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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hor et al. (US 2010/0271692 A1) in view of Dupont (NPL) and Chuang (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Hor teaches a base for a metamaterial, substrate, comprising DUPONT KAPTON polyimide. (Abstract; Paragraph 0038). Dupont teaches DUPONT KAPTON polyimide has a glass transition temperature of 360 to 410 degrees C. (Page 3). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Hor and Dupont do not teach the surface roughness of the substrate. Hor does teach a pattern is inkjet printed onto substrate to form a metamaterial. (Paragraph 0039-0043).
Chuang teaches polyimide films where metal material is inkjet printed onto a substrate, such as a polyimide film. (Page 1). Chuang teaches the polyimide film substrate having a roughness of 2.1 to 37.5 nm, which overlaps the claimed range. Chuang teaches lowering the roughness of the substrate leads to a lower line edge roughness of the printed material on the substrate. (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed roughness range for the substrate to ensure lower line edge roughness of printed patterns in the resulting metamaterial of Hor.
Regarding Claim 4, Hor teaches the base material of Claim 1 (Paragraph 0038) and Chuang teaches the base material of KAPTON having a surface roughness within the claimed range, as discussed above. Hor teaches a pattern is formed on a surface of the base material. (Claim 1 of Hor; Paragraph 0037), where the pattern is composed of at least one conductive material. (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 5, Hor teaches patterns having thickness of 38.7 nm or 0.7 microns are suitable (Example 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Hor teaches the pattern includes of a plurality of structural bodies, where the structural bodies are split-ring resonator. (Claims 9, 19 of Hor; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 7, Hor teaches the pattern is composed of conductive metal. (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 8, Hor teaches a laminate comprising the metamaterial of Claim 4, as discussed above, and teaches an adhesive clear polymer, an organic film, formed on a surface of the metamaterial on a pattern side. (Paragraph 0031).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hor, Dupont and Chuang in further view of Dexlu (NPL).
Regarding Claim 2, Hor, Dupont and Chuang does not specifically teach the dielectric loss tangent range of the KAPTON film. Dexlu teaches KAPTON/polyimide films have a loss tangent of less than 0.004. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, the KAPTON polyimide film of Hor would inherently have a loss tangent within the claimed range.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hor, Dupont and Chuang, in further view of Ito et al. (US 2025/0038422 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Hor, Dupont and Chuang do not specifically teach the base material contains at least fluorine-based polymer or a liquid crystal polymer. Hor teaches any material that is consistent with use with metamaterial can be used. (Paragraph 0038)
Ito teaches a metamaterial comprising base material with resonators patterned on to the surface of the base material. (Fig. 1; Abstract). Ito teaches the base material can be polyimide, polyolefins, PMMA, polyester, cycloaliphatic epoxy, fluoropolymer or thermoplastic elastomer. (Paragraph 0028). Thus, as Ito teaches fluoropolymers and polyimide are suitable equivalents for base material for metamaterials, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use either material as the base material in Hor. Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation (see MPEP 2144.06.II.).
Claim 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hor, Dupont, Chuang, and in further view of Ruan (NPL) and Zeonor (NPL).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Ruan teaches a metamaterial comprising a polyimide base material, patterned nanomaterial and a top layer of ZEONER. (Page 2). Ruan teaches the use of ZEONOR, low loss cyclo-olefin polymer, provides the advantage of mechanical support and abrasion protection to the pattern. (Page 2). Zeonor shows the moisture permeability of ZEONOR film is less than 1.2 g/(m2 24hrs). (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use ZEONER as the protective layer onto the pattern of Hor to provide abrasion resistance and reasonably expect an overlapping low moisture permeability range when using ZEONOR to offer further protection to the pattern.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hor, Dupont, Chuang, and in further view of Ruan (NPL), Zeonor (NPL) and Eiki (WO 2019/013174 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Hor does not teach the organic film includes a UV absorber
Ruan teaches a metamaterial comprising a polyimide base material, patterned nanomaterial and a top layer of ZEONOR, (Page 2). Ruan teaches the use of ZEONOR, low loss cyclo-olefin polymer (COP), provides the advantage of mechanical support and abrasion protection to the pattern. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use ZEONER as the protective layer/organic film onto the pattern of Hor to provide abrasion resistance to the metamaterial.
Eiki teaches it is known to add UV absorbers to COP to prevent yellowing and cracking. (Page 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add a UV absorber to the COP of Hor and Ruan to prevent cracking and yellowing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejection has been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
The prior §103 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights