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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/2/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 September 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon there being no specific mode presented in the disclosure. The disclosure states that the dielectric polarizer is made from a dielectric material with a dielectric constant between 6 and 9 and an operating frequency from 10 GHz to 15 GHz (see page 16, paragraph [0068] of the present disclosure). However, no examples are given for which dielectric materials can be used for the invention and thus the applicant fails also to disclose the best material for the invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as additionally failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims require a monolithic body of dielectric material (claim 1). The nature of the invention is a dielectric polarizer formed by molding (see at least paragraph [0015] of the present specification) a dielectric material in order to obtain a polarizer that is operable for particular frequencies of light (see at least paragraph [0014] of the present specification). The state of the prior art is such that there are a wide variety of dielectric materials that can be used in a polarizer, not all of which are moldable or operable at the desired frequencies. The term dielectric is one of degree. Many materials have some level of dielectricity and thus simply requiring a dielectric material is overly broad. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form a polarizer from a dielectric material, but to meet the desired formability and functionality of the present invention would require further guidance in which materials to choose. Given the wide variety of dielectric materials, the level of predictability of which materials would work is low. The inventor has provided little direction since no example dielectric materials have been disclosed. Additionally, there are no working examples disclosed in the present disclosure. Therefore, the claimed invention would require an undue amount of experimentation to determine which materials would work for the claimed dielectric polarizer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 6-7, 9, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 4,551,692) made of record in the IDS filed 4/2/2024 (hereafter Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a dielectric, Dk, polarizer for electromagnetic, EM, applications (see at least Fig. 1A and the abstract), the Dk polarizer comprising: a monolithic body of Dk material comprising a plurality of linear elongated ribs that are disposed parallel with each other and that are uniformly spaced apart with respect to each other; wherein each rib of the plurality of linear elongated ribs has a cross section x-z profile relative to an orthogonal X-Y-Z coordinate system associated with the monolithic body; wherein the Y-direction of the coordinate system is oriented in a direction of elongation of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; wherein the Z-direction of the coordinate system is oriented in a direction of propagation of an EM wave, when present at the Dk polarizer, through the uniformly spaced apart plurality of linear elongated ribs; wherein the monolithic body has an overall thickness dimension, T, aligned in the Z-direction, that extends from a first side to a second side of the body, the second side being at dimension T relative to the first side (see at least Figs. 1A and 1B); wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs are monolithically connected to each other by a plurality of connecting bridges; wherein the plurality of connecting bridges are disposed at a location equal to or greater than T/2 and equal to or less than T (see at least Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith also discloses that each connecting bridge of the plurality of connecting bridges has an x-z cross section that is relatively thin in the Z-direction as compared to the x-z cross section of an associated linear elongated rib in the Z-direction (see at least Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith also discloses that the plurality of connecting bridges form a solid surface at the second side of the thickness, T, the solid surface being absent of voids through the monolithic body in the Z-direction (see at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith also discloses that the monolithic body is formed completely of a Dk material. (see at least the abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith also discloses that each end of the plurality of linear elongated ribs is at least partially close-ended, in that each respective end of the plurality of linear elongated ribs is monolithically connected to a corresponding end of an adjacent one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith also discloses at least one plurality of EM anti-reflection features monolithically connected to and disposed: on the bottom of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; on the top of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; or, on both the bottom and the top of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 2A and Col. 2, lines 49-59, where matching ridges 19 are an anti-reflection feature).
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Smith also discloses that the at least one plurality of EM anti-reflection features comprises a first plurality of EM anti-reflection features monolithically connected to and disposed on the bottom of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 2A, where top and bottom are relative).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Smith also discloses that each EM anti-reflection feature of the first plurality of EM anti-reflection features comprises a projection having an x-z cross section that is smaller in both the x-direction and the z-direction than the x-z cross section of the corresponding linear elongated rib (see at least Fig. 2A, where 19 are the projections).
Regarding claim 16, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Smith also discloses that the at least one plurality of EM anti-reflection features comprises a second plurality of EM anti-reflection features are monolithically connected to and disposed on top of the plurality of connecting bridges and disposed vertically over, in the Z-direction, the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Figs. 1B and 2A and Col. 3, lines 26-30, where region 60 is also a matching region).
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 16.
Smith also discloses that each EM anti-reflection feature of the second plurality of EM anti-reflection features comprises a projection having an x-z cross section that is smaller in the z- direction than that of the x-z -cross section of the corresponding linear elongated rib, and wherein adjacent ones of the second plurality of EM anti-reflection features do not directly touch each other (see at least Figs. 1B and 2A).
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith also discloses that, when operational at a defined frequency having an associated wavelength λ, a distance in the X-direction from the center of one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs to the center of an adjacent one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs defines a unit cell dimension, wherein the unit cell dimension is equal to or less than ½ (see at least Col. 1, lines 50-55, where the grating spacings is a half wavelength).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shindo et al. (US 4,156,213) made of record in the IDS filed 4/2/2024 (hereafter Shindo).
Regarding claim 1, Shindo discloses a dielectric, Dk, polarizer for electromagnetic, EM, applications (see at least Fig. 5 and the abstract), the Dk polarizer comprising: a monolithic body of Dk material comprising a plurality of linear elongated ribs that are disposed parallel with each other and that are uniformly spaced apart with respect to each other; wherein each rib of the plurality of linear elongated ribs has a cross section x-z profile relative to an orthogonal X-Y-Z coordinate system associated with the monolithic body; wherein the Y-direction of the coordinate system is oriented in a direction of elongation of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; wherein the Z-direction of the coordinate system is oriented in a direction of propagation of an EM wave, when present at the Dk polarizer, through the uniformly spaced apart plurality of linear elongated ribs; wherein the monolithic body has an overall thickness dimension, T, aligned in the Z-direction, that extends from a first side to a second side of the body, the second side being at dimension T relative to the first side (see at least Figs. 5 and 11); wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs are monolithically connected to each other by a plurality of connecting bridges; wherein the plurality of connecting bridges are disposed at a location equal to or greater than T/2 and equal to or less than T (see at least Fig. 11, where 35 and 36 are connecting bridges).
Regarding claim 2, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that the plurality of connecting bridges comprise a first plurality of the connecting bridges disposed at or proximate to the first side of the body, and a second plurality of the connecting bridges disposed at or proximate to the second side of the body (see at least Fig. 11, where 35 and 36 are connecting bridges disposed on opposite sides of the body).
Regarding claim 4, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that each connecting bridge of the plurality of connecting bridges has an x-z cross section that is relatively thin in the Z-direction as compared to the x-z cross section of an associated linear elongated rib in the Z-direction (see at least Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that the plurality of connecting bridges are disposed between, and uniformly spaced apart along a length of, adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; and adjacent ones of the plurality of connecting bridges, and adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs, form voids through the monolithic body in the Z- direction (see at least Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that the monolithic body is formed completely of a Dk material (see at least the abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that each end of the plurality of linear elongated ribs is open-ended, in that each respective end is not connected to a corresponding end of an adjacent one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that each end of the plurality of linear elongated ribs is at least partially close-ended, in that each respective end of the plurality of linear elongated ribs is monolithically connected to a corresponding end of an adjacent one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses that the plurality of connecting bridges form a frame at an outer periphery of the monolithic body, and are monolithically connected to respective ends of adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Shindo also discloses at least one plurality of EM anti-reflection features monolithically connected to and disposed: on the bottom of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; on the top of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; or, on both the bottom and the top of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 5 and Col. 6, lines 20-60, where matching layers 28 and 29 are anti-reflection features).
Regarding claim 14, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 13.
Shindo also discloses that the at least one plurality of EM anti-reflection features comprises a first plurality of EM anti-reflection features monolithically connected to and disposed on the bottom of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 5, matching layers 28).
Regarding claim 16, Shindo discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Shindo also discloses that the at least one plurality of EM anti-reflection features comprises a second plurality of EM anti-reflection features are monolithically connected to and disposed on top of the plurality of connecting bridges and disposed vertically over, in the Z-direction, the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 5, matching layers 29).
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (Low Profile Planar Dielectric Polarizer Using High-Dielectric-Constant Material and Anisotropic Antireflection Layers, 2021) made of record in the IDS filed 4/2/2024 (hereafter Ding).
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses a dielectric, Dk, polarizer for electromagnetic, EM, applications (see at least Fig. 9 and the abstract), the Dk polarizer comprising: a monolithic body of Dk material comprising a plurality of linear elongated ribs that are disposed parallel with each other and that are uniformly spaced apart with respect to each other; wherein each rib of the plurality of linear elongated ribs has a cross section x-z profile relative to an orthogonal X-Y-Z coordinate system associated with the monolithic body; wherein the Y-direction of the coordinate system is oriented in a direction of elongation of the plurality of linear elongated ribs; wherein the Z-direction of the coordinate system is oriented in a direction of propagation of an EM wave, when present at the Dk polarizer, through the uniformly spaced apart plurality of linear elongated ribs; wherein the monolithic body has an overall thickness dimension, T, aligned in the Z-direction, that extends from a first side to a second side of the body, the second side being at dimension T relative to the first side (see at least Fig. 9); wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs are monolithically connected to each other by a plurality of connecting bridges; wherein the plurality of connecting bridges are disposed at a location equal to or greater than T/2 and equal to or less than T (see at least Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Ding discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ding also discloses that the plurality of connecting bridges form a frame at an outer periphery of the monolithic body, and are monolithically connected to respective ends of adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs (see at least Fig. 11, where a frame is formed around the polarizer).
Regarding claim 11, Ding discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Ding also discloses that each one of the plurality of connecting bridges has a height in the Z-direction that is equal to the overall thickness, T, of the monolithic body (see at least Fig. 11 and page 8499, section IV. Prototyping and Verification, A. Fabrication and Measurement Setup, where the circular ring surrounding the polarizer is a connecting bridge with a height equal to the overall thickness T).
Regarding claim 12¸ Ding Discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Ding also discloses that the plurality of connecting bridges, and adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs, form voids through the monolithic body in the Z-direction; and the voids are present between adjacent ones of the plurality of linear elongated ribs, and run the length of the associated adjacent ribs (see at least Figs. 9 and 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,551,692) made of record in the IDS filed 4/2/2024 (hereafter Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leung et al. (US 2020/0395673) (hereafter Leung).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith does not specifically disclose that at least one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs comprises at least one region having an expanded x-z cross section in conjunction with an expanded x-y cross section relative to x-z and x-y cross sections of a non-expanded region of a corresponding linear elongated rib.
However, Leung teaches a dielectric device comprising a grid pattern with at least one region having an expanded x-z cross section in conjunction with an expanded x-y cross section relative to x-z and x-y cross sections of a non-expanded region of a corresponding portion of the grid (see at least Figs. 1A, 1B, and 6A and the abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Dk polarizer of Smith to include the teachings of Leung so that at least one of the plurality of linear elongated ribs comprises at least one region having an expanded x-z cross section in conjunction with an expanded x-y cross section relative to x-z and x-y cross sections of a non-expanded region of a corresponding linear elongated rib for the purpose of improving the reflection of the dielectric polarizer (see at least the abstract of Leung).
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 4,551,692) made of record in the IDS filed 4/2/2024 (hereafter Smith).
Regarding claims 19-23, Smith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Smith does not specifically disclose a Dk polarizer assembly comprising a plurality of the DK polarizer of claim 1, that the plurality of Dk polarizers are arranged side-by-side one another in a tiled arrangement, the tiled arrangement is a planar tiled arrangement, the plurality of linear elongated ribs of each of the plurality of Dk polarizers are aligned in a same direction, and each monolithic body of each of the plurality of Dk polarizers has its corresponding overall thickness dimension, T, aligned in the Z-direction.
However, it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Additionally, the examiner notes that a device such as that illustrated in figure 1a could be divided into 4 equal pieces without altering the function of the device and similarly 4 identical devices as illustrated in figure 1a could be combined simply to form a larger device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizer of Smith so that a dielectric polarizer assembly comprises a plurality of dielectric polarizers, wherein the plurality of Dk polarizers are arranged side-by-side one another in a tiled arrangement, the tiled arrangement is a planar tiled arrangement, the plurality of linear elongated ribs of each of the plurality of Dk polarizers are aligned in a same direction, and each monolithic body of each of the plurality of Dk polarizers has its corresponding overall thickness dimension, T, aligned in the Z-direction for the purpose of assembling a larger device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0021121 to Leung et al. discloses a dielectric device formed through 3D printing dielectric materials (see at least paragraph [0032]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/ADAM W BOOHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872