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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The amendment filed 5/20/2025 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125 was entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 1/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 recites “wherein the metal features comprise aluminum copper, gold, or silver. There is a comma missing between the words “aluminum” and “copper.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3, 11, 18 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.
Claims 3, 11, 18 recite a formula including a variable labeled “Cgrid.” Because “Cgrid” is not defined in the claims and not described in the specification, it is unclear what “Cgrid” is referring to and how it is determined, which renders the claims indefinite.
Due to the 112(b) issues noted above, no meaningful prior art examination of claims 3, 11, 18 is currently possible and the examiner is unable to make a meaningful prior art rejection of these claims. Note that the lack of any prior art rejection should not be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter because the patentability determination of these claims cannot be made at this time due to the ambiguity in the claim language. When the 112(b) issues are resolved, the examiner will conduct prior art examination and may apply prior art rejections to these claims as appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9, 12-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by J. Zhang et al., New artificial dielectric metamaterial and its application as a terahertz antireflection coating, Appl. Opt., Vol. 48, No. 35 (2009), pp. 6635-6642 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Zhang discloses in Figs. 1-7 and the corresponding description:
A multimode free-space coupled filter (Figs. 1, 6, 10-layer, metal mesh filter, pp. 6635-6638), the filter comprising:
a first layer comprising a dielectric film (Figs. 1, 6, dielectric substrate);
a second layer (Fig. 2, dielectric layer with embedded metal mesh pattern) disposed on the first layer, the second layer comprising a dielectric film with a regularly spaced pattern of metal features (p. 6638, the artificial dielectric is constituted by two essential elements, a metal mesh grid and the embedding dielectric), wherein the metal features are uniform in size and spacing with a period g and spacing between the features given by 2a (Fig. 2, p. 6636 defining the spacing between the layers as d, the gap between two adjacent metallic squares as 2a and the period of the repetitive square structures as g),
one or more additional first and one or more additional second layers, wherein the one or more additional first layers and the one or more additional second layers are disposed to alternate (Fig. 3, pp. 6636-7, 10 metal mesh layers alternating with dielectric layers); and
a topmost layer comprising a dielectric film disposed on a top surface of a topmost layer comprising a dielectric film with a regularly spaced pattern of metal features (Fig. 6 showing that the topmost layer is a dielectric layer embedding a metal grid).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19-20, Zhang discloses that the base dielectric used is low-loss dielectric polypropylene (pp.6635-6, 6638).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 14-15, Zhang discloses the metal features are periodic arrays of metal squares or rectangles comprising aluminum, copper, gold, or silver (Fig. 2, Cu squares created photolithographically).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses wherein the filters can be designed as high pass, low pass and band pass filters for frequencies up to 1 THz (Fig. 3 indicating a low-pass characteristics of the disclosed filter; pp. 6636, 6638, the filter is obtained by photolithographic techniques adopted in the manufacturing of far-infrared low-pass filters).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses a method of forming the claimed filter by using photolithography (Fig. 2, p. 6638).
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 16-17, 19-20 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by A.B. Sriram et al., Stepped impedance metal-mesh filters for terahertz frequencies” 32nd IEEE Int’l Symp. on Space THz Technology, 2022, p. 187.
This one-page printout is self-explanatory and discloses all the limitations of the above-listed claims, including the recited formulas.
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.
Claims 2, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of L.B. Whitbourn and R. C. Compton, Equivalent-circuit formulas for metal grid reflectors at a dielectric boundary, Appl. Opt., Vol. 24, No. 2 (1985), pp. 217-220 (“Whitbourn”), cited by the applicant.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 17, Zhang discuses all the limitations except the formula for determining the effective impedance of the dielectric layers embedding metal meshes.
However, Whitbourn, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar formula for determining the effective impedance for dielectric layers embedding metal meshes used in filters at submillimeter wavelengths (pp. 217-8, Expression 4, for n1=n2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the formula disclosed in Whitbourn to the filter of Zhang for the benefit of determining the effective impedance of the filter, as taught by Whitbourn (pp. 217-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sano, Eiichi and Ikebe, Masayuki, Equivalent circuit analysis of artificial dielectric layers, Progress in Electromagnetics Research, Vol.60, pp.85-92 (2017), discloses filters using artificial dielectric layers with copper patches and also discloses formulas to calculate the filter parameters (Fig. 1, pp. 86-90)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL, can be reached at (571) 272-5918. 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights