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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on August 28, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claim 7 is canceled; claims 11 and 12 are new; resulting in claims 1-6 and 8-12 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 appears to contain a typographical error where a hyphen “-“ is present on line 12 after the period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2011/0175672, previously cited) as evidenced by “Rogers Corporation CLTE and CLTE-XT Circuit Materials: Datasheet” (https://www.rogers corp.com/advanced-electronics-solutions/clte-series-laminates/clte-xt-laminates; hereinafter “Rogers”).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 12, Nguyen et al. teaches a metamaterial comprising a plurality of resonators (pattern) disposed on a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a support layer (base layer) and a relatively thin semiconductor layer (Abstract, [0003]). Nguyen et al. teaches that the plurality of resonators each include a conducting pattern (conductive material, metal), for example, formed by a metal film ([0003], [0062]).
Nguyen et al. teaches that the support layer may be a dielectric layer, such as glass or polymer, wherein the support layer may comprise one or more of the following: a liquid crystal polymer such as Rogers ULTRALAM 3000 series LCP; or a fluoropolymer-ceramic substrate, e.g., a micro-dispersed ceramic-PTFE composite such as CLTE-XT [0071]. As evidenced by “Rogers”, CLTE-XT has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the x, y, and z directions of 12.7, 13.7, and 40.8 ppm/°C, respectively (p. 2), which falls squarely within the range of 80 ppm/K or less.
Although Nguyen et al. teaches that the support layer can include one or more of a liquid crystal polymer and a micro-dispersed ceramic-PTFE composite, the reference does not expressly teach that the support layer includes a plurality of layers that each contain a resin including at least one selected from a fluorine-based polymer and a liquid crystal polymer. Nguyen et al. does, however, further teach that the substrates may comprise 1-50 layers, where the number of conducting layers and dielectric substrates are not limited and may be any number to obtain desired properties [0068]. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two or more layers constituting the support layer, such as two or more layers of CLTE-XT micro-dispersed ceramic-PTFE composite, based on the suggestion in Nguyen et al. to use any number of dielectric substrates in order to obtain the desired properties. Each of the plurality of layers therefore contains a resin including a fluorine-based polymer and functional group including a vinyl compound (i.e., PTFE), wherein the pattern of resonators is provided on a first layer of the plurality of layers, and a layer of the plurality of layers other than the first layer comprises a filler (i.e., micro-dispersed ceramic).
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including that the support layer may be formed of CLTE-XT [0072]. As evidenced by “Rogers”, CLTE-XT has a dissipation factor (dielectric loss tangent) of 0.0010 (p. 2), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 0.01 or less.
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the resonator (pattern) may be formed by a gold layer having a thickness of 0.25 to 0.5 microns ([0063]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of less than 5 µm.
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above with respect to claim 1, Nguyen et al. teaches that the substrate may be formed of a support layer (base material) comprising a micro-dispersed ceramic-PTFE composite such as CLTE-XT and a semiconductor layer, where the thickness of the semiconductor layer may be about 2 microns, and the thickness of the support layer may be at least 5-10 times thicker than the semiconductor layer (i.e., at least about 10 to 20 microns) in order to provide the required mechanical stability ([0004], [0072]). Nguyen et al. further teaches that the resonator (pattern) may be formed by a gold layer having a thickness of 0.25 to 0.5 microns [0063]. Given that the thickness of the resonator is about 1/40 of the thickness of the support layer, and the storage modulus of the resonator is less than 400 times the storage modulus of the support layer, the ratio of a product of the thickness and the storage elastic modulus of the resonator to a product of the thickness and the storage elastic modulus of the support layer falls within the claimed range of less than 10.
Regarding claim 5, Nguyen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further illustrates an arrangement of resonators (10; structural bodies) on a substrate, wherein the resonators are split-ring resonators ([0040], Figs. 1A-1B).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2011/0175672, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanielian (US 2004/0151876, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Nguyen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above directed to the metamaterial, but does not expressly teach a laminate comprising the metamaterial and an organic film provided on a surface of the base material on a pattern side.
Tanielian teaches a metamaterial comprising a substrate (804; base material), a binding material (802) formed on the surface of the substrate, conductive patterns (808; pattern) applied to the binding material, and an additional layer of binding material (810; organic film) applied over the conductive patterns ([0009], Figs. 8A-8C). Similar to the patterns taught by Xiong et al., the conductive patterns of Tanielian may include a split ring resonator (SRR) pattern ([0036]-[0037], Figs. 4A-4B). Tanielian further teaches that the binder applied to the substrate and applied over the conductive patterns may be a thermoplastic resin or an organic resin, wherein the second layer of binder (810) is useful to protect the patterns of conductive material ([0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metamaterial of Nguyen et al. by including an organic film over the noble metal layer forming the pattern of resonators, as suggested by Tanielian, in order to protect the pattern of conductive material from damage.
Regarding claim 9, Nguyen et al. in view of Tanielian teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above but does not expressly teach a moisture permeability of the organic film. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate material for the organic film such that the moisture permeability is minimized, such as to a value within the claimed range, in order to protect the metal material used to form the pattern of resonators from being damaged due to exposure to moisture (i.e., corrosion).
Regarding claim 10, Nguyen et al. in view of Tanielian teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above but does not expressly teach that the organic film contains an ultraviolet absorber. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an ultraviolet absorber in the organic film, in order to protect the pattern of resonators and/or the underlying base material from being damaged due to UV degradation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2011/0175672, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murali et al. (“Preparation and properties of silica filled PTFE flexible laminates for microwave circuit applications”, 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.05.007; Published May 13, 2009).
Regarding claim 11, Nguyen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Nguyen et al. teaches that the support layer may comprise a micro-dispersed ceramic-PTFE composite such as CLTE-XT ([0071]), the reference does not expressly teach that the micro-dispersed ceramic (filler) contains silica particles.
Murali et al. teaches that polymer ceramic composites, in particular using PTFE polymers, are used as microwave substrates because of their low loss tangent, stable dielectric constant, good chemical resistance, and high operating temperature (p. 1179). Ceramic filled PTFE substrates are extensively used for microwave circuit fabrication, where dielectric, thermal, and mechanical properties are tailored by incorporating different particulate fillers in the PTFE matrix in different proportions (p. 1179). In particular, commercially available low dielectric ceramic loaded PTFE substrates use fused silica as particulate fillers because of its very low coefficient of thermal expansion and low dielectric constant (p. 1179).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metamaterial of Nguyen et al. by selecting silica as the ceramic filler used in the micro-dispersed ceramic-PTFE composite, as suggested by Murali et al., given that the use of silica as a particulate filler is known to impart a low coefficient of thermal expansion and low dielectric constant.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks filed August 28, 2025, with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they do not address the new grounds of rejection presented above. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Kitayama, Xiong et al., Hor et al., and Nguyen et al. are withdrawn, and Nguyen et al. is applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 to address the new combination of limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 2015/0255877) teaches a metamaterial comprising at least one layer of substrate and multiple artificial microstructures (Abstract, Fig. 1). A material of the flexible substrate may be polytetrafluoroethylene [0014].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785