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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a device comprising a stack of silicon meta-optical layers forming a meta-material, classified in G02B1/005.
II. Claims 15-17, drawn to a method of making a meta-optical device comprising photolithographically etching a plurality of regions of a silicon on oxide wafer using an oxide layer in the wafer as an etch stop to define a plurality of dies each comprising a different one of a plurality of silicon layers and a handle portion of the wafer, classified in B82Y40/00.
III. Claims 18-20, drawn to a method of performing spectroscopy comprising focusing different spectral bands of electromagnetic radiation into different spatially separated and non-overlapping electromagnetic modes, classified in G01J3/26.
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product and the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process.
Inventions I and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The elements recited in each of the three different groups of inventions are different and would require separate and distinct search strategies and therefore would be a serious search and examination burden if not restricted.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with G. Brendan Serapiglia on March 6, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “meta-material” should perhaps be “metamaterial”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, after “radiation” there is a period missing. 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 2, 5-6, 9, and 14 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 2 recites the limitation "the meta-optical elements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 appears to have a typo because the claim does not make sense (“comprises a feature size of the voids that less than one or more wavelengths of the terahertz electromagnetic radiation.”).
Claim 5 recites “and the thickness is less than all the wavelengths of the terahertz electromagnetic radiation.” It is not clear what this means.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed that claim 6 depends on claim 5 and has been treated as such.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the stack of meta-optical elements" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 14 recites the broad recitation “a coupled pair of membranes”, and the claim also recites “(DBR air silicon)” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2019/0285475 A1) in view of Shipton et al. (US 2019/0339448 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Han et al. disclose a device (213/313/411/511), comprising: a stack of silicon meta-optical layers (Figs. 2-9) forming a meta-material comprising an input surface for receiving terahertz electromagnetic radiation (paragraph 0058), an output surface for outputting a plurality of beams of the electromagnetic radiation (paragraphs 0056+).
Han et al. do not specifically disclose a spatially varying permittivity varying with sub-wavelength precision across a volume of the stack, wherein the spatially varying permittivity is configured to focus different spectral bands of the electromagnetic radiation into different spatially separated electromagnetic modes.
Shipton et al. disclose a diffraction grating (1200) includes first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) supported by a substrate (1240), the first and second grating structures including its own hyperbolic metamaterial grating structure, with different pitches of the metamaterial stripes, and, optionally, with different metamaterial composition, wherein an optical permittivity of the first grating structure (1201) comprises a spatially varying refractive index having a wavelength-dependent first refractive index contrast, and wherein the optical permittivity of the second grating structure (1202) comprises a spatially varying refractive index having a wavelength-dependent second refractive index contrast (paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Han et al. to have a spatially varying permittivity varying with sub-wavelength precision across a volume of the stack, wherein the spatially varying permittivity is configured to focus different spectral bands of the electromagnetic radiation into different spatially separated electromagnetic modes, to enable redirecting and coupling light to a waveguide in an efficient, space-saving manner, as taught by Shipton et al.
With respect to claim 2, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the meta-optical elements each comprise a distribution of voids comprising a shape and dimension patterning the spatially varying permittivity, wherein the sub-wavelength precision comprises a feature size of the voids that less than one or more wavelengths of the terahertz electromagnetic radiation.
Han et al. disclose the 2D metastructure scanner (213/313/411/511) may receive the terahertz wave including information about the depth image and the surface image of the sample from the telecentric lens (212) and may reflect and output the received terahertz wave (Figs. 2-5 & 8-9). Shipton et al. disclose (paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12) the first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) act as diffraction grating grooves for diffracting an incoming optical beam (920) to produce a diffracted optical beam (922), wherein the optical permittivity of the first grating structure (1201) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent first refractive index contrast, and wherein the optical permittivity of the second grating structure (1202) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent second refractive index contrast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have the meta-optical elements each comprise a distribution of voids comprising a shape and dimension patterning the spatially varying permittivity, wherein the sub-wavelength precision comprises a feature size of the voids that less than one or more wavelengths of the terahertz electromagnetic radiation, as a matter of design choice. This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
With respect to claim 3, Han et al./Shipton et al. disclose wherein the spectral bands each comprise a resonance of a free spectral range of a resonator (Shipton et al. - paragraphs 0075-0079 & Figs. 14A & 14B - the grating structures (1451 & 1452 & 1453) may include resonant nanoparticles of different surface plasmon resonant wavelengths or optical frequencies).
With respect to claim 4, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein silicon surfaces of the meta-optical layers are bonded together to prevent, suppress, or eliminate air gaps between the layers. Han et al. disclose (paragraph 0148 & Fig. 9) the 2D metastructure (950) may be deposited and patterned on an insulator (940) in the substrate (910) formed of the material such as silicon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have the silicon surfaces of the meta-optical layers bonded together to prevent, suppress, or eliminate air gaps between the layers, for the obvious reason of ensuring the layers do not separate apart from each other.
With respect to claim 5, Han et al./Shipton et al. disclose wherein: each of the meta-optical layers comprises an electromagnetic meta-surface comprising a thickness and a two dimensional pattern of voids through the thickness; and the thickness is less than all the wavelengths of the terahertz electromagnetic radiation (Han et al. – Figs. 2-5 & 8-9 – the 2D metastructure scanner (213/313/411/511) may receive the terahertz wave including information about the depth image and the surface image of the sample from the telecentric lens (212), and may reflect and output the received terahertz wave and Shipton et al. – paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12 – the first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) act as diffraction grating grooves for diffracting the incoming optical beam (920) to produce the diffracted optical beam (922)). This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
With respect to claim 6, Han et al./Shipton et al. disclose wherein the thickness is less than or equal to a quarter of the longest of the wavelengths in free space (Shipton et al. – paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12 – the first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) act as diffraction grating grooves for diffracting the incoming optical beam (920) to produce the diffracted optical beam (922)).
With respect to claim 7, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein each of the meta-optical layers comprises a continuous piece of silicon that is self-supporting. Han et al. disclose (paragraph 0148 & Fig. 9) the 2D metastructure (950) may be deposited and patterned on an insulator (940) in the substrate (910) formed of the material such as silicon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have each of the meta-optical layers comprises a continuous piece of silicon that is self-supporting, as a matter of design choice, for added stability.
With respect to claim 8, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose the device comprising at least 4 of the silicon layers and wherein each of the silicon layers has a different pattern for the spatially varying permittivity. Han et al. (Fig. 9) disclose the 2D metastructure (950) may be deposited and patterned on an insulator (940) in the substrate (910) formed of the material such as silicon. Shipton et al. disclose (paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12) the first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) act as diffraction grating grooves for diffracting the incoming optical beam (920) to produce the diffracted optical beam (922), wherein the optical permittivity of the first grating structure (1201) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent first refractive index contrast, and wherein the optical permittivity of the second grating structure (1202) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent second refractive index contrast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have the device comprising at least 4 of the silicon layers and wherein each of the silicon layers has a different pattern for the spatially varying permittivity, to allow for various optical permittivities, as taught by Shipton et al.
With respect to claim 9, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose a spectrometer comprising a resonator coupled to the stack of meta-optical elements of claim 1. Han et al. disclose an apparatus for acquiring an image of a sample using a terahertz wave comprising a 2D metastructure scanner (213/313/411/511) configured to generate a 2D array structure and a pattern of each cell based on a resonant frequency (see Figs. 2-9). Han et al. do not disclose a spectrometer comprising a resonator coupled to “the stack of meta-optical elements of claim 1.” However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have a spectrometer comprising a resonator coupled to the stack of meta-optical elements of claim 1, as a matter of design choice, depending on the specific application being done.
With respect to claim 10, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the spectral bands each comprise a different one of a plurality of free spectral range resonances of the resonator, wherein the input surface is coupled to the output of the resonator to receive the electromagnetic radiation; and further comprising an array of direct detectors coupled to the output surface each positioned to receive a different one of the electromagnetic modes. Han et al. disclose (Figs. 2-5 & 8-9) – the 2D metastructure scanner (213/313/411/511) may receive the terahertz wave including information about the depth image and the surface image of the sample from the telecentric lens (212), and may reflect and output the received terahertz wave. Shipton et al. disclose (paragraphs 0070-0079 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-14B) – a diffraction grating (1200) includes first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) supported by a substrate (1240), the first and second grating structures including its own hyperbolic metamaterial grating structure, with different pitches of the metamaterial stripes, and optionally, with different metamaterial composition, wherein an optical permittivity of the first grating structure (1201) comprises a spatially varying refractive index having a wavelength-dependent first refractive index contrast, and wherein the optical permittivity of the second grating structure (1202) comprises a spatially varying refractive index having a wavelength-dependent second refractive index contrast, and wherein the grating structures (1451 & 1452 & 1453) may include resonant nanoparticles of different surface plasmon resonant wavelengths or optical frequencies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have the spectral bands each comprise a different one of a plurality of free spectral range resonances of the resonator, wherein the input surface is coupled to the output of the resonator to receive the electromagnetic radiation; and further comprising an array of direct detectors coupled to the output surface each positioned to receive a different one of the electromagnetic modes, to enable detection of the different spectral bands.
With respect to claim 11, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose a spectrometer comprising the device of claim 1, comprising: an array of direct detectors or resonators coupled to the output surface of the metamaterial and positioned to receive a different one of the electromagnetic modes. Han et al. disclose (Figs. 8-9) an apparatus for acquiring an image of a sample using a terahertz wave comprising a beam detector (216/316/413/514) which may detect the terahertz wave reflected by a 2D metastructure scanner (213/313/411/511). Han et al. do not specifically disclose a spectrometer comprising the device of claim 1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the device of claim 1 in a spectrometer, to widen applicability of use of the device.
With respect to claim 12, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein each of the resonators comprises a cavity detuned from a different spectral line and the resonators are configured to scan longitudinal modes of the resonator across the spectral line. Shipton et al. disclose (paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12) the first and second grating structures (1201 & 1202) act as diffraction grating grooves for diffracting an incoming optical beam (920) to produce a diffracted optical beam (922), wherein the optical permittivity of the first grating structure (1201) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent first refractive index contrast, and wherein the optical permittivity of the second grating structure (1202) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent second refractive index contrast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have each of the resonators comprises a cavity detuned from a different spectral line and the resonators are configured to scan longitudinal modes of the resonator across the spectral line, as a matter of design choice, depending on the specific application being done.
With respect to claim 13, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the electromagnetic modes are spaced less than two of the longest one of the wavelengths apart in a lateral direction. Shipton et al. disclose (paragraphs 0070-0073 & claim 2 & Figs. 9-12) the optical permittivity of the first grating structure (1201) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent first refractive index contrast, and wherein the optical permittivity of the second grating structure (1202) comprises the spatially varying refractive index having the wavelength-dependent second refractive index contrast. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have the electromagnetic modes spaced less than two of the longest one of the wavelengths apart in a lateral direction, as a matter of design choice, depending on the specific application being done.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2019/0285475 A1) in view of Shipton et al. (US 2019/0339448 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Peralta et al. (USPN 8,803,637 B1).
With respect to claim 14, Han et al./Shipton et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the resonator comprises a coupled pair of membranes (DBR air silicon) coupled by a piezoelectric actuator scanning a separation between the membranes. Peralta et al. disclose (column 4, line 55 – column 5, line 44 & claim 1 & Figs. 2a-2i) – metamaterial resonator elements (28) disposed on a free-standing thin membrane (29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Han et al./Shipton et al. to have the resonator comprise a coupled pair of membranes (DBR air silicon) coupled by a piezoelectric actuator scanning a separation between the membranes, as a matter of design choice, because this is a known resonator structure, as taught by Peralta et al. This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. See MPEP 2114. In this case, it should be recognized that the wherein clause is functional in nature and does not distinguish structurally the instant claim over the prior art. See MPEP 2114 and 2111.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 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, David J Makiya can be reached at 571 272-2273. 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
March 10, 2026