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 .
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.
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 1-5 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 1 contains the limitations “wherein the chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises one or more nanostructures” and “wherein the one or more nanostructures are in contact with the dielectric spacer and comprise one or more left hand (LH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures and one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures arranged along a plane” which are unclear. The limitation “one or more nanostructures” allows for one nanostructure; however, the claim additionally requires “one or more left hand chiral metamaterial nanostructures and one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures” which is at least two nanostructures. Therefore, it is unclear how many nanostructures are required by the claim. It is suggested that the limitation “wherein the chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises one or more nanostructures” be changed to “wherein the chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises a plurality of nanostructures”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claim 5 additionally contains the limitation “the one or more nanostructures” and is unclear for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (“Ultrathin circular polarimeter based on chiral plasmonic metasurface and monolayer MoSe2”, provided with IDS filed 1/23/2025) as evidenced by Bharadwaj Daralagodu Dattatreya Jois et al. (US 2022/0115574, referred to as “BDDJ”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a photodetector pixel in Figure 1 comprising:
a chiral plasmonic molecule array (abstract, introduction and Figure 1) configured to generate heat upon incidence of an electromagnetic wave on the chiral plasmonic molecule array (The chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises the conductive metal materials Au and Ag and thus necessarily is configured to generate heat upon incidence of an electromagnetic wave.); and
a thermoelectric layer (two dimensional MoSe2 monolayer, Figure 1 and abstract, and page 5907-1st column) configured to generate an electric current or voltage upon transfer of heat from the chiral plasmonic molecule array to the thermoelectric layer (The two dimensional MoSe2 monolayer is a thermoelectric layer which exhibits Seebeck effect as evidenced by BDDJ, [29]-[32] and Tables I and II. Therefore, the MoSe2 monolayer is configured to generate an electric current or voltage upon transfer of heat from the chiral plasmonic molecule array to the thermoelectric layer as claimed.);
wherein the chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises a metal layer (Ag backplane layer, Figure 1b);
wherein the chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises one or more nanostructures (Figure 1, Au (gold) nanoantennas, page 5907 1st column and Results and discussion section-1st paragraph);
wherein the chiral plasmonic molecule array comprises a dielectric spacer (SiO2 layer) such that the dielectric spacer (SiO2 layer) is between the metal layer (Ag backplane layer) and the one or more nanostructures (Au nanoantenna) (Figure 1b and Results and discussion section-1st paragraph); and
wherein the dielectric spacer (SiO2 layer) is in contact with the metal layer (Ag backplane layer) (Figures 1-2, The SiO2 layer and Ag backplane layer are in direct contact; however, it is noted that the term “in contact” does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers); and
wherein the one or more nanostructures (Au nanoantennas) are in contact with the dielectric spacer (SiO2 layer) (Figures 1-2, the SiO2 layer and Au nanoantennas are in indirect contact. It is noted that the term “in contact” does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers and all of the layers of the device are “in contact” with each other.) and comprise one or more left hand (LH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures and one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures arranged along a plane (abstract, Introduction, Page 5908, 2nd paragraph and Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jiang additionally discloses that the thermoelectric layer comprises any material that exhibits Seebeck effect (The two dimensional MoSe2 monolayer exhibits Seebeck effect as evidenced by BDDJ, [29]-[32] and Tables I and II).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jiang additionally discloses that the thermoelectric layer (MoSe2 monolayer) comprises a two-dimensional (2D) thermoelectric material (abstract, page 5907 1st column).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jiang additionally discloses that the one or more nanostructures comprise a metal (Au (gold) nanoantenna, page 5907 1st column).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (“Ultrathin circular polarimeter based on chiral plasmonic metasurface and monolayer MoSe2”, provided with IDS filed 1/23/2025) as evidenced by Bharadwaj Daralagodu Dattatreya Jois et al.(US 2022/0115574, referred to as “BDDJ”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhou et al. (WO 2021/169401A1, see English equivalent US 2022/0393049 for mapping).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jiang does not disclose that the one or more left hand (LH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures are “Z” shaped nanostructures; and the one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures are “Z” shaped nanostructures.
Zhou discloses left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures that are “Z” shaped nanostructures ([10]-[13]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Jiang such that the one or more left hand (LH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures are “Z” shaped nanostructures and the one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures are “Z” shaped nanostructures, as taught by Zhou, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration of shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that Jiang does not disclose the limitation "wherein the dielectric spacer is in contact with the metal layer; and wherein the one or more nanostructures are in contact with the dielectric spacer and comprise one or more left hand (LH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures and one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures arranged along a plane." Instead, Jiang discloses the gold nanoantennas being separated from the silicon oxide (SiO2) layer by the molybdenum diselenide (MoSe2) layer (see, e.g., Figure 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the dielectric spacer and the nanostructures being in direct contact with each other with no intervening layers between the nanostructures and the dielectric spacer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim limitation “in contact” includes indirect contact and does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers. All of the layers of the device of Jiang are “in contact” with each other, including the chiral nanostructures and the dielectric spacer.
Jiang discloses that the dielectric spacer (SiO2 layer) is in contact with the metal layer (Ag backplane layer) (Figures 1-2, The SiO2 layer and Ag backplane layer are in direct contact; however, it is noted that the term “in contact” does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers); and wherein the one or more nanostructures (Au nanoantennas) are in contact with the dielectric spacer (SiO2 layer) (Figures 1-2, the SiO2 layer and Au nanoantennas are in indirect contact. It is noted that the term “in contact” does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers and all of the layers of the device are “in contact” with each other.) and comprise one or more left hand (LH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures and one or more right hand (RH) chiral metamaterial nanostructures arranged along a plane (abstract, Introduction, Page 5908, 2nd paragraph and Figures 1 and 2) as claimed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728