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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of claim 10, Applicant argues that claim 10 merely recites “further structure” of each reflectarray cell and that the substrate layer in claim 10 is a different substrate layer from the one in claim 1. That explanation is not borne out by the claim language itself. Claim 1 already limits the antenna to a “single substrate layer,” and claim 10 then recites another “substrate layer” without expressly identifying it as a separate cell substrate or as the same panel substrate. Because the claim does not clearly distinguish those structures, the ambiguity is not cured by applicant’s attorney argument, especially where the specification does not use consistent terminology to establish separate antecedent structure.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of claim 12, claim 12 now as amended, recites “wherein the first plurality of conductive elements are conductive printed patches having shapes that are different from the second plurality of conductive elements.” While conductive printed patches of different shapes are mentioned generally in the specification (e.g., Para. 38), the amended language still fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
First, it remains unclear what “shapes that are different from the second plurality” requires at the claim level. It is ambiguous whether (i) every individual patch of the first plurality must have a different shape from every individual patch of the second plurality, (ii) the two pluralities must each comprise internally uniform but mutually different shapes (e.g., all first plurality patches rectangular and all second plurality patches cross shaped), or (iii) some other pattern of “different shapes” is intended. The claim language does not specify which of these alternatives is being claimed, so a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot, with reasonable certainty, determine the metes and bounds of claim 12.
Second, in view of the disclosed invention, it is unclear how the broadly recited “shapes that are different” are compatible with and constrained by the other limitations of claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. In particular, claim 1 requires that (a) one or more dimensions of the first plurality be determined based on a first phase shift in a first linear polarization, (b) one or more dimensions of the second plurality be determined based on a second phase shift in an orthogonal linear polarization, and (c) the second phase shift be substantially equivalent to the first. The detailed description ties this behavior to specific orthogonal dipole arrangements and carefully tuned lengths and spacings (e.g., FIG. 4, Paras. 43-44) rather than to qualitatively different shapes between the two pluralities. The specification does not clearly describe any embodiment in which the first and second pluralities implement “shapes that are different” while also satisfying the phase equivalence and phase based dimensioning constraints of claim 1. As a result, the amended limitation does not clearly define what structure is intended or how it interacts with the other claimed requirements, and the claim remains indefinite. Thus the claim 12 indefiniteness rejection is maintained.
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, that (i) one or more dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements is determined based on at least the first phase shift in the first linear polarization, (ii) one or more dimensions of the second plurality of conductive elements is determined based on at least the second phase shift in the second linear polarization, and (iii) at least one of the one or more dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements is different from a corresponding dimension of the one or more dimensions of the second plurality of conductive elements.
The Examiner submits Diaz discloses a dual polarized reflectarray element in which orthogonal sets of dipoles have their lengths explicitly selected to generate desired phase shifts in the corresponding orthogonal polarization components. For example, Diaz describes that the lengths of dipoles oriented along a first axis (e.g., XR) are adjusted to generate the adequate phase shift in the component of the reflected electric field in that polarization, while the lengths of dipoles oriented along the orthogonal axis (e.g., YR) are independently adjusted to generate the adequate phase shift in the orthogonal component of the reflected electric field. Selecting a dipole length specifically to achieve an “adequate” or target phase shift in a particular polarization is an explicit teaching that the dimensions of the conductive elements are determined based on the desired phase shift in that polarization. Thus, Diaz satisfies the “determined based on at least the [first/second] phase shift” aspects of claim 1.
Applicant’s argument that Diaz merely shows dual polarization “capabilities” but not the claimed “determined based on” relationship is unpersuasive. The cited passages in Diaz do more than state capability; they describe a design procedure in which element lengths in each polarization direction are adjusted to obtain specified phase characteristics for that polarization, which falls squarely within the breadth of “determined based on at least the [corresponding] phase shift.”
How Diaz meets “dimensions different between pluralities.” Diaz also discloses that the lengths of the dipoles in one polarization set differ from the lengths of the dipoles in the orthogonal set. For example, Diaz shows dipoles 22, 24, 122, 124 with one set of lengths in one direction and dipoles 32, 132 with different lengths in the orthogonal direction. This difference in length between corresponding elements in the two pluralities constitutes “at least one … dimension of the first plurality … different from a corresponding dimension of the … second plurality,” as recited in claim 1. Applicant has not identified any requirement in the claim that the difference in dimensions be for any purpose other than those already satisfied by Diaz’s design, nor any narrower interpretation that would exclude Diaz’s explicit teaching of different lengths in the orthogonal dipole sets.
