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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 3, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 28, 2026 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1, 18, and 22. Claims 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 28, 2025. The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections and the Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Specification and Claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection.
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 1-11, 13-19, and 21-22 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 1 recites the limitation "the number of resonating metallic elements" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of resonating metallic elements" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 recites the limitation "the resonating metallic elements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a pattern of resonating metallic elements” or “a plurality of resonating metallic elements” or “m resonating metallic elements” or “n resonating elements” or a different limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the number of resonating metallic elements" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the number of resonating metallic elements" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-11, 13-17, and 21-22 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 19 inherits the deficiencies of claim 18.
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)(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 1-3, 5, 9, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindsey et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0062233 A1), hereinafter known as Lindsey.
Regarding claim 1, Lindsey discloses (Fig. 4-5) An optically transparent reflectarray article (Fig. 5; [0038]) comprising: a frequency selective surface (FSS) layer (510) comprising a pattern of resonating metallic elements (510 elements) configured to reflect an incident radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic wave at a free-space wavelength λ in a range from about 1.0 mm to about 10.0 cm ([0022] and [0050], 698 MHz to 2700 MHz), each resonating metallic element (510 elements) comprising a wire-like structure (401), wherein the pattern of resonating metallic elements (510 elements) comprises a two-dimensional array of repeating unit cells (404, 406, 408), each unit cell comprising a plurality of resonating metallic elements (430, 431, 432) and having a dimension dx (L1; [0045]) in a first direction and a dimension dy (L2*2 + W1; [0045]) in second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and each unit cell having, wherein the number of resonating metallic elements in the first direction is m resonating metallic elements (m = 2), wherein the number of resonating metallic elements in the second direction is n resonating metallic elements (n = 2), wherein the dimension dx is selected such that λ/10 < dx/n < λ ([0045], 0.1 mm < 0.2699 mm < 1 mm) and the dimension dy is selected such that λ/10 < dy/m < λ ([0045], 0.1 mm < 0.2724 mm < 1 mm); a ground plane layer (520, conductive mesh layer can be interpreted as a ground plane) comprising a patterned conductor formed by a plurality of traces (520) defining cells of a continuous metallic mesh (520) disposed on a major surface thereof, wherein the ground plane layer (520) comprises a flexible layer (540; [0056] and [0057]), and the continuous metallic mesh (520) is disposed on an inner surface of the flexible layer (540); and one or more dielectric layers (502) sandwiched between the FSS layer (510) and the ground plane layer (520), wherein the article is substantially optically transparent in a free-space wavelength range from about 380 nm to about 700 nm ([0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Lindsey further discloses (Fig. 4-5) wherein the resonating metallic elements each have a lateral dimension (W1, 0.0914 mm) no greater than the free-space wavelength λ ([0022], [0045], and [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Lindsey further discloses (Fig. 4-5) wherein the resonating metallic elements each have a lateral dimension (W1, 0.0914 mm) in a range from about 10 to about 10,000 micrometers.
Regarding claim 5, Lindsey further discloses (Fig. 4-5) wherein the resonating metallic elements (520) comprises an array of periodic metastructures (520).
Regarding claim 9, Lindsey further discloses (Fig. 5) wherein the FSS layer further comprises a flexible skin layer (530; [0056]), and the pattern of resonating metallic elements (510) is disposed between the flexible skin layer (530) and the one or more dielectric layers (502).
Regarding claim 18, Lindsey discloses (Fig. 4-5) A method of making an optically transparent reflectarray article (Fig. 5; [0038]), the method comprising: providing a frequency selective surface (FSS) layer (510) comprising a pattern of resonating metallic elements (510 elements) configured to reflect an incident radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic wave at a free-space wavelength λ in a range from about 1.0 mm to about 10.0 cm ([0022] and [0050], 698 MHz to 2700 MHz), each resonating metallic element (510 elements) comprising a wire-like structure (401), wherein the pattern of resonating metallic elements (510 elements) comprises a two-dimensional array of repeating unit cells (404, 406, 408), each unit cell comprising a plurality of resonating metallic elements (430, 431, 432) and having a dimension dx (L1; [0045]) in a first direction and a dimension dy (L2*2 + W1; [0045]) in second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and each unit cell having, wherein the number of resonating metallic elements in the first direction is m resonating metallic elements (m = 2), wherein the number of resonating metallic elements in the second direction is n resonating metallic elements (n = 2), wherein the dimension dx is selected such that λ/10 < dx/n < λ ([0045], 0.1 mm < 0.2699 mm < 1 mm) and the dimension dy is selected such that λ/10 < dy/m < λ ([0045], 0.1 mm < 0.2724 mm < 1 mm); providing a ground plane layer (520, conductive mesh layer can be interpreted as a ground plane) comprising a patterned conductor (520) formed by a plurality of traces (520) defining cells of a continuous metallic mesh (520) disposed on a major surface thereof; and providing a dielectric substrate comprising one or more dielectric layers (502) sandwiched between the FSS layer (510) and the ground plane layer (520), wherein providing the ground plane layer (520) comprises forming the continuous metallic mesh on a flexible layer (540; [0056] and [0057]), and laminating the flexible layer (540) on the dielectric substrate (502) such that the continuous metallic mesh (520) is disposed on an inner surface of the flexible layer (540), and wherein the article is substantially optically transparent in a free-space wavelength range from about 380 nm to about 700 nm ([0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Lindsey further discloses (Fig. 5) wherein providing the FSS layer comprises forming the pattern of resonating metallic elements (810) on a flexible skin layer (530; [0056]), and laminating the flexible skin layer (530) on the dielectric substrate (502)
Regarding claim 21, Lindsey further discloses (Fig. 5) wherein the array of periodic metastructures (510) comprises at least one of rings or crosses (rings and cross of 510).
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 4, 6-8, 10-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey in view of Sugiura et al. (JP 2008219125 A), hereinafter known as Sugiura.
Regarding claim 4, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the resonating metallic elements each have a line width in a range from about 1.0 to about 50.0 micrometers.
However, Sugiura further teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the resonating metallic elements each have a line width (T) in a range from about 1.0 to about 50.0 micrometers ([0022], 10 micrometers).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the resonating metallic elements each have a line width (T) in a range from about 1.0 to about 50.0 micrometers,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of operating in a desired frequency (see also [0024]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of traces defining cells of the continuous metallic mesh have a line width in a range from about 1.0 to about 50.0 micrometers.
However, Sugiura further teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the plurality of traces defining cells of the continuous metallic mesh have a line width in a range from about 1.0 to about 50.0 micrometers ([0022], 10 micrometers).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the plurality of traces defining cells of the continuous metallic mesh have a line width in a range from about 1.0 to about 50.0 micrometers,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of operating in a desired frequency (see also [0024]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 7, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the continuous metallic mesh has an open area fraction no less than about 50%.
However, Sugiura further teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the continuous metallic mesh has an open area fraction no less than about 50% ([0022], open area is greater than 60%).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the continuous metallic mesh has an open area fraction no less than about 50%,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of operating in a desired frequency (see also [0024]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the patterned conductor has a sheet resistance no greater than about 1000 ohms per square.
However, Sugiura further teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the patterned conductor has a sheet resistance no greater than about 1000 ohms per square ([0022], impedance of copper with a thickness of 10 micrometers and a length of 200 micrometers multiplied by 4 to make a square is less than 1 ohm).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the patterned conductor has a sheet resistance no greater than about 1000 ohms per square,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of operating in a desired frequency (see also [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the flexible skin layer has a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 500 micrometers.
However, Sugiura further teaches (Fig. 8) wherein the flexible skin layer (26) has a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 500 micrometers ([0030]).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the flexible skin layer has a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 500 micrometers,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of operating in a desired frequency (see also [0024]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 11, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the flexible skin layer comprises a hardcoat layer or a polymeric encapsulating layer.
However, Sugiura further teaches wherein the flexible skin layer comprises a hardcoat layer or a polymeric encapsulating layer ([0015]).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the flexible skin layer comprises a hardcoat layer or a polymeric encapsulating layer,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of improving directional characteristics (see also [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprise an optically transparent polymer.
However, Sugiura further teaches wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprise an optically transparent polymer ([0010]).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprise an optically transparent polymer,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of enabling attachment to curved surfaces (see also [0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the one or more dielectric layers have a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 1000 micrometers.
However, Sugiura further teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the one or more dielectric layers have a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 1000 micrometers ([0022], 25 micrometers).
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 article of Lindsey with Sugiura to include “wherein the one or more dielectric layers have a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 1000 micrometers,” as taught by Sugiura, for the purpose of operating in a desired frequency (see also [0024]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey in view of Uetake (JP 3490304 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the flexible layer has a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 500 micrometers.
However, Uetake teaches (Fig. 7) wherein the flexible layer (40) has a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 500 micrometers (100-400 micrometers; page. 13, paragraph 7 of machine translation).
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 article of Lindsey with Uetake to include “wherein the flexible layer has a thickness in a range from about 10 to about 500 micrometers,” as taught by Uetake, for the purpose of achieving low thickness (see also page 4, paragraph 5 of machine translation). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey in view of Brady et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0076376 A1), hereinafter known as Brady.
Regarding claim 14, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the ground plane layer further comprises a tie layer disposed between the continuous metallic mesh and the major surface thereof, the tie layer comprising at least one of chromium, chromium oxide, nickel chromium oxide, or combinations thereof.
However, Brady teaches wherein the ground plane layer further comprises a tie layer ([0130]) disposed between the continuous metallic mesh and the major surface thereof, the tie layer comprising at least one of chromium, chromium oxide, nickel chromium oxide, or combinations thereof ([0130]).
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 article of Lindsey with Brady to include “wherein the ground plane layer further comprises a tie layer disposed between the continuous metallic mesh and the major surface thereof, the tie layer comprising at least one of chromium, chromium oxide, nickel chromium oxide, or combinations thereof,” as taught by Brady, for the purpose of improving adhesion (see also [0130]).
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey in view of Yemelong et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0363448 A1), hereinafter known as Yemelong.
Regarding claim 15, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprise an optically transparent polymer.
However, Yemelong further teaches wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprise an optically transparent polymer ([0054]).
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 article of Lindsey with Yemelong to include “wherein the one or more dielectric layers comprise an optically transparent polymer,” as taught by Yemelong, for the purpose of enabling adhesion (see also [0054]).
Regarding claim 22, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the optically transparent polymer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), acrylic-, butyrate-, polycarbonate, polycarbonate copolymers, polyethersulfone, or polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG).
However, Yemelong teaches wherein the optically transparent polymer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), acrylic-, butyrate-, polycarbonate, polycarbonate copolymers, polyethersulfone, or polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG) ([0054]).
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 article of Lindsey with Yemelong to include “wherein the optically transparent polymer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), acrylic-, butyrate-, polycarbonate, polycarbonate copolymers, polyethersulfone, or polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG),” as taught by Yemelong, for the purpose of enabling adhesion (see also [0054]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsey in view of Ding et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0225389 A1), hereinafter known as Ding.
Regarding claim 17, Lindsey does not specifically teach wherein the FSS layer and the ground plane layer are laminated to the one or more dielectric layers via an optically clear adhesive (OCA).
However, Ding teaches wherein the FSS layer and the ground plane layer are laminated to the one or more dielectric layers via an optically clear adhesive (OCA) ([0034]).
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 article of Lindsey with Ding to include “wherein the FSS layer and the ground plane layer are laminated to the one or more dielectric layers via an optically clear adhesive (OCA),” as taught by Ding, for the purpose of improving visible transparency (see also [0004] and [0005]).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights