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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 5/14/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 8-20 as being withdrawn, and claims 1-7 as being original. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-20 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 7/1/2024 was considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/1/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraphs [0010], [0063] of the specification, it is interpreted that “effective reflection index” should be “effective refractive index”.
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 1-7 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear how “the antireflection film is covered on the surface of the first side of the substrate without the plurality of negative nanostructures” should be interpreted since this limitation reads as if the antireflection film 30 is on a side of the substrate 10 opposite from the negative nanostructures 20. However, the figures (see e.g. 4A-4B) clearly show the antireflection film 30 on the first side 101 of the substrate 10, which is the same side of the substrate 10 as the negative nanostructures 20. Therefore, the intended meaning of this limitation in claim 1 is unclear.
Paragraph [0052] of the instant specification states that an equivalent optical path for the light passing through the antireflection film is equal to the product of the thickness of the antireflection film and the effective refractive index of the antireflection film in the working waveband. The effective refractive index of the antireflection film is dependent on wavelength (i.e. the working waveband), but claims 2 and 4-6 have not defined at what wavelength the equivalent optical path is determined, and therefore the claims are indefinite.
Claim 7 recites an effective reflection index, which is interpreted to be an effective refractive index. The effective refractive index of the antireflection film is dependent on wavelength (i.e. the working waveband), but claim 7 has not defined at what wavelength the effective refractive index is determined, and therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the depth” and “the thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6 recite the limitations “the equivalent optical path” and “the light”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the equivalent optical path”, “the light” and “the working waveband”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that paragraph [0054] of the specification recites that a far-infrared band may be 8µm to 12µm.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the effective reflection index”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
It is noted that the non-elected withdrawn claims should also be carefully checked for antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 Hao et al., CN 113703080 A (hereafter Hao; It is noted that references to the specification of Hao are with respect to the page numbers of the English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hao discloses a metasurface (see at least element 2), wherein an antireflection film is covered on the metasurface (see at least the last full paragraph of page 3 of the English machine translation, the descriptions of Fig. 4A on pages 13-15, and the descriptions of Fig. 6A-6D on pages 15-16); wherein, the metasurface comprises: a substrate (see at least element 1 and 2); the substrate comprises: a first side (see at least the side of substrate 1 which includes the super-surface structure unit 2 and nano-structure 21); and the first side of the substrate has a plurality of negative nanostructures at different locations (see at least elements 2122, 2132, 2142, 2162, 2172, and/or 2182), and the depth of the plurality of negative nanostructures is less than the thickness of the substrate (see at least figures 2B-2D, 2F-2H); the antireflection film is covered on the surface of the first side of the substrate without the plurality of negative nanostructures (see at least the last full paragraph of page 3 of the English machine translation, Fig. 4A and the descriptions of Fig. 4A on pages 13-15, and Figs. 6A-6D and the descriptions of Figs. 6A-6D on pages 15-16).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al., CN 113703080 A (hereafter Hao; It is noted that references to the specification of Hao are with respect to the page numbers of the English machine translation) in view of Meretska et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0128734 A1 (hereafter Meretska).
Regarding claims 2-7, as best understood, Hao further discloses that the effective refractive index is a result effective variable (see at least figures 5C and 5C, equivalent/effective refractive index on pages 6 and 15 of the English machine translation, and equation 1) and gives thicknesses for the layers of the antireflection film which may be designed for the far-infrared (see at least Fig. 4A and the descriptions of Fig. 4A on pages 13-15, and Figs. 6A-6D and the descriptions of Figs. 6A-6D on pages 15-16), and the instant application further discloses that the equivalent optical path is the product of the thickness of the antireflection film and the effective refractive index of the antireflective film (see at least paragraph [0052] of the specification of the instant application).
Hao does not specifically disclose that the effective reflection index of the antireflection film is greater than or equal to 1.1 and less than or equal to 2.1, that the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.55 µm and less than or equal to 3.36 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, and/or that the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.55 µm and less than or equal to 2.52 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film when the working waveband of the metasurface is a far-infrared band, and/or that the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.8 µm and less than or equal to 2.4 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, and/or that the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.99 µm and less than or equal to 3.66 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, and/or that the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 1.44 µm and less than or equal to 3.2 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film.
However, Meretska is related to Hao since both Meretska and Hao are related to metalens devices (see at least the title and abstracts of Meretska and Hao), wherein Meretska teaches that the effective refractive index and the equivalent optical path are result effective variables, which may be optimized for a given application by varying the physical properties of the negative nanostructures, such as hole size, hole spacing, hole aspect ratio (e.g. depth to diameter, length to width), slab thickness (see at least paragraphs [0004], [0011], [0029], [0067]-[0072], [0078]-[0079] of Meretska).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the physical parameters of the metasurface, such as hole diameter and depth, so that the effective reflection index of the antireflection film and/or the equivalent optical path are optimized to achieve desired transmission characteristics, such as desired phase dispersion to achieve an achromatic metalens and/or increasing transmission efficiency (see at least paras. [0004], [0067]-[0072], [0078]-[0079] of Meretska), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the parameters of the metasurface such that the effective reflection index of the antireflection film is greater than or equal to 1.1 and less than or equal to 2.1, and/or the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.55 µm and less than or equal to 3.36 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, and/or the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.55 µm and less than or equal to 2.52 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film when the working waveband of the metasurface is a far-infrared band, and/or the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.8 µm and less than or equal to 2.4 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, and/or the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 0.99 µm and less than or equal to 3.66 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, and/or the equivalent optical path is greater than or equal to 1.44 µm and less than or equal to 3.2 µm as the light passes through the antireflection film, for the purpose of achieving desired phase dispersion to achieve an achromatic metalens and/or increasing transmission efficiency for specific wavelengths (see at least paras. [0004], [0067]-[0072], [0078]-[0079] of Meretska). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Hao et al., US 2023/0194760 A1, is a US document/English equivalent of CN 113703080 A;
Yavuzcetin et al., US 2009/0071537 A1, discloses an antireflective coating including a nanostructured metamaterial wherein the effective refractive index is controlled (abstract, paras. [0009], [0021]-[0023]);
Tsai et al., US 2019/0196068 A1, discloses a nanostructured metalens wherein the effective refractive index is controlled (paras. [0004]); and
Lee et al., US 2021/0088694 A1, discloses that nanostructured metasurfaces may have positive or negative structures (figs. 6, 8, 10-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/29/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights