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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 and 09/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short: The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should sufficiently describe the disclosure to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure: A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: “has carbon” is grammatically incorrect and should read “includes carbon”.
Claim 18: “wherein a transmittance of light having a wavelength of 550 nm of the substrate is 5% or more” is grammatically incorrect, and should read “wherein a transmittance of light having a wavelength of 550 nm through the substrate is 5% or more”.
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.
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 3 and 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 3 recites the limitation “a transmission attenuation rate of the first patterned conductive layer ….. is -5.0 dB or more”. However, attenuation rate is typically defined as loss in dB per unit length. Did the Applicant intend to recite “transmission attenuation of the first patterned conductive layer”? Clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the adjacent linear structures" and “the adjacent linear opening portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-8, 12-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IDS document Choi et al. (US 2013/0002520; “Choi”).
Claim 1: Choi discloses (fig. 2 below) “An electromagnetic wave control element (title, “active metamaterial device”) comprising:
a first patterned conductive layer (¶31, lower electrode 30);
an insulating layer (¶34, dielectric layer 24); and
a layer (50) containing a material of which conductivity changes with a voltage (¶31, “The couple layer 50 may include graphene. Electrical conductivity of the graphene may be changed according to the intensity of an electric field induced between the upper electrode 60 and the lower electrode 30.”)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi discloses (fig. 2) “a second patterned conductive layer (¶31, “upper electrode 60”) on a side of the layer (50) containing the material of which the conductivity changes with the voltage, opposite to a side on which the insulating layer (24) is provided.
Claim 4. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi discloses “wherein the first patterned conductive layer (30) includes two or more linear structures or linear opening portions (see fig. 2)”.
Claim 5. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 4.
Choi discloses (fig. 3) “wherein a shortest distance (36) between the adjacent linear structures or between the adjacent linear opening portions is 1,000 μm or less (¶35, “The slit-structured lower electrode 30 and upper electrode 60 may have a first line width 34 ranging from about 1 μm to about 3 μm and a distance 36 ranging from about 3 μm to about 5 μ”)”.
Claim 6. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi discloses “wherein the material (50) of which the conductivity changes with the voltage includes a two-dimensional material (¶31, “layer 50 may include graphene”)”.
Claim 7. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 6.
Choi discloses “wherein the two-dimensional material includes carbon (¶45, “layer 50 may include graphene”)”.
Claim 8. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi discloses “wherein the material of which the conductivity changes with the voltage contains graphene (¶45, “layer 50 may include graphene”)”.
Claim 12. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi discloses “wherein the first patterned conductive layer (30) contains a metal or an oxide conductor (¶35, “The lower electrode 30 and the upper electrode 60 may include an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer”)”.
Claim 13. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 2.
Choi discloses “wherein the second patterned conductive layer (60) contains a metal or an oxide conductor (¶35, “The lower electrode 30 and the upper electrode 60 may include an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer”)”.
Claim 16. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1
Choi discloses (fig. 2) “further comprising: a substrate (dielectric 22) on a side of the first patterned conductive layer (30) opposite to a side on which the insulating layer (24) is provided.
Claim 18: Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 16.
Choi discloses “wherein a transmittance of light having a wavelength of 550 nm through the substrate is 5% or more (¶20 “the dielectric layer may include polyimide”)”.
The transmittance of polyimide at 550 nm is more than 5% as evidenced by para. [0017] of US 2010/0048861, “The polyimide film may have transmittance of 88% or more at 550 nm”.
Claim 19: Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 16.
Choi discloses “wherein the substrate (22) contains at least one selected from the group consisting of an inorganic compound and a resin (¶34, “The dielectric layers 20 may include first to fourth dielectric layers 22, 24, 26 and 28 and the gap-fill dielectric layer 25. The dielectric layers 20 may include a polymer having excellent transparency and flexibility, such as polyimide, polymethyl methacrylate, polycarbonate, cycloolefin copolymer, or polyethylene terephthalate. Also, the dielectric layers 20 may include at least one metal dielectric or inorganic dielectric of an aluminum oxide layer, a silicon oxide layer, a titanium oxide layer, or a magnesium fluoride layer.”)”.
Claim 20. Choi discloses (fig. 2) “A manufacturing method of an electromagnetic wave control element (title, “active metamaterial device”), the manufacturing method comprising:
a step of forming a first patterned conductive layer (¶31, lower electrode 30) on a substrate (22); a step of forming an insulating layer (¶34, dielectric layers 24 and 25) on the first patterned conductive layer (30); and a step of forming a layer containing a material of which conductivity changes with a voltage (¶31, “The couple layer 50 may include graphene. Electrical conductivity of the graphene may be changed according to the intensity of an electric field induced between the upper electrode 60 and the lower electrode 30.”) on the insulating layer (24 and 25)”.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi.
Claim 3. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi does not explicitly disclose “wherein a minimum value of a transmission attenuation rate of the first patterned conductive layer (30) with respect to electromagnetic waves of 0.2 THz to 0.4 THz is -5.0 dB or more (see Examiner’s note below)”.
However, the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi has all the features of claim 1, and the first patterned conductive layer (30) includes linear structures/opening portions which contain an oxide conductor. The shortest distance between adjacent linear structures/opening portions is also less than 1 micron. Choi teaches that the first patterned conductive layer (30) can have a slit structure or net structure, and the widths of these structures can be varied (¶35). First pattern conductive layer (30) can also transmit light having a terahertz frequency range (¶35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a first patterned layer wherein a minimum value of a transmission attenuation rate with respect to e.m. waves of 0.2 THz to 0.4 THz is -5.0 dB or more. This could be achieved by varying properties of the first patterned conductive layer to achieve different transmission attenuation rates. Doing so would provide an electromagnetic wave control element which meets user requirements.
Examiner’s note: According to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of IDS document Lee et al. (US 2020/0301224; “Lee”).
Claim 9. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi does not disclose “wherein the material of which the conductivity changes with the voltage includes a material having a band gap of 3.0 eV or more”.
Lee teaches an active metamaterial with a conductivity variable material layer (abstract). This layer may comprise an oxide semiconductor (¶31, “The conductivity variable material layer 202 may be formed of graphene, silicon, oxide semiconductor, or dielectric-metal transition material, but may not be limited thereto and may be formed of conductivity variable materials including other semiconductor materials.”). Oxide semiconductors are known to have a band gap of 3.0 eV or more (as evidenced by NPL Shi “Wide Bandgap Oxide Semiconductors: from Materials Physics to Optoelectronic Devices”, p.1, col. 1 “Oxide semiconductors have bandgap larger than 3 eV, enabling transparency in the visible spectrum”);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lee to modify the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi, wherein the material of which the conductivity changes with the voltage includes a material having a band gap of 3.0 eV or more. Doing so provides a transparent electromagnetic wave control element which can be used in enhanced wireless communications in, for example, smart windows.
Claim 10. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi does not disclose “wherein the material of which the conductivity changes with the voltage includes an oxide semiconductor”.
Lee teaches an active metamaterial with a conductivity variable material layer (abstract). This layer may comprise an oxide semiconductor (¶31).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lee to modify the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi, wherein the material of which the conductivity changes with the voltage includes an oxide semiconductor. Doing so is simply the substitution of one known element with another to yield predictable results, as oxide semiconductors have high optical transparency (as evidenced by abstract of NPL Shi, “wide bandgap oxide semiconductors combine properties of electrical conductivity and optical transparency”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and further in view of Shi et al. (NPL “Wide Bandgap Oxide Semiconductors: from Materials Physics to Optoelectronic Devices”, Pub. 2021; “Shi”).
Claim 11. The modified Choi teaches the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 10.
The modified Choi teaches that the material includes an oxide semiconductor (¶31).
Choi does not disclose “wherein the oxide semiconductor has at least one selected from the group consisting of In and Zn”.
Shi teaches materials for use in transparent devices. Such materials can be wide bandgap oxide semiconductors such as ZnO and In2O3 (p. 1, col. 1). Shi therefore teaches wherein the oxide semiconductor has at least one selected from the group consisting of In and Zn.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Shi to modify the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi in view of Lee, wherein the oxide semiconductor has at least one selected from the group consisting of In and Zn. Doing so provides a material that combines the properties of visible-light transparency and high conductivity in a single material (p. 1, col. 1 of Shi).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Chanda et al. (US 2017/0322457; “Chanda”).
Claim 14: Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 1.
Choi discloses “wherein the first patterned conductive layer (30) includes a metal or an oxide conductor (¶35, “The lower electrode 30 and the upper electrode 60 may include a transparent electrode transmitting light having a terahertz frequency range. The lower electrode 30 and the upper electrode 60 may include an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer.”)”.
However, Choi does not disclose a metal wire or an oxide conductor wire.
Chanda teaches that an electrode can comprise indium tin oxide, silver nanowires, or carbon nanotubes (¶11). That is, Chandra teaches that the first patterned conductive layer can contain a metal wire.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi such that the first patterned conductive layer includes a metal wire, as taught by Chandra. Silver nanowires have high electrical conductivity, excellent optical transparency and high mechanical flexibility.
Claim 15. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 2.
Choi discloses “wherein the second patterned conductive layer (60) includes a metal or an oxide conductor (¶35, “The lower electrode 30 and the upper electrode 60 may include a transparent electrode transmitting light having a terahertz frequency range. The lower electrode 30 and the upper electrode 60 may include an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer.”)”.
However, Choi does not disclose a metal wire or an oxide conductor wire.
Chanda teaches that an electrode can comprise indium tin oxide, silver nanowires, or carbon nanotubes (¶11). That is, Chandra teaches that the second patterned conductive layer can contain a metal wire.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi such that the second patterned conductive layer includes a metal wire, as taught by Chandra. Silver nanowires have high electrical conductivity, excellent optical transparency and high mechanical flexibility.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Okuda et al. (US 2024/0088549; “Okuda”).
Claim 17. Choi discloses the electromagnetic wave control element according to claim 16.
Choi does not disclose “wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the substrate at a frequency of 28 GHz is 0.05 or less”.
Okuda teaches a transparent substrate for a high frequency device (abstract). Okuda also teaches (¶22) “Since the substrate 10 for a device is used as a high frequency device, it preferably has a property such that the dielectric loss tangent (tan δ) at 28 GHz is 0.01 or less, particularly 0.007 or less.” The substrate 10 comprises an insulating glass substrate and a resin base material (¶21). Okuda further teaches (¶57) “With respect to the dielectric loss tangent of the resin base material 20, in order to cope with an increase of the signal frequency of a high frequency device, the dielectric loss tangent in dielectric loss tangent test is preferably 0.01 or less, more preferably 0,007 or less, further preferably 0.001 or less.”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Okuda to the electromagnetic wave control element of Choi, wherein a dielectric loss tangent of the substrate at a frequency of 28 GHz is 0.05 or less. Doing so allows for a durable and reliable substrate that can cope with high frequency signals (¶57 of Okuda).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845