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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical error. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will add a comma between “aluminum” and “copper”. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “with each pixel of the multiplicity of pixels having a side length in the plane of the lens based on the free-space wavelength of the light to be focused” particularly “based on” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if applicant is incorporating a manufacturing step/design consideration or is incorporating a description of a problem solved/result achieved, i.e. designing a lens to operate in a particular wavelength (assumed). It has been held “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see MPEP 2173.05(g). A lens, by definition, would function at its intended wavelength. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “with each pixel of the multiplicity of pixels having a side length in the plane of the lens
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 2 (and its dependent claims 3-4) “wherein each of the one or more dielectric layers comprises a low-loss dielectric material” raises clarity issues. It is unclear where the line between low-loss materials and high-loss materials is. Further, it is unclear if “loss” is electrical loss or light loss or something else. The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret any dielectric material can be considered “low-loss” in some respect to some other material in existence, inherently. The examiner respectfully suggests cancelling claim 2 and using “wherein each of the one or more dielectric layers
Regarding claims 10-11 “the dimension the dimension in the plane of the one or more metal layers is 1/4 to 1/6 (or 1/5) of the free-space wavelength of the light to be focused” has antecedent issues and clarity issues. No “dimension” has been introduced. Further, if “the dimension” is an inherent feature, it is unclear if “the dimension” is the pixel side length or a side length the metal feature or a separation or a diagonal/radius/diameter/axial length of some other element or something else. Further, since the wavelength is open (i.e. ≤625mm) the metes and bounds are vague and indefinite. The specification repeats the terminology and does bot shed light on this. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume that a lens that fulfil all of the other requirements will inherently have each of its dimension within the open-ended claimed range for proper operation.
Regarding claim 20 “wherein the lens is secured in a frame” raises clarity issues. It is unclear what the further limitation to the lens is – since putting a lens in a frame does not limit the lens, per se. The examiner assumes this is a capability and suggests and for purposes of examination will use “wherein the lens is capable of being secured in a frame.”
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. “Broadband and Robust Metalens with Nonlinear Phase Profiles for Efficient Terahertz Wave Control” Adv. Optical Mater. 2017, 5, 1601084.
Regarding claim 1 Yang disclose a metamaterial lens (e.g. quadratic phase metasurface/QPM lens see figure 1) comprising: one or more dielectric layers; and one or more metal layers, each of the one or more metal layers is disposed on one of the one or more dielectric layers or between two of the one or more dielectric layers (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 “sandwiched structure with 3 layers of 200 nm thick aluminum cladding separated by two 50 μm thick polyimide (PI) ... A top and a bottom PI layer with a thickness of 10 μm are added”), each of the one or more metal layers comprising a regularly spaced pattern of metal features (e.g. plate W), wherein the metal features differ in size (inter alia figure 1 caption “W changes”), and each metal feature in each of the one or more metal layers is aligned with corresponding metal features in the other one or more metal layers if present to define a pixel having a thickness of the lens (e.g. see figure 1), the lens comprising a multiplicity of pixels (e.g. see figure 1), with each pixel of the multiplicity of pixels having a side length in the plane of the lens (e.g. period P), wherein the light to be focused has a frequency of at least 480 GHz (inter alia title e.g. abstract discuss measurements at 0.95 THz), and the lens is flat (inter alia page 1 2nd paragraph 1st sentence “a robust free-standing metasurface-based flat lens designed for terahertz frequencies”).
Regarding claims 2-3 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein each of the one or more dielectric layers comprises a low-loss dielectric material, and wherein the low-loss dielectric material comprises polypropylene, polyimide, or cyclic-olefin copolymer (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 “polyimide”).
Regarding claim 4 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 3, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein each of the one or more dielectric layers comprises a low-loss dielectric material, and wherein the low-loss dielectric material comprises polyimide (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 “polyimide”).
Regarding claim 6 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the metal features are periodic arrays of metal squares or rectangles (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the metal features comprise aluminum, copper, gold, or silver (inter alia page 2 line 7 “aluminum”).
Regarding claim 8 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 7, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the metal features comprise aluminum (inter alia page 2 line 7 “aluminum”).
Regarding claim 9 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the one or more metal layers is in a range of 0.1 micron to 0.3 microns (inter alia page 2 line 7 “200 nm thick aluminum”).
Regarding claim 10 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the dimension in the plane of the one or more metal layers is 1/4 to 1/6 of the free-space wavelength of the light to be focused (interpreted to be inherent feature for proper operation, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 11 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 10, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the dimension in the plane of the one or more metal layers is 1/5 of the free-space wavelength of the light to be focused (interpreted to be inherent feature for proper operation, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 12 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein a total number of the one or more dielectric layers and the one or more metal layers is in a range of 2 to 25 (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 lists 4 dielectric layers and 3 metal layers, i.e. 7 layers total).
Regarding claim 13 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein a total number of the metal layers is equal to or less than the total number of the dielectric layers (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 lists 4 dielectric layers and 3 metal layers).
Regarding claim 15 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses the light to be focused has a frequency of up to 1 THz (inter alia page 1 2nd paragraph 1st sentence “a robust free-standing metasurface-based flat lens designed for terahertz frequencies”).
Regarding claim 16 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein each of the metal features has a side length of 1% to 99% of the side length of the pixels (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 18 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein a thickness of the lens is in a range of about 50 microns to about 500 microns (e.g. using the values in page 2 lines 6-13 the total thickness would be 120.6 mm).
Regarding claim 19 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the lens is flexible (inter alia abstract “flexible and robust metalenses for efficient terahertz wave control”).
Regarding claim 20 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses wherein the lens is capable of1 being secured in a frame (inherent that a lens is capable of being mounted in a frame).
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.
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 5, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. “Broadband and Robust Metalens with Nonlinear Phase Profiles for Efficient Terahertz Wave Control” Adv. Optical Mater. 2017, 5, 1601084.
Regarding claim 5 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses some of dielectric layers having a thickness in a range of about 1 micron to about 20 microns (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 “A top and a bottom PI layer with a thickness of 10 μm”). Yang does not disclose wherein a thickness of all of the one or more dielectric layers is in a range of about 1 micron to about 20 microns. However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Yang has a lens with the substantially identical structure, as set forth above, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust dielectric thickness for the purpose of achieving appropriate phase change thereby modifying the lensing effect and providing sufficient structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Yang to have all of the dielectric layers between ~1 mm to ~20 mm thick for the purpose of achieving appropriate phase change thereby modifying the lensing effect and providing sufficient structure and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses each of the one or more metal layers is disposed between two of the dielectric layers (inter alia page 2 lines 6-13 lists 4 dielectric layers and 3 metal layers therebetween). Yang does not disclose wherein a total number of the metal layers is 10, a total number of the dielectric layers is eleven. However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Yang has a lens with the similar lens structure, as set forth above, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the number of layers for the purpose of achieving appropriate phase change thereby modifying the lensing effect and protecting the metal from corrosion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Yang to have 10 metal layers alternating between 11 dielectric layers for the purpose of achieving appropriate phase change thereby modifying the lensing effect and protecting the metal from corrosion and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17 Yang teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Yang further discloses a lens with a diameter of 4 mm (e.g. see figure 1). Yang does not disclose wherein a diameter of the lens is in a range of about 100 mm to about 600 mm. It has been held that limitations relating to size as not being sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Yang to have a diameter of the lens is in a range of about 100 mm to about 600 mm since limitations relating to size as not being sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisano et al. “Dielectrically embedded flat mesh lens for millimeter waves applications”, Applied Optics Vol. 52, No. 11 pp 2218-2225, April 2013.
Regarding claims 1 and 15 Pisano discloses a metamaterial lens (inter alia title “mesh lens”) comprising: one or more dielectric layers; and one or more metal layers, each of the one or more metal layers is disposed on one of the one or more dielectric layers or between two of the one or more dielectric layers (inter alia abstract “mesh grids are stacked at specific distances and embedded in polypropylene” in combination with figures 1 & 11 have dielectric layers with metal layers), each of the one or more metal layers comprising a regularly spaced pattern of metal features (e.g. see figures 1 & 3), wherein the metal features differ in size (inter alia page 2220 left column lines 15-19 “grids have … metallic squares … the size of the squares relative to the grid period … varies across the grid and also between grids” see figure 3), and each metal feature in each of the one or more metal layers is aligned with corresponding metal features in the other one or more metal layers if present (e.g. see figure 1) to define a pixel having a thickness of the lens, the lens comprising a multiplicity of pixels (see figure 3), with each pixel of the multiplicity of pixels having a side length in the plane of the lens (inter alia page 2220 left column lines 15-19 “period g” see figure 3), and the lens is flat (inter alia title).
Pisano discloses operating in a millimeter wavelength range, i.e. 30 GHz to 300 GHz, with a prototype tested at 90 GHz, see figure 17. Pisano does not disclose wherein the light to be focused has a frequency of at least 480 GHz, as further required by claim 1; or the light to be focused has a frequency of up to 1 THz, as required by claim 15. However, Pisano further teaches (see section 2. b. pages 2219-2221) a method of designing the lens to optimize for a given frequency range (inter alia page 2220 full paragraph in right column particularly “Given the frequency range and the material within which the grids have been embedded … the best grid period resulted …” 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Pisano has a lens with the substantially identical structure, as set forth above, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes of the elements for the purpose of achieving lensing at higher frequencies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Pisano to use the design method further taught by Pisano to design the lens to focus light between 480 GHz and 1 THz for the purpose of optimizing operation in a submillimeter wavelength range and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 2-3 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein each of the one or more dielectric layers comprises a low-loss dielectric material, and wherein the low-loss dielectric material comprises polypropylene, polyimide, or cyclic-olefin copolymer (inter alia abstract “polypropylene”)
Regarding claim 6 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein the metal features are periodic arrays of metal squares or rectangles (inter alia page 2220 left column lines 15-19 “metallic squares” see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein the metal features comprise aluminum copper, gold, or silver (inter alia page 2223 right column line 10 “copper squares”).
Regarding claim 10 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein the dimension in the plane of the one or more metal layers is 1/4 to 1/6 of the free-space wavelength of the light to be focused (interpreted to be inherent feature for proper operation, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 11 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein the dimension in the plane of the one or more metal layers is 1/5 of the free-space wavelength of the light to be focused (interpreted to be inherent feature for proper operation, see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 12 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein a total number of the one or more dielectric layers and the one or more metal layers is in a range of 2 to 25 (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 13 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein a total number of the metal layers is equal to or less than the total number of the dielectric layers (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 14 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses each of the one or more metal layers is disposed between two of the dielectric layers (e.g. see figure 1). Pisano does not disclose wherein a total number of the metal layers is 10, a total number of the dielectric layers is eleven. However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Pisano has a lens with the similar structure, as set forth above, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the number of layers for the purpose of achieving appropriate phase change thereby modifying the lensing effect and protecting the metal from corrosion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Pisano to have 10 metal layers alternating between 11 dielectric layers for the purpose of achieving appropriate phase change thereby modifying the lensing effect and protecting the metal from corrosion and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein each of the metal features has a side length (e.g. figure 3 length “b”) of 1% to 99% of the side length of the pixels (implicit given “b/g ratios” e.g. see figure 3).
Regarding claim 17 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses a prototype with a diameter of 54 mm (inter alia conclusion third sentence). Pisano does not disclose wherein a diameter of the lens is in a range of about 100 mm to about 600 mm. However, Pisano further teaches (page 2225 last paragraph starting in left column) “next step for this development will be to manufacture larger diameter devices” and notes lenses greater than a half meter (see page 2218 new paragraph starting in right column) for the purpose of being used in very large arrays of detectors measuring cosmic microwave background radiation polarization detection (see page 2218 new paragraph starting in right column). Further it has been held that limitations relating to size as not being sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Pisano to have a diameter of the lens is in a range of about 100 mm to about 600 mm as suggested by Pisano for the purpose of being used in very large arrays of detectors measuring cosmic microwave background radiation polarization detection and since limitations relating to size as not being sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano does not disclose wherein a thickness of the lens is in a range of about 50 microns to about 500 microns. However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Pisano has a lens with the substantially identical structure, as set forth above, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the thickness to minimize the mismatch with the free-space impedance, therefore avoiding an additional layer of antireflection coating (page 2223 lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for metamaterial lens as disclosed by Pisano to have a lens thickness in a range of ~50mm to ~500mm for the purpose of minimizing the mismatch with the free-space impedance, therefore avoiding an additional layer of antireflection coating and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein the lens is flexible (inherent given structure and materials used).
Regarding claim 20 Pisano teaches the metamaterial lens of claim 1, as set forth above. Pisano further discloses wherein the lens is capable of2 being secured in a frame (inherent that a lens is capable of being mounted in a frame).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yonak et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0033389; in regards to a flat metamaterial lens with some similarities, e.g. see figures 1 & 9 metamaterial lens assemblies 10 & 100, including, e.g. figure 8, a stack of copper pattern (92) on dielectric layers (80 & 82).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 15, 2026
1 It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
2 Ibid.
Prosecution Insights