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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 19, line 2 delete “position and place and the given” and insert therein - - position and place the given - - for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-17, and 19-22 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 recites the limitation “the given nanostructure layers” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the given nanostructure layers” and insert therein - - given nanostructure layers - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same substrate” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the same substrate” and insert therein - - a same substrate - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the plurality of the N nanostructure layers”. The limitation is unclear and confusing as is “the plurality of the N nanostructure layers” the plurality of N nanostructure layers adhered together or the plurality of the N nanostructure layers in the nanostructure stack fabricated on the same substrate? For purposes of examination either interpretation is considered to meet the limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the nanostructure feature patterns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the nanostructure feature patterns” and insert therein - - the respective pattern of nanostructure features - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the plurality of the N nanostructure patterns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what are “the plurality of the N nanostructure patterns”? Neither claim 15 nor claim 1 set forth “N nanostructure patterns”. Does the respective pattern of nanostructure features of a given nanostructure layer further comprise the plurality of the N nanostructure patterns? Does each respective pattern of nanostructure features for the plurality of given nanostructure layers correspond to the plurality of the N nanostructure patterns? The latter appears to be the intended interpretation in view of the instant specification (see Figure 2A and Paragraph 0024). It is suggested to delete “the plurality of the N nanostructure patterns” and insert therein - - a plurality of N nanostructure patterns corresponding to each respective pattern of nanostructure features for the plurality of the given nanostructure layers - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the nanostructure patterns of features” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the nanostructure patterns of features” and insert therein - - the pattern of nanostructure features - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “adhering the given nanostructure layer to another nanostructure layer” in line 3. The limitation is unclear and confusing. Is the another nanostructure layer the another nanostructure layer of claim 1 or another nanostructure layer of the stack? The limitation appears directed to the given nanostructure layer adhered to the another nanostructure layer as in claim 1. It is suggested to delete “adhering the given nanostructure layer to another nanostructure layer” and insert therein - - adhering the given nanostructure layer to the another nanostructure layer - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the nanolayer stack” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the nanolayer stack” and insert therein - - the nanostructure stack - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the given layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the given layer” and insert therein - - the given nanostructure layer - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) 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 20 recites the broad recitation “500 nm (nanometer)”, and the claim also recites “, 300 nm, or 200 nm” (it being noted there is no specific recitation of “or” between “500 nm (nanometers)” and “, 300 nm” to positively and expressly set forth the ranges as alternatives) 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. For purposes of examination the feature introduced by such narrower language is considered merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required. It is suggested to delete “, 300 nm, or 200 nm” to overcome this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein fabricating the given nanostructure layer comprises fabricating the respective pattern of nanostructure features for each of a plurality of the N nanostructure layers in the nanostructure stack on the same substrate” (Emphasis added). Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein fabricating the given nanostructure layer comprises fabricating the respective pattern of nanostructure features for a plurality of the given nanostructure layers on the same substrate”. Because claim 1 requires fabricating the given nanostructure layer comprises fabricating the respective pattern of nanostructure features for a plurality of given nanostructure layers on a same substrate wherein “fabricating the respective pattern of nanostructure features for a plurality of the given nanostructure layers” is for each of the layers and further the “given nanostructure layers” are of the N nanostructure layers in the nanostructure stack the limitation of claim 3 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 16, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Deterministic Nanoassembly of Quasi-Three Dimensional Plasmonic Nanoarrays with Arbitrary Substrate Materials and Structures”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for producing a nanostructure stack (multiple stacked plasmonic films see Figure 4a) having a plurality of N nanostructure layers adhered together (such as N = 4 depicted), the method comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): fabricating a given nanostructure layer (plasmonic film comprising a periodic nanoarray of quasi-three-dimensional nanoscale surface features) of the N nanostructure layers on a substrate (donor Si substrate) that is not another of the N nanostructure layers, each of the N nanostructure layers having a respective pattern of nanostructure features (see Figure 1a and 4a); and adhering (at the interface between each layer) the given nanostructure layer to another nanostructure layer of the N nanostructure layers to produce the nanostructure stack (see Figure 4a) (Figures 1, 3, and 4 and Pages 5796, 5797, and 5800).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein fabricating the given nanostructure layer comprises fabricating the respective pattern of nanostructure features for a plurality of the given nanostructure layers on the same substrate” and claims 3 and 4, Kim teaches the plurality of N nanostructure layers include several identical (or different) types of quasi-3D plasmonic films (Figure 4a and Page 5800). Kim teaches the layers are separately fabricated on a donor substrate (Figure 1). Kim teaches the donor substrate is allowed to be recycled for a cost- and time-saving solution through multiple recycles as a major cost and time-saving factor(Pages 5796 and 5800). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention fabricating the given nanostructure layer as taught by Kim comprises fabricating the respective pattern of nanostructure features for each of a plurality of given nanostructure layers of the N nanostructure layers in the nanostructure stack of identical type of quasi-3D plasmonic films (and wherein the plurality of the N nanostructure layers comprises all the N nanostructure layers in the nanostructure stack for all identical type) on a same donor substrate (by recycling/reusing the substrate for fabricating each layer as multiple recycles of the substrate) for cost- and time-saving factor/solution following that expressly taught by Kim (see Pages 5796 and 5800).
Regarding claims 5-8, Kim teaches the plurality of the N nanostructure layers adhered together include several identical or different types of quasi-3D plasmonic nanoarrays (having tailored feature shapes, sizes, and configurations) progressively assembled in a spatially controlled manner to create a multilayered plasmonic film stack to provide a mean of attaining advanced light manipulation (Pages 5796 and 5800). Kim teaches the nanostructure features made from different materials such as metal (such as gold) and dielectric (such as poly(methyl methacrylate) “PMMA”) (Page 5797). Kim teaches the different types include different patterns of nanostructure features comprising different nanostructures such as nanoposts, nanoholes, gratings, and disks (Figures 3a-d and description thereof) and/or same nanostructure features in different orientations such as sizes and arrangements (Figure 4c and description thereof). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the plurality of the N nanostructure layers adhered together taught by Kim comprises (in addition to the several identical layers) different types of layers comprising nanostructure layers having different patterns of nanostructure features (made from different materials such as gold and PMMA) wherein the different patterns of nanostructure features comprise different nanostructure features and/or wherein the different patterns of nanostructure features comprise a same nanostructure feature in different orientations following that expressly set forth by Kim to assemble the several identical or different types of quasi-3D plasmonic films (having tailored nanoarray feature shapes, sizes, and configurations) in a spatially controlled manner to create a multilayered plasmonic film stack to provide a mean of attaining advanced light manipulation.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches forming a carrier film (water-soluble tape) over the respective pattern of nanostructure features/nanostructure feature patterns fabricated on the same substrate (Figure 1a).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches removing the carrier film (Figures 1b-d and 4a and Page 5797).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches removing the carrier film comprises removing before adhering (see from Figures 1b/4b to 1d/4a).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches adhering the given nanostructure layer to the another nanostructure layer comprises adhering the nanostructure layers so that the pattern of nanostructure features/the nanostructure patterns of features in the layers face each other by overlapping in the stack (see Figure 4a).
Regarding claim 17, Kim requires fabricating the given nanostructure layer includes mechanical peeling of the given nanostructure layer at a constant rate from the substrate resulting in intact separation from the substrate (Page 5797). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vet quality of the given nanostructure layer (to be adhered to the another nanostructure layer) peeled from the substrate as taught by Kim to determine if the given nanostructure layer satisfies a quality constraint of resulting intact separation and adhering the given nanostructure layer to the another nanostructure layer in the nanostructure/nanolayer stack only if the vetting of the given nanostructure layer indicates that the given nanostructure layer satisfies the quality constraint as an intact separation is a required result of the fabricating for subsequent adhering as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches adhering comprises using a pick and place machine (micromanipulator capable of full X-Y movements and 360o rotation) to position and place the given nanostructure layer (such as a second placed layer) to the another nanostructure layer (such as a first placed layer) and a receiver substrate (Page 5798).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the nanostructure features of the given nanostructure layer adhered to the another nanostructure layer are characterized by a length in any direction less than 500 nm (nanometers) (such as less than 400 nm see Figure 2b and wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 21, the pattern of nanostructure features of the given nanostructure layer adhered to the another nanostructure layer taught by Kim comprises nanoposts and spacings between nanoposts (see 4a) formed of gold and forming antennas (Page 5796) and considered an optical metasurface of subwavelength antennas.
Regarding claim 22, fabricating and adhering the given nanostructure layer (such as the second placed layer) as taught by Kim comprises fabricating (at least by placing) and adhering (at least by post-annealing treatment) on the given nanostructure layer at least one other of the N nanostructure layers on the given nanostructure layer (such as the third placed layer).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 16, 17, and 19-22 above, and further in view of Bower (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0223220).
Regarding claim 17, Kim is described above in full detail the following rejection of claim 17 is an alternative to that set forth above. It is known in the same art of adhering nanostructure layers each layer is tested prior to adhering to increase yield as evidenced by Bower (Paragraph 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Kim further comprise vetting quality of the given nanostructure layer to be adhered to the another nanostructure layer to determine if the given nanostructure layer satisfies a quality constraint of passing a test and adhering the given nanostructure layer to the another nanostructure layer in the nanostructure/nanolayer stack only if the vetting of the given nanostructure layer indicates that the given nanostructure layer satisfies the quality constraint to increase yield as known in the art as evidenced by Bower.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1, 3-11, 16, 17, and 19-22 above, and further in view of Ellenbogen et al. (WO 2018/142339).
Regarding claim 21, Kim is described above in full detail the following rejection of claim 21 is an alternative to that set forth above. Kim teaches the nanostructure stack of layers comprising plasmonic nanoarrays such to form an antenna wherein it is known in the same art such nanoarray layers each form an optical metasurface of subwavelength antennas as taught by Ellenbogen (Page 1, lines 18-21 and Page 18, lines 12-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pattern of nanostructure features of the given nanostructure layer taught by Kim comprises an optical metasurface of subwavelength antennas as is the conventional and predictable type antenna as evidenced by Ellenbogen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten as suggested above 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 12-14, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method for producing a nanostructure stack having a plurality of N nanostructure layers adhered together as claimed and including wherein removing the carrier film comprises removing after adhering.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method for producing a nanostructure stack having a plurality of N nanostructure layers adhered together as claimed and including dicing a plurality of N nanostructure patterns corresponding to each respective pattern of nanostructure features for the plurality of the given nanostructure layers fabricated on the same substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746