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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 06/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diaz et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0179596, hereby referred as Diaz).
Regarding claim 1,
Diaz discloses,
A reflectarray, comprising (figure 4):
a substrate (element 12/13); and
a plurality of cells configured in an array on the substrate (see the plurality of cells and each cell comprising of three dipoles), each cell in the plurality of cells comprising at least three dipoles arranged in a parallel configuration with a length of a center dipole longer than a length of a lateral dipole (dipoles 22, 23 and 24, dipole 24 is longer than the other two dipoles).
Regarding claim 2,
Diaz discloses,
Wherein the plurality of cells comprises a first set of three parallel dipoles arranged in a first direction and a second set of three parallel dipoles in a second direction (figure 4, see dipoles 22-24 and dipoles 29-31).
Regarding claim 3,
Diaz discloses,
Wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal to one another (figure 4, see dipoles 22-24 and dipoles 29-31).
Regarding claim 4,
Diaz discloses,
Wherein the first set of three parallel dipoles and the second set of three parallel dipoles are shifted half a period along both the first direction and the second direction in the array (figure 4, see dipoles 22-24 and dipoles 29-31. The are set of dipoles that are orthogonal to another set of dipoles. See paragraphs [0080]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 5,
Diaz discloses,
Wherein lengths of the first set of three parallel dipoles and the second set of three parallel dipoles are configured to provide phase shifts in two orthogonal polarizations (figure 4, see dipoles 22-24 and dipoles 29-31. See paragraphs [0080]-[0084]).
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0179596, hereby referred as Diaz) in view of Caimi et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0227683, hereby referred as Caimi).
Regarding claim 6,
Diaz does not disclose,
Wherein the length of the lateral dipole is between 20% to 90% of the length of the center dipole.
Regarding claim 7,
Diaz does not disclose,
Wherein the length of the lateral dipole is 65% of the length of the center dipole.
Regarding claim 8,
Diaz does not disclose,
Wherein a separation between adjacent dipoles in the at least three dipoles is between 0.5 mm to 1 mm and a width of each the at least three dipoles is about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
However, Caimi teaches dimensions and shapes of the various antenna elements can be modified. Generally, changing the size of the various features changes only the antenna resonant frequency. The antenna can therefore be scaled to another resonant frequency by dimensional variation. For example, increasing the antenna volume, e.g., increasing the distance between the top plate 12 and the ground plane 16 tends to decrease the resonant frequency. Also, when the height is increased, the size of the top plate 12 should also be increased to provide the appropriate capacitive loading at the new resonant frequency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of antenna scaling, as taught by Caimi, into Diaz in order to permit operation in other frequency bands with other operational characteristics, including bandwidth, radiation resistance, input impedance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shahviridi Dizaj Yekan et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0077482 and US Pub. No. 2020/0161770, Fernandez Vaaquero et al. US Pub. No. 2025/0023254, Ai et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0283164, Walker US Pub. No. 2011/0063181, Livadaru et al. US Patent No. 11145991, Lee et al. US Pub. No. 2018/0337459.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWAT M SALIH whose telephone number is (571)270-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/AWAT M SALIH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845