Regarding the Applicant’s reliance on the Specification (Para. 74, FIG. 3, FIGS. 9A–9D). Applicant points to Para. 74 and FIG. 3 as describing a pattern synthesis method in which dipole lengths are adjusted to match a synthesized phase distribution, and to FIGS. 9A–9D as showing different dipole lengths (lA2, lB2) for X and Y polarizations to achieve substantially equivalent phase and/or amplitude. However, claim 1 does not recite any particular pattern synthesis algorithm, nor does it require any specific intermediate steps such as “synthesizing a target phase distribution,” “using a linear equation,” or “interpolating from precomputed curves.” The claim instead captures the general idea that element dimensions in each polarization are chosen based on the desired phase shifts, with the two pluralities having at least one differing dimension. As discussed above, Diaz already teaches this general design relationship.
It is well settled that limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claims to avoid prior art, absent explicit claim language importing such details. Applicant’s attempt to distinguish Diaz based on their unclaimed algorithmic details therefore does not overcome the anticipation rejection.
Thus Diaz discloses each and every element of claim 1, including (i) first and second orthogonal pluralities of conductive elements on a single substrate layer; (ii) each plurality radiating reflected RF beams with a phase shift in a corresponding linear polarization, the second phase shift being substantially equivalent to the first; (iii) dimensions of each plurality selected based on the required phase shift in that polarization; and (iv) at least one dimension of the first plurality different from a corresponding dimension of the second plurality. Applicant’s arguments do not identify any missing element in Diaz and are therefore not persuasive to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection.
With regard to Keyrouz, the Examiner submits Keyrouz teaches dimensions set based on phase shift in each polarization. Keyrouz discloses a dual polarized reflectarray element based on “three finger” patches arranged on a single substrate, with one set of three fingers oriented along a first axis (length Ly) and another set of three fingers oriented along an orthogonal axis (length Lx). In the sections cited in the Office action (e.g., section 3.3, associated figures such as FIG. 3.24, 3.30, 3.36–3.37, FIG. 4.4–4.5, TABLE 4.2, FIG. 4.9), Keyrouz explicitly analyzes the dependence of the reflected phase on these finger lengths in each polarization and uses those lengths as design variables to achieve desired phase responses. Thus, Keyrouz teaches that the lengths of the conductive elements in the first plurality (e.g., vertical fingers along Ly) are chosen to realize target phase shifts in one linear polarization, and that the lengths of the conductive elements in the orthogonal plurality (e.g., horizontal fingers along Lx) are chosen to realize target phase shifts in the orthogonal polarization. Selecting these dimensions to obtain specified phase responses satisfies the claim’s requirement that “one or more dimensions” of each plurality be “determined based on at least” the corresponding phase shift.
The Examiner further submits Keyrouz teaches substantially equivalent phase shifts for orthogonal polarizations. In addition, Keyrouz’s design objective is to realize a reflectarray element providing controlled, comparable phase behavior for the two orthogonal polarizations; the H-field monitor plots and radiation pattern discussion (e.g., FIG. 3.31 and section 4.3.1) show that the element is designed such that the reflected fields in the two orthogonal polarizations exhibit similar phase characteristics over the band of interest. This corresponds to the claim’s requirement that the second phase shift is “substantially equivalent” to the first phase shift for the orthogonal polarization.
Keyrouz also discloses that the three finger structures in each orthogonal direction use different lengths. For example, in FIGS. 3.24 and 3.32 (and FIG. 2.5), the shorter fingers are defined as a factor K times the longer finger length, i.e., KLy vs. Ly (and similarly for Lx). The Office action has already identified that at least two of the three fingers in one orientation have lengths different from the length of the longest finger, and likewise in the orthogonal orientation. This clearly meets the limitation that at least one of the dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements is different from a corresponding dimension of the second plurality, since (a) within each plurality, two fingers differ in length from the third, and (b) the sets of lengths associated with the orthogonal pluralities (e.g., Ly, KLy vs. Lx, KLx) are also different.
With regard to Applicant’s attempt to distinguish based on their own synthesis procedure, Applicant asserts that Keyrouz does not disclose “implementing a first plurality … and a second plurality … wherein one or more dimensions … is determined based on at least the [corresponding] phase shift … and at least one … dimension of the first plurality … is different from a corresponding dimension of the … second plurality,” and again relies on paragraph 0074 and FIG. 3 of the present application as describing a particular pattern synthesis process. As with Diaz, this argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not recite any specific algorithm or optimization method; it only requires the general design relationship that element dimensions for each orthogonal polarization be selected based on the desired phase shifts, with at least one difference in dimensions between the pluralities. Keyrouz explicitly teaches using the finger lengths as design variables that control phase in each polarization, and it explicitly shows those lengths being different. Applicant has not identified any additional structural or functional limitation in claim 1 that is absent from Keyrouz.
Accordingly, Keyrouz describes a reflectarray antenna having (i) a single substrate layer with an array of reflectarray cells, (ii) first and second orthogonal pluralities of conductive elements each configured to radiate reflected RF beams with controlled phase shifts in corresponding orthogonal linear polarizations, (iii) dimensions of those conductive elements chosen based on the desired phase shift for each polarization, and (iv) at least one dimension of the first plurality different from a corresponding dimension of the second plurality. Applicant’s arguments do not show that any element of claim 1 is missing from Keyrouz. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Keyrouz is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim 10-11 and 12 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 10 recites “a substrate layer”, however claim 1 recites “a single substrate layer”. It is indefinite and unclear whether a substrate layer of claim 10 and a single substrate layer of claim 1 are the same element and/or related or different elements since a substrate layer of claim 10 does not seek antecedent basis from a single substrate layer of claim 1. Accordingly recitation of “the substrate layer” later in claim 10 causes confusion as to which substrate is being referred to. The Examiner assumes “a substrate layer” recited in claim 10 is “the substrate layer” of claim 1 for prior art rejection purposes. Put another way, Claim 10 recites “a substrate layer” as part of each reflectarray cell, while independent claim 1 recites “a single substrate layer” for the reflectarray antenna as a whole. It is unclear whether the substrate layer recited in claim 10 is the same substrate layer recited in claim 1 or a different substrate layer within each reflectarray cell. The claim language does not clearly establish antecedent basis or otherwise define whether one or two substrate layers are being claimed. Applicant’s assertion that claim 10 merely recites “further structure” is not supported by the explicit claim wording. Accordingly, claim 10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first plurality of conductive elements are conductive printed patches having shapes that are different from the second plurality of conductive elements”. The limitation is indefinite in light of the Specification and disclosed invention. First, it is unclear which elements are different shapes, e.g., whether the first plurality of conducive elements are different shapes from each other or whether the entirety of the first plurality of conductive elements are different shapes from the entirety of the second plurality of conductive elements. Furthermore, assuming the latter case of the first plurality of conductive elements having different shapes from the second plurality of conductive elements, the limitation is confusing and unclear as to how, in view of the disclosed invention, the different shapes of the first plurality and second plurality can implement “the reflected RF beams with a second phase shift that is substantially equivalent to that of the first phase shift in a second linear polarization that is orthogonal to the first linear polarization” in combination with “wherein…dimensions of the first…conductive elements is…based on…the first linear polarization…dimensions of the second…conductive elements is…based on…the second linear polarization” because different shapes will produce different RF beams which would not be equivalently shifted in phase nor provide orthogonal polarizations of the same signal. The limitation causes confusion as to what is being attempted to be claimed. The Specification makes no mention of producing these functional results with different shapes of the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements having different shapes, e.g., Paragraph 42 only mentions that the reflectarray 400 of FIG. 4 may be implemented with a different shape than that in FIG. 4 but NOT that first element type 420 may have a different shape from that of second element type 422. Different shapes are only recited in the Specification directed towards non-elected Species A of FIG. 2, not having the function as claimed in claim 1.
For example, it is ambiguous whether (i) every individual patch of the first plurality must have a different shape from every individual patch of the second plurality, (ii) the two pluralities must each comprise internally uniform but mutually different shapes (e.g., all first plurality patches rectangular and all second plurality patches cross shaped), or (iii) some other pattern of “different shapes” is intended. The claim language does not specify which of these alternatives is being claimed, so a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot, with reasonable certainty, determine the metes and bounds of claim 12.
For example, it is unclear how the broadly recited “shapes that are different” are compatible with and constrained by the other limitations of claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. In particular, claim 1 requires that (a) one or more dimensions of the first plurality be determined based on a first phase shift in a first linear polarization, (b) one or more dimensions of the second plurality be determined based on a second phase shift in an orthogonal linear polarization, and (c) the second phase shift be substantially equivalent to the first. The detailed description ties this behavior to specific orthogonal dipole arrangements and carefully tuned lengths and spacings (e.g., FIG. 4, ¶0043–0044) rather than to qualitatively different shapes between the two pluralities. The specification does not clearly describe any embodiment in which the first and second pluralities implement “shapes that are different” while also satisfying the phase equivalence and phase based dimensioning constraints of claim 1.
Accordingly, for purposes of prior art rejection, the Examiner presumes that different shapes is interpreted as different sizes of the shapes.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170179596 A1 (hereinafter “Diaz”).
Claim 1: Diaz teaches a reflectarray antenna (e.g., see FIGS. 4-7, 12-13) for enhanced wireless communication applications, comprising: a single substrate layer (e.g., see 26) comprising a top surface (e.g., see A in FIG. 4, 6, Para. 80) and a bottom surface (e.g., see B) opposite the top surface; and an array of reflectarray cells (e.g., see portion of 34, 35, 134, 135 on surface A in FIGS. 4, 6) on the top surface of the single substrate layer and comprising: a first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., see 22, 23, 24 in FIGS. 4-5, 122, 123, 124 in FIGS. 6-7) on the top surface (e.g., on surface A) and configured to radiate reflected radio frequency (RF) beams with a first phase shift in a first linear polarization (e.g., see Para. 23-24, 89); and a second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., see multiple dipoles 32 in FIGS. 4-5, and 132 in FIGS. 6-7) on the top surface (e.g., on surface A) and arranged orthogonally to the first plurality of conductive elements and configured to radiate reflected RF beams with a second phase shift (e.g., wherein multiple dipoles 32, 132 are part of the phasing unit that create the second phase shift) that is substantially equivalent to that of the first phase shift in a second linear polarization that is orthogonal to the first linear polarization (e.g., see Para. 23-24, 89, 112-113), wherein: one or more dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., wherein a length of 22, 24, 122, 124) is determined based on at least the first phase shift in the first linear polarization (e.g., wherein the length is directly based on the phase shift required, see Para. 90, 92, 112-113), one or more dimensions of the second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., a length of 32, 132) is determined based on at least the second phase shift in the second linear polarization (e.g., see Para. 90, 92, 112-113), and at least one of the one or more dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements is different from a corresponding dimension of the one or more dimensions of the second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., wherein a length of 22, 24, 122, 124 is different from a length of 32, 132 at least as shown, or where 25, 125 has a different length than 32, 132, see Para. 117).
Claim 2: Diaz teaches the reflectarray of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of conductive elements comprises at least one dipole that extends laterally along a first axis (e.g., see D1 in FIGS. 4, 6) and the second plurality of conductive elements comprises at least one dipole that extends laterally along a second axis orthogonally to the first axis (e.g., along D2 as shown).
Claim 4: Diaz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein each reflectarray cell of the array of reflectarray cells comprises the first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., wherein each cell comprises 22, 23, 24 in FIGS. 4-5, 122, 123, 124 in FIGS. 6-7).
Claim 5: Diaz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 2, wherein each conductive element of the second plurality of conductive elements is arranged at a location that is centered between the first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., see 32, 132 centered between plurality of 22, 23, 24, 122, 123, 124).
Claim 12: Diaz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements are conductive printed patches of different shapes (e.g., see different sized shapes of printed patch dipoles in each cell or multiple cells or where 22, 24, 122, 124 have a different size than 32, 132).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Investigation of Novel Reflectarray Structures by Shady Keyrouz (hereinafter “Keyrouz”) (previously disclosed, see IDS and NPL filed 08/03/22).
Claim 1: Keyrouz teaches a reflectarray antenna (e.g., see FIG. 3.24 and 3.32) for enhanced wireless communication applications, comprising: a single substrate layer (see substrate in 3.24a and 3.32b) comprising a top surface and a bottom surface opposite the top surface (as shown); and an array of reflectarray cells (as shown in FIGS. 3.24b) on the top surface of the single substrate layer and comprising: a first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., see three finger patches disposed vertically with length Ly) on the top surface and configured to radiate reflected radio frequency (RF) beams with a first phase shift in a first linear polarization (e.g., see Section 3.3); and a second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., see three finger patches disposed horizontally with length Lx) on the top surface and arranged orthogonally to the first plurality of conductive elements and configured to radiate reflected RF beams with a second phase shift that is substantially equivalent to that of the first phase shift in a second linear polarization that is orthogonal to the first linear polarization (e.g., see section 3.3; see H-field monitor in FIG. 3.31, see section 4.3.1. for antenna of section 3.4), wherein: one or more dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., a length of two smaller of three finger patches or the length of the longest one of the finger patches disposed vertically along length Ly) is determined based on at least the first phase shift in the first linear polarization (e.g., see FIG. 3.30, 3.36-3.37, FIG. 4.4-4.5, TABLE 4.2, FIG. 4.9), one or more dimensions of the second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., a length of two smaller of three finger patches or the length of the longest one of the finger patches disposed vertically along length Lx) is determined based on at least the second phase shift in the second linear polarization, and at least one of the one or more dimensions of the first plurality of conductive elements is different from a corresponding dimension of the one or more dimensions of the second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., wherein two smaller fingers of the three finger patches are a different length than the longer of the three finger patches in an orthogonal direction as shown in at least FIG. 3.24).
Claim 2: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of conductive elements comprises at least one dipole that extends laterally along a first axis and the second plurality of conductive elements comprises at least one dipole that extends laterally along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis (e.g., as shown in FIG. 3.24).
Claim 4: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein each reflectarray cell of the array of reflectarray cells comprises the first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3.24 and 3.32).
Claim 5: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 2, wherein each conductive element of the second plurality of conductive elements is arranged at a location that is centered between the first plurality of conductive elements (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3.24 and 3.32).
Claim 6: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein each of the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements comprises a plurality of dipoles having varying lengths, and wherein the plurality of dipoles for each of the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements are arranged in parallel to one another (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3.24 and 3.32).
Claim 7: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 6, wherein each of the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements comprises a first dipole with a first length, a second dipole with a second length, and a third dipole with a third length, and wherein the second dipole is interposed between the first dipole and the third dipole (e.g., as shown in FIG. 3.24 and 3.32; e.g., also see FIG. 2.5).
Claim 8: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 7, wherein the second length is greater than the first length and the third length, and wherein the first length is substantially equivalent to the third length (e.g., see K*Ly as shown in FIG. 3.24 and 3.32; e.g., also see K factor in FIG. 2.5).
Claim 9: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 8, wherein each of the first length and the third length is a predetermined fraction of the second length (e.g., see K*Ly as shown in FIG. 3.24 and 3.32; e.g., also see K factor in FIG. 2.5).
Claim 12: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of conductive elements are conductive printed patches of different shapes from the second plurality of conductive (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3.24 and 3.32 and wherein K*Ly are a different length from Ly and similar for Lx).
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(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz.
Claim 10: Diaz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1,wherein each reflectarray cell of the array of reflectarray cells comprises a substrate layer (e.g., see 26 or 13), a patterned layer with the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements (e.g., see conductive layer of dipoles), a ground plane layer (e.g., see 12), wherein the patterned layer is disposed on the top surface of the substrate layer (e.g., as shown for at least the dipoles on a top surface of 26), and the substrate is disposed on the top surface of the ground plane layer (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 4, 6).
Diaz does not explicit teach a bonding layer, and a superstrate, wherein the superstrate is disposed on the top surface of the bonding layer, the bonding layer is disposed on the top surface of the patterned layer.
However Diaz teaches the use of a bonding layer (e.g., see 33) between layers for attaching them to each other and an additional dielectric layer or radome (e.g., see 36, 136 in FIG. 6, see Para. 99). Diaz further teaches that the reflectarray antenna may contain additional dielectric layers such as more bonding layers, and additional separator layers (e.g., such as 13), or dielectric layers above the reflectarray layers or patterned layer including a solid dielectric, low density materials or air spacers (e.g., see Para. 94). In addition the Examiner takes Official/Judicial Notice that superstrates are ‘old and well-known’ in the art in antenna arrays in order to enhance antenna properties such as gain or increase directivity in a direction.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize a superstrate layer in the antenna of Diaz in order to enhance the antenna properties such as enhancing gain or increase directivity in a certain direction. It would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize a bonding layer between the superstrate and the patterned layer to affix the superstrate layer to the pattern layer as taught by Diaz so as to reduce any displacement of the superstrate or patterned layer and improve stability of the reflectarray.
Claim 11: Diaz does not explicitly teach the reflectarray antenna of claim 10, wherein the superstrate and the substrate layer comprise a same composite material.
However Diaz teaches at least that a separator layer above the patterned layer may have the same separator layer below the patterned layer (e.g., see Para. 99) which would have the same composite material (e.g., see Para. 94).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize the same composite material for the superstrate and the substrate based on Diaz’s teaching of similar layers having similar compositions above and below the patterned layer in order to reduce discontinuities of the radiated wave between substrate and superstrate and/or to provide appropriate impedance matching of the layers above and below the patterned layer.
Further or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to utilize similar composite materials for the superstrate and the substrate, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyrouz.
Claim 3: Keyrouz does not explicitly teach the reflectarray antenna of claim 2, wherein the array of reflectarray cells has a periodicity of cells in a range of 3.0 millimeters (mm) to 5.0 mm in the first axis and the second axis.
However Keyrouz teaches wherein the array of reflectarray cells has a periodicity of cells in a range of 2.3 mm in the first axis and the second axis (e.g., see a=b=2.33mm in 3.24a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to form the periodicity of cells in a range of 3 to 5 mm, since it has been held that Prior Art ranges that overlap claimed ranges provide prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2nd 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) or since 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(II)(B). The adjustment of cell periodicity is a common practice in antenna design, and such a modification would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to optimize the antenna array for specific performance characteristics, such as beamforming, operating frequency, array compactness, and performance metrics (such as a closer periodicity to reduce gaps in the beamwidth or improving the gain in a direction).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyrouz in view of Diaz.
Claim 10: Keyrouz teaches the reflectarray antenna of claim 1, wherein each reflectarray cell of the array of reflectarray cells comprises a substrate layer (e.g., see FIG. 3.32), a patterned layer with the first plurality of conductive elements and the second plurality of conductive elements, a ground plane layer, and a superstrate (as shown in FIG. 3.32), the patterned layer is disposed on the top surface of the substrate, and the substrate is disposed on a top surface of the ground plane layer (as shown, also see 3.5.1).
Keyrouz does not explicit teach a bonding layer, wherein the superstrate is disposed on a top surface of the bonding layer, the bonding layer is disposed on a top surface of the patterned layer.
However Diaz teaches the use of a bonding layer (e.g., see 33) between layers for attaching them to each other and an additional dielectric layer or radome (e.g., see 36, 136 in FIG. 6, see Para. 99). Diaz further teaches that the reflectarray antenna may contain additional dielectric layers such as more bonding layers, and additional separator layers (e.g., such as 13), or dielectric layers above the reflectarray layers or patterned layer including a solid dielectric, low density materials or air spacers (e.g., see Para. 94).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize a bonding layer between the superstrate and the patterned layer to affix the superstrate layer to the pattern layer as taught by Diaz so as to reduce any displacement of the superstrate or patterned layer and improve stability of the reflectarray. The modification is such wherein the superstrate is disposed on a top surface of the bonding layer, the bonding layer is disposed on a top surface of the patterned layer.
Claim 11: Keyrouz does not explicitly teach the reflectarray antenna of claim 10, wherein the superstrate and the substrate comprise a same composite material.
However Diaz teaches at least that a separator layer above the patterned layer may have the same separator layer below the patterned layer (e.g., see Para. 99) which would have the same composite material (e.g., see Para. 94).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize the same composite material for the superstrate and the substrate for Keyrouz based on Diaz’s teaching of similar layers having similar compositions above and below the patterned layer in order to reduce discontinuities of the radiated wave between substrate and superstrate and/or to provide appropriate impedance matching of the layers above and below the patterned layer.
Further or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to utilize similar composite materials for the superstrate and the substrate, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights