DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on shekhar and the rejection of dependent claims under 35 U.S.C 103, the applicant states that the prior art does not disclose or suggest at least “an antenna disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the art rejection.
In their remarks, the Applicant points to figures 4A, 23 and 24 of Shekhar and contrasts them with the preferred embodiment of the instant application. The applicant argues that the liquid crystal layer in select embodiments of Shekhar is not an antenna and further that the antennas disclosed by the above figures of Shekhar are not disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate. In response the Examiner points to the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus disclosed in figure 26 of Shekhar.
The electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus comprises a top and bottom substrate (2510 & 2560), metal ground (2550), liquid crystal layer (2540), and a metal RF trace (2520). Shekar discloses “One example application for the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatuses described herein is to act as a reconfigurable smart surface capable of retransmitting an attenuated signal from an access point “ [Col.14, ll.55-59], further stating “The electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatuses may act passively to perform various electromagnetic wave transformations such as reflection, absorption, polarization mode conversion, transmission, and/or the like” [Col.14, ll.61-64]. The electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus may be independently used to perform all the functions of an antenna.
The top substrate, bottom substrate, metal ground and liquid crystal layers of the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus are not the antenna component and cannot transmit or receive. The metal RF trace is the transmitting/receiving component. Although not explicitly disclosed, the metal RF trace (2520), a component of the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus, of figure 26 as disclosed by shekhar may function as a common PCB trace antenna.
No where in the instant application does the Applicant limit the “antenna” as claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed term “antenna” encompasses the RF trace (2520).
Figure 26 discloses an antenna(2520) disposed between the first substrate (2510) and the second substrate (2560). The Examiner respectfully maintains the art rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shekhar(US12126100B2).
Regarding claim 1, Shekhar discloses
A reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) comprising: a plurality of RIS elements (“ a multi-layered material having a periodic arrangement of identical elements” [Col.7, ll.61-63]); and an RIS controller configured to control the RIS elements to steer an RF signal entering, wherein the RIS element comprises (“electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus 1800 “ [Col. 11, ll.39]): a first substrate (“ a first substrate 420a” [Col.6, ll.34]); a second substrate (“ a second substrate 420b” [Col.6, ll.34-35]); an antenna disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (“a liquid crystal (LC) layer 410 “ [Col.6, ll.33]); a ground disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (“ interposed between the top substrate 2510 and the bottom substrate 2560… and a ground 2550” [Col.14, ll.4-9]); and an LC phase shifter disposed between the antenna and the ground to change a phase of the RF signal entering (FIG.20, Part 2000).
Regarding claim 2, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 1, wherein the RIS controller is configured to control phase shifts of RF signals by the LC phase shifters of the RIS elements (“ The electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus 2500 shown in FIG. 26 may implement one or more of the phase shifters” [Col.13, ll.63-65]).
Regarding claim 3, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 2, wherein the RIS controller is configured to control the phase shifts of the RF signals by the LC phase shifters by controlling bias voltages applied to both ends of each of the LC phase shifters (“The output signals from the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus 1800 may include a first output signal having a first phase shift (relative to the input signal) corresponding to the first bias voltage v.sub.1 and a second output signal having a second phase shift (relative to the input signal) corresponding to the second bias voltage v.sub.2.” [Col.11, ll.38-44]).
Regarding claim 4, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 2, wherein the RIS controller is configured to control the RIS elements to transmit the RF signals entering, respectively (“The electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus 2500 shown in FIG. 26 may implement… field programmable antenna arrays [Col.13, ll.65-66]).
Regarding claim 5, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 4, wherein the RIS controller is configured to control the RIS elements to reflect the RF signals entering, respectively (“, the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus 1900 may be configured to perform retro-reflection “ [Col.11, ll.52-53]).
Regarding claim 6, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 5, wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are substrates of a transparent material (“This system, which may be energized by solar power, may be deployed as a window panel such as shown in FIG. 13B. “ [Col.15, ll.38-40]).
Regarding claim 7, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 6, wherein a window is formed by the first substrate and the second substrate (FIG.13B, Parts “Passive metasurface 1” & “Passive metasurface 2”) .
Regarding claim 8, Shekhar discloses
The RIS of claim 7, wherein transmission of the RF signal is performed from an outside of a building in which a window is installed to an inside (FIG.13B & “When used as a window panel, as shown in FIG. 13B, the electromagnetic wave manipulation apparatus may accumulate and refract electromagnetic waves constructively originating from a source such as a base station” {Col.15, ll.10-15]).
Regarding claim 10, Shekhar discloses
An RF signal steering method comprising: receiving an RF signal entering (“ electromagnetic waves received at the liquid crystal” [Col.12, ll.24-25]); and steering the RF signal by controlling a plurality of RIS elements (“smart surface 2200 to steer its output beam” [Col.12, ll.59]), and outputting the RF signal (“each radiator 2240 may output a beam” [Col.12, ll.34-35]), wherein the RIS element comprises: a first substrate (“ a first substrate 420a” [Col.6, ll.34]); a second substrate (“ a second substrate 420b” [Col.6, ll.34-35]); an antenna disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (“a liquid crystal (LC) layer 410 “ [Col.6, ll.33]); a ground disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (“ interposed between the top substrate 2510 and the bottom substrate 2560… and a ground 2550” [Col.14, ll.4-9]); and an LC phase shifter disposed between the antenna and the ground to change a phase of the RF signal entering (FIG.20, Part 2000).
Regarding claim 11, Shekhar discloses
A reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) element comprising: a first substrate (“ a first substrate 420a” [Col.6, ll.34]); a second substrate (“ a second substrate 420b” [Col.6, ll.34-35]); an antenna disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (“a liquid crystal (LC) layer 410 “ [Col.6, ll.33]); a ground disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (“ interposed between the top substrate 2510 and the bottom substrate 2560… and a ground 2550” [Col.14, ll.4-9]); and an LC phase shifter disposed between the antenna and the ground to change a phase of an RF signal entering (FIG.20, Part 2000).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhar(US12126100B2) in view of Balakrishnan(US11811140B2)
Regarding claim 9, Shekhar discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Shekhar fails to set forth the RIS of claim 9. Balakrishnan discloses the RIS wherein, reflection of the RF signal is performed from an outside of a building in which a window is installed to an outside (FIG.1A Part104a & FIG.1B part 130).
Balakrishnan teaches in the same field of endeavor of reconfigurable intelligent surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shekhar with the teachings of Balakrishnan to incorporate the features of reflecting an RF signal with an RIS outside of a building so as to gain the advantage of improving Radio signal range [Col.1,Par.3, Balakrishnan]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
TUCEK(US20120280889A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0021] “ The meandering portion 60 and extension 61 form a PCB trace antenna comprised.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights