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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: phrasing, missing article. The claim recites the limitation: “configured as a cubic resonator, said predetermined dimensions comprising a side length of a cube and a height of each of layers of the multi-layer structure of the cubic resonator.” The grammatical structure is at odds with English convention, the examiner recommends a “the” before “layers” for complete sentence structure, or further clarifying of the sentence and limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: spelling error. The claim recites “…one or mor…” in the first sentence, and “mor” should be “more”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Rejections under 112b:
Claims 1-25 is/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 and 22:
The term “near-zero effective thermo-optic coefficient” in claims 1 and 22 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The term “near-zero” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The invention’s disclosure merely states that the thermo-optic coefficient is near-zero, nothing helps to ascertain the degree of ‘nearness’ to zero.
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “…is from 0 K up to…” A range beginning at 0 K is physically impossible and does not help to further define the invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 1 defines a temperature range, wherein the temperature “range is about 500 K”. A range should include both the upper and lower bound, else the range of “about 500 K” may apply to any starting/ending point where the full range does not encompass a value at or below 0 K.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites “the metamaterial structure” of claim 20, but claim 20 is directed to a metasurface structure. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim.
Regarding claim 23:
Claim 23 recites that the unit cells are “similar or different” in numerous physical characteristics. The two option are exhaustive, and thus the clause imposes no limit at all. “Similar” is a relative term with no disclosed standard, while being “similar or different” exhausts all possibilities; is it similar, or is it different? The scope of this claim is indefinite and requires appropriate correction.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a base claim which is itself indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L18 (Lewi et al., "Thermal tuning capabilities of semiconductor metasurface resonators," Nanophotonics 8(2), 331-338 (2018)), in view of SR (Stolberg-Rohr & Hawkins, "Spectral Design of Temperature-Invariant Narrow Bandpass Filters for the Mid-Infrared," Opt. Express 23(1), 580-596 (2015)).
Regarding claim 1:
L18 discloses an optical element for use in a photonic device (metasurface Mie resonators; Figure 2a, 2b, depict individual resonators, Figure 4 depicts them in ensemble), the optical element being configured and operable as a sub-wavelength resonator (the resonators operate at 2-16 microns, Results and Discussion),
having predetermined optical properties defining an optical response to incident light (Figures 2 describe cross sections, Figures 4 reflection spectra; these are optical properties, predetermined),
wherein the optical element is configured as a metal-free structure (resonator body is Silicon on SiO2, thus nonmetal, p. 335, end of the first column;) of predetermined geometry and dimensions (sphere is stated to have dimensions, r = 1.9 um for spherical configurations, r = 290 nm for disks with h = 280 nm; predetermined geometry)
Silicon’s positive dn/dT mapped over 2-16 microns within a temperature range of 80 – 850 K.
This is the positive material that interfaces with a negative material. The silicon value and PbTe’s anomalous negative coefficient are, however, known in the art, as seen in Lewi et al. 2017 ("Ultrawide Thermo-Optic Tuning of PbTe Meta-Atoms," Nano Lett. 17, 3940-3945 (2017)).
L18 does not expressly teach the multi-material aspect of the structure or the thermo-optic coefficients and optical properties responding to temperature ranges as claimed.
SR teaches the use of interfacing non-metal materials to generate invariant thermo-optic coefficients under temperature changes/ranges (Title, Abstract), wherein:
two interfacing materials have positive and negative thermo-optic coefficients (SR’s PbTe stack alternating with ZnSe in quarter wave reflector stacks and half-wave cavities, Section 3), respectively, such that the optical element has a near-zero effective thermo-optic coefficient (Equation 2, Table 2, the weighted sum of the two materials’ thermo-optic coefficients is made to be zero by choice of multilayer design),
thereby providing substantial temperature invariance of said optical properties in predetermined wavelength and temperature ranges.
Section 4, Temperature Dependence Theory, contains equation 2 and also the expressly stated intention to use two materials of opposing thermo optic coefficients as a means of achieving temperature invariance, citing additional prior practice of the method
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in L18 under the teachings of SR to include an interfacing layer of a negative thermo-optic coefficient material (PbTe, SR Table 1) within the Si resonator body, with the layer thicknesses according to SR’s design conditions (Equation 2 of SR) such that the weighted thermo-optic contributions of both materials sum substantially to zero, providing strong temperature invariance. This may be accomplished using methods (deposition of alternating material layers, PECVD, photolithography, ion etching), materials (PbTe, ZnSe, Si, SiO2), and routine design oversight known to a skilled artisan. Predictably, this would result in a device which maintains its resonance wavelength, amplitude, and phase response even under temperature variance, providing greater signal integrity.
Regarding claim 2:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1, wherein:
a temperature range of the near-zero effective thermo-optic coefficient is from 0 K up to a temperature (L18, Figure 1 discloses an operating interval from 80-850 K, SR measures invariance across [293-473 K]; Additionally, extending the workable range is routine optimization of a disclosed general condition, like the thermo-optic coefficient and response) corresponding to at least one of the following:
a lowest melting temperature of the material of at least one of said two interfacing materials; lowest temperature of phase transition of the at least one of said two interfacing materials; a lowest temperature at which material properties of at least one of said two interfacing materials are no longer capable of supporting the optical response.
While not expressly stated, these are inherent physical endpoints of any resonator’s operation. Every material structure operates until a material melts, transforms, or stop supporting a desired response due to change in the material properties.
Regarding claim 3:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1, wherein:
said predetermined temperature range is about 500K (L18 discloses a span from 80-850 K, which is a larger [770 K] span the same order of magnitude.
Spans of this order were routinely within reach, a range of “about” 500 K is routine optimization and already met by L18’s invention.
Regarding claim 4:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1.
L18 does not teach the wavelength overlap as claimed.
SR (Figure 1) teaches the principle expressly – the passband at each temperature is made to coincide by opposing the layer shifts. Sections 6 and 8 select cavity order and layer balance to minimize net displacement; this teaches that the geometry and dimensions of the multi-material structure are selected such that scattering properties of the optical element within said predetermined wavelength range substantially overlap.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of SR to select the precise dimensions and geometry that enable desirable wavelength overlap with respect to scattering properties. This can be accomplished using machining methods and material construction methods known to the art (deposition, lithography, machining of parts) and routine placement oversight that would be obvious to a skilled artisan. Predictably, this would result in a device that maintains the desired thermo-optic coefficient and temperature invariance for better signal integrity and quality.
Regarding claim 5:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1.
L18 does not teach the negative thermo-optic coefficient material as claimed.
SR teaches a negative thermo-optic coefficient material, which is a material from a lead chalcogenide family PbX, wherein X is any one of the following: Te, Se, S.
L18 expressly employs PbTe.
L18 expressly states: “However, the design methods described in this paper are not constrained by these two materials or wavelength ranges, but applicable to other Pb salts (PbSe, PbS)…” (Section 1.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of SR to utilize a negative thermo-optic coefficient material that is one of PbTe, PbSe, or PbS. This may be accomplished using materials and methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which utilizes a Pb-based material well known in the art and having material properties known to a skilled artisan for manufacturing and ease in optimization, and ultimately which is responsible for the thermal invariance and improved signal integrity of the invention.
Regarding claim 6:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1.
L18 does not teach the multi-layer as claimed.
SR teaches alternating PbTe and ZnSe stacks for its structure (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of SR to configure the optical element as a multi-layer structure. This may be accomplished using the methods and materials as taught in SR in the resonators of L18, and would predictably result in a device where the optical element contains the thermal invariance property through resonators manufactured through known methods and with known materials.
Regarding claim 7:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1, configured as a spherical Mie resonator (Figure 2a, the spherical Mie resonator is spherical).
L18 does not expressly teach the core-shell structure.
SR motivates a core-shell structure, as it teaches the underlying theory for generating a temperature invariant thermo-optic coefficient via two materials: a compensating PbTe layer within the Si body in a layer stack to achieve the thermo-optic coefficient. This process is applied in spherical format (the layers are radially stacked), ensuring a concentric core-shell form between the two materials by construction.
A skilled artisan would find this geometry-agnostic design method to be a valuable teaching in achieving the end result of a temperature invariant material, and applying it to any material geometry (Mie resonators inclusive) is obvious. As early as 2007, this process has been used to compensate for temperature changes in multilayer spherical resonators (i.e. Han et al., “Temperature compensation of optical microresonators using a surface layer with negative thermo-optic coefficient,” Opt. Lett. (2007))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of SR to configure the Mie resonator to be a core-shell spherical resonator. This may be accomplished using methods (deposition, lithography) known in the art with materials taught in L18 and SR, and would predictably result in an optical element with spherical Mie resonators that are more efficient in mode preservation.
Regarding claim 8:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 7, wherein:
L18 teaches the spherical component, but SR’s alternating layer teaching ensures said core-shell spherical Mie resonator is a three-layer core-shell Si/PbTe/Si spherical structure.
L18’s sphere is the body, SR’s compensating PbTe layer yields a silicon core and PbTe shell, and the alternation of said layers results in an Si/PbTe/Si ordering inherent to the combined invention.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the invention described in the rejection of claim 7 above under the teachings of L18 and SR to ensure a 3-layer core shell for the spherical Mie resonators. This may be accomplished using methods known in the art (deposition layering, lithography/machining techniques), and would predictably result in a device which temperature invariance preserves the optical properties of the optical element.
Regarding claim 9:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 8.
L18 does not teach thicknesses of shells.
SR establishes that the selection of the negative-coefficient layer thickness is a parameter that directly effects the spectra overlap, and thus device integrity (Section 8, Figure 10, and Table 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 8 under the teachings of SR to ensure that a thickness of a PbTe inner shell is selected to provide substantial overlap of scattering properties of the resonator within said predetermined wavelength and temperature ranges; SR shows that the relative amount of PbTe versus ZnSe in a stack tunes effective thermo-optic coefficient. This may be accomplished using routine design oversight and methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a device where the spectra overlap is precisely controlled and tuned for modal preservation and signal integrity.
Regarding claim 10:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 9, wherein said predetermined temperature range is about 143K-643K.
The claimed 500 K interval sits inside of L18’s characterized 80-850 K interval (Figure 1), establishing that such a range is expected and normally characterized in the art.
The workable range is determined through routine optimization of a results-effective variable. The operating temperature interval is set by material choice and layer balance; general conditions disclosed in SR/L18 (MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller).
Regarding claim 14:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1, configured as a disk resonator (Figure 4a, fabricated Si metasurface disk array is shown), said predetermined dimensions comprising a disk diameter (d = 290 nm) and a thickness (h = 280 nm for the claimed layer)
L18 does not teach the multilayer component.
SR teaches why multilayer stack of each material which would comprise the multi-material structure of the disk resonator (ZnSe/PbTe/ZnSe, or more broadly dielectric/PbX/dielectric). As it is integral to the invention, the invention of claim 1 necessarily requires a multilayer component as taught in SR to induce the balance between negative and positive thermo-optic materials and achieve temperature invariance.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of SR to ensure that the disk resonators contain a material stack. This may be accomplished using materials (as disclosed in L18 and SR) and stacking methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a disk resonator which maintains modal and signal integrity with temperature invariance in a suitable range.
Regarding claim 15:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 6, configured as a disk resonator (Figure 4a, fabricated Si metasurface disk array is shown), said predetermined dimensions comprising a disk diameter (d = 290 nm) and a thickness (h = 280 nm for the claimed layer)
L18 does not teach the multilayer component.
SR teaches why multilayer stack of each material which would comprise the multi-material structure of the disk resonator (ZnSe/PbTe/ZnSe, or more broadly dielectric/PbX/dielectric). As it is integral to the invention, the invention of claim 1 necessarily requires a multilayer component as taught in SR to induce the balance between negative and positive thermo-optic materials and achieve temperature invariance (SR’s PbTe stack alternating with ZnSe in quarter wave reflector stacks and half-wave cavities, Section 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 6 above under the teachings of SR to ensure that the disk resonators contain a material stack. This may be accomplished using materials (as disclosed in L18 and SR) and stacking methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a disk resonator which maintains modal and signal integrity with temperature invariance in a suitable range.
Regarding claim 16:
L18 in view of SR teaches optical element according to claim 15.
L18 does not teach the three-layer hybrid resonator as claimed.
SR teaches why multilayer stack of each material which would comprise the multi-material structure of the disk resonator (ZnSe/PbTe/ZnSe, or more broadly dielectric/PbX/dielectric). As it is integral to the invention, the invention of claim 1 necessarily requires a multilayer component as taught in SR to induce the balance between negative and positive thermo-optic materials and achieve temperature invariance (SR’s PbTe stack alternating with ZnSe in quarter wave reflector stacks and half-wave cavities, Section 3).
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to configure said disk resonator as a disk three-layer hybrid resonator comprising bottom and top layers made of Si, and a middle layer made of PbTe.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 15 above under the teachings of SR to ensure that the Si of L18 is layered around the PbTe of SR to successfully achieve the thermo-optic properties of the claimed invention. This may be accomplished using materials and methods (stacking, deposition, lithography) known to a skilled artisan, and would predictably result in an optical element where the resonators are capable of maintaining signal integrity with high temperature invariance.
Regarding claim 17:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element of claim 1, wherein said temperature invariant optical properties comprise one or more of the following characteristics of light resulting from interaction with the incident light:
cross section (Scattering cross section, Figures 2a-2b), amplitude (Figure 4d, meta filter amplitude modulation)
Regarding claim 18:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element of claim 1, configurable for transmission of incident light.
The recitation that the optical element is “configured for transmission of incident light” describes a manner of operating the claimed article rather than a structural feature thereof. The subwavelength dielectric resonator of the combination transmits, reflects, and scatters incident light simultaneously, and is fully capable of transmissive operation. An apparatus claim must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure, and a recitation of intended use imparts no patentable weight where the prior art structure is capable of the recited use (MPEP 2114; In re Schreiber).
Regarding claim 19:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element of claim 1, configured for reflection or scattering of incident light (Figures 4a-4b; measured reflection spectra of the primary’s own disk metasurface, Figures 2a-2b: scattering cross section spectra of single resonators).
Regarding claim 20:
L18 in view of SR teaches a metasurface structure for a photonic device, the metasurface structure comprising a plurality of unit cells, wherein each unit cell is configured as the optical element of claim 1 (Figure 4a’s periodic disks are unit cells, each disk modified per SR), thereby providing substantial temperature invariance of optical properties of the metasurface structure in predetermined wavelength and temperature ranges (as modified by SR, the multilayer stack induces a near-zero effective thermo-optic coefficient, leading to the temperature invariance as claimed).
Regarding claim 21:
L18 in view of SR teaches the metamaterial structure according to claim 20, wherein geometry, dimensions of the unit cells, and relative orientation and distance between the unit cells are selected to optimize the temperature invariance of the optical properties.
L18 Figure 4A selects a periodicity of 590 nm and the lattice is visibly present.
L18 does not describe the underlying theory, SR does (Equation 2, Sections 3-4).
The lattice constant is a results-effective variable that depends on the geometry and orientation of the resonators and which effects the thermo-optic coefficient of the device. Finding the lattice constant which properly governs the inter-resonator coupling is routine optimization of known design variables.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L18 (Lewi et al., "Thermal tuning capabilities of semiconductor metasurface resonators," Nanophotonics 8(2), 331-338 (2018)), in view of SR (Stolberg-Rohr & Hawkins, "Spectral Design of Temperature-Invariant Narrow Bandpass Filters for the Mid-Infrared," Opt. Express 23(1), 580-596 (2015)), and further in view of L17 (Lewi et al., "Ultrawide Thermo-Optic Tuning of PbTe Meta-Atoms," Nano Lett. 17, 3940-3945 (2017)).
Regarding claim 11:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 1.
L18 does not teach a cubic resonator.
L17 teaches a Mie resonator configured as a cubic resonator (Figure 1b, PbTe resonator), said predetermined dimensions comprising a side length (Figure 1b, length a) of a cube.
L17 does not expressly define a thickness of each material of the multi-material structure of the cubic resonator. However, the thickness is established to be a results-effective variable determining the resonance wavelength, cancellation balance, and modal properties of the resonator. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to find the optimal thicknesses for established materials layered in a cube (as taught by the alternating stack of SR).
Regarding claim 12:
L18 in view of SR teaches the optical element according to claim 6.
L18 does not teach a cubic resonator.
L17 teaches a cubic resonator (Figure 1b, PbTe resonator), with predetermined dimensions comprising a side length of a cube (Figure 1 description teaches a length a of the cubic resonator).
While L17 does not specify layer height, configuring the height of each of [the] layers of the multi-layer structure of the cubic resonator is an obvious design choice for a skilled artisan. The layer thicknesses of the layers in the alternating layer structure established in SR are used to facilitate the effective thermo-optic coefficient of the invention (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
The per-material thickness sets the resonance wavelength and the cancellation balance, their selection is routine optimization of a results-effective variable. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 13:
L18 in view of SR, and further in view of L17 reaches the optical element according to claim 12.
In the invention of claim 12, said cubic resonator is configured as a cubic three-layer hybrid resonator (SR generally teaches a dielectric/PbTe/dielectric layer stack) comprising bottom and top layers made of Si, and a middle layer made of PbTe (Si is a suitable dielectric, and supplied by L18).
A skilled artisan would find the material selection and placement to be an obvious design choice as the multilayer structure is known to achieve the desired thermo-optic properties through proper configuration of the layer thicknesses.
Regarding claim 22:
L18 teaches a metasurface structure for a photonic device, wherein the metasurface structure comprises an array of spaced-apart individual unit cells operable as subwavelength resonators having predetermined optical properties, wherein: each of the unit cells is configured as a metal-free multi-material structure of predetermined geometry and dimensions in which each two interfacing materials have positive and negative thermo-optic coefficients, respectively, such that the unit cell has a near-zero effective thermo-optic coefficient.
L18 teaches the positive coefficient material (Silicon, mapped in detail in Figures 1a, 1c) which is later modified under the teachings of SR. Additionally, an array of periodic Mie resonators is taught in Figure 4a.
each unit cell configured as a metal-free multi-material structure (resonator body is Silicon on SiO2, thus nonmetal, p. 335, end of the first column;) of predetermined geometry and dimensions (sphere is stated to have dimensions, r = 1.9 um for spherical configurations, r = 290 nm for disks with h = 280 nm; predetermined geometry)
L18 does not teach the negative coefficient material as claimed.
SR teaches “each two interfacing materials have positive and negative thermo-optic coefficients, respectively, such that the unit cell has a near-zero effective thermo-optic coefficient”
SR Table 1: PbTe and ZnSe have opposing thermo-optic coefficients and are interfaced.
SR equation 2 describes how the weighted sum may be calculated and how varying the materials and their geometries results in the claimed near-zero effective coefficient.
SR does not teach the periodic array as claimed.
L17 teaches the metasurface structure comprising an array of spaced-apart individual unit cells operable as resonators having predetermined optical properties (i.e. Figures 5a, 5d show these explicitly).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of L18 under the teachings of SR and L17 to include a material stack to achieve the thermo-optic coefficient as claimed while arranging an array of Mie resonators.
Regarding claim 23:
L18 in view of SR and further in view of L17 teaches the metasurface structure according to claim 22, wherein the unit cells of the array are arranged in M sets (M≥2) of similar arrangements, each formed by K unit cells (K≥2), wherein the unit cells of the set are similar or different in at least one of geometry, dimensions and orientation of the unit cell.
L18 and SR do not teach this explicitly, but the array in Figure 4a of L18 serves as the first set (M = 1).
L17 teaches two sets (Cubic in Figure 5d, spherical in Figure 5a, identical to L18’s teaching) of unit cells.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 22 above under the teachings of L17 to include at least 2 sets of at least 2 unit cells. This may be accomplished using methods and materials known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which utilizes multiple resonator architectures for greater breadth in control over modal quality and signal integrity.
Regarding claim 24:
L18 teaches a photonic device comprising one or more optical elements (Figure 4d, the metafilter is a photonic device), each configured as the optical element of claim 1 (as taught by L18, SR, and L17, see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 25:
L18 teaches a photonic device (Figure 4d, the metafilter is a photonic device) comprising the metasurface structure configured according to claim 22.
The structure of claim 22 is taught by L18, SR, and L17, and is directed to a metasurface containing optical elements (Mie resonators in array); incorporating an explicitly stated optical element into a larger optical/photonic device is not only obvious to a skilled artisan but the most straightforward application.
Additional Prior Art
The following prior art is not used as a basis for any rejection but is relevant and made available to the applicant.
Han et al., “Temperature compensation of optical microresonators using a surface layer with negative thermo-optic coefficient,” Opt. Lett. (2007)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights