled with air and has a refractive index of n0=1 (Table 1).
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ouderkirk (US 2022/0276483 A1) in further in view of Kawakami et al., (hereafter Kawakami) (US 2007/0172697 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 5, Ouderkirk teaches the graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure according to claim 1, and the graphene layer G.
Ouderkirk fails to teach wherein thresholds and a threshold difference of the bistable device are controlled by a Fermi level, relaxation time, and a layer quantity of the graphene layer G.
Ouderkirk teaches a deformable lens and Kawakami teaches a switching element which can be used with the lens.
Kawakami teaches wherein thresholds and a threshold difference (Table 1 and ¶[0074]) of the bistable device (Figure 1) are controlled by a Fermi level (¶[0074]), relaxation time (¶[0074]), and a layer quantity of the graphene layer G (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ouderkirk having the graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure with the teachings of Kawakami having the thresholds and a threshold difference of the bistable device are controlled by a Fermi level, relaxation time, and a layer quantity of the graphene layer G for the purpose of energy shifts.
With respect to Claim 6, Ouderkirk teaches the graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure according to claim 1.
Ouderkirk fails to teach wherein thresholds and a threshold difference of the bistable device are controlled by a plasma electron density of the dielectric layer P.
Ouderkirk teaches a deformable lens and Kawakami teaches a switching element which can be used with the lens.
Kawakami teaches wherein thresholds and a threshold difference (Table 1 and ¶[0074]) of the bistable device (Figure 1) are controlled by a plasma electron density (¶[0074]) of the dielectric layer P (Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ouderkirk having the graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure with the teachings of Kawakami having thresholds and a threshold difference of the bistable device are controlled by a plasma electron density of the dielectric layer P for the purpose of energy shifts.
With respect to Claim 7, Ouderkirk teaches the graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure according to claim 1.
Ouderkirk fails to teach wherein thresholds and a threshold difference of the bistable device are controlled by an incident angle of an electromagnetic wave.
Ouderkirk teaches a deformable lens and Kawakami teaches a switching element which can be used with the lens.
Kawakami teaches wherein thresholds and a threshold difference (Table 1 and ¶[0074]) of the bistable device (Figure 1) are controlled by an incident angle of an electromagnetic wave (¶[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Ouderkirk having the graphene-based optical bistable device with a ternary photonic crystal structure with the teachings of Kawakami having thresholds and a threshold difference of the bistable device are controlled by an incident angle of an electromagnetic wave for the purpose of energy shifts.
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
