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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 20, 2025. 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 February 9, 2026 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 8, 17, and 20. Claims 8-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2025. The examiner withdraws the Drawings and Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Drawings and Claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 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 § 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 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0384961 A1), hereinafter known as Chang, in view of Nakano et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0287254 A1), hereinafter known as Nakano.
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches (Fig. 1 and 3) A reconfigurable intelligent surface (10) comprising: a plurality of unit cells (110, 120, LCL) arranged in a first direction (D2) and a second direction (D1) perpendicular to the first direction, each of the plurality of unit cells including a first electrode (110), a liquid crystal layer (LCL), and a second electrode (WR2), wherein the liquid crystal layer (LCL) is between the first electrode (110) and the second electrode (120) in a third direction (D3) perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction; a plurality of first conductive lines (WR1) electrically connecting to each other first electrodes (110) arranged in the first direction (D2) from among the first electrodes (110) included in the plurality of unit cells; and a plurality of second conductive lines (WR2) electrically connecting to each other second electrodes (120) arranged in the second direction (D1) from among the second electrodes (120) included in the plurality of unit cells, wherein a wave incident on the reconfigurable intelligent surface is steered in a certain direction based on an electrical signal applied to the plurality of unit cells ([0065])
but does not specifically teach and a reflective layer reflecting waves incident from the plurality of unit cells to the plurality of unit cells, wherein the reflective layer is disposed on a lower surface of a substrate, the substrate being disposed on lower surfaces of the second electrodes.
However, Nakano teaches (Fig. 1) a reflective layer (65) reflecting waves incident from the plurality of unit cells to the plurality of unit cells, wherein the reflective layer (65) is disposed on a lower surface of a substrate (51, 54), the substrate (51, 54) being disposed on lower surfaces of the second electrodes (55).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Nakano to include “a reflective layer reflecting waves incident from the plurality of unit cells to the plurality of unit cells, wherein the reflective layer is disposed on a lower surface of a substrate, the substrate being disposed on lower surfaces of the second electrodes,” as taught by Nakano, for the purpose of preventing transmission in a undesired direction (see also [0083]).
Regarding claim 9, Chang further teaches (Fig. 11B) wherein a cross-sectional size of the second electrode (120C) is greater than or equal to a cross-sectional size of the first electrode (110C).
Regarding claim 10, Chang further teaches (Fig. 4A) wherein an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the first electrode (Fig. 4A, 110) and the second electrode is curved.
Regarding claim 11, Chang further teaches (Fig. 11B) wherein the first electrode (110C) is entirely disposed to overlap the second electrode (120C) in a thickness direction of the liquid crystal layer (LCL).
Regarding claim 12, Chang does not specifically teach wherein lengths of the first electrode and the second electrode are less than or equal to 1/2 of a wavelength of the wave.
However, Nakano teaches (Fig. 13B) wherein lengths (p1) of the first electrode (15) and the second electrode (bottom electrode) are less than or equal to 1/2 of a wavelength of the wave ([0085], [0219], wavelength is 25 mm, p1 is 0.5 mm).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Nakano to include “wherein lengths of the first electrode and the second electrode are less than or equal to 1/2 of a wavelength of the wave,” as taught by Nakano, for the purpose of operation in a desired frequency range (see also [0114]).
Regarding claim 13, Chang does not specifically teach wherein a distance between second electrodes included in adjacently arranged unit cells among the plurality of unit cells is less than or equal to 1/4 of a wavelength of the wave.
However, Nakano teaches (Fig. 1 and 13B) wherein a distance between second electrodes (55) included in adjacently arranged unit cells among the plurality of unit cells is less than or equal to 1/4 of a wavelength of the wave ([0085], [0219], wavelength is 25 mm, distance between 55 is the width of the slot s2 which is 0.5 mm).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Nakano to include “wherein a distance between second electrodes included in adjacently arranged unit cells among the plurality of unit cells is less than or equal to 1/4 of a wavelength of the wave,” as taught by Nakano, for the purpose of aligning the second electrodes with the first electrodes (see also [0218]).
Regarding claim 14, Chang further teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of first conductive lines (WR1) are arranged on a same plane as the first electrodes (110) included in the plurality of unit cells.
Regarding claim 15, Chang further teaches (Fig. 14) wherein at least one of the plurality of first conductive lines (WR1-C) includes a plurality of first sub conductive lines (sub WR1 lines connected to 110) spaced apart from each other in the first direction and connecting to each other two unit cells arranged adjacently in the first direction.
Regarding claim 16, Chang further teaches (Fig. 14) wherein widths and lengths of the plurality of first sub conductive lines (sub WR1 lines connected to 110) are less than a width and a length of the first electrode (110), respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Chang does not specifically teach wherein the reflective layer is plate shaped and comprises copper.
However, Nakano teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the reflective layer (65) is plate shaped and comprises copper ([0083]).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Nakano to include “wherein the reflective layer is plate shaped and comprises copper,” as taught by Nakano, for the purpose of preventing transmission in a undesired direction (see also [0083]).
Regarding claim 18, Chang does not specifically teach wherein, when a bias voltage is applied to the first electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells and the second electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells are grounded, the wave is steered on a plane including the second direction.
However, Nakano teaches (Fig. 17A-17C, 17F) wherein, when a bias voltage is applied to the first electrodes (Vg) included in the plurality of unit cells and the second electrodes (Fig. 17F, Vidc) included in the plurality of unit cells are grounded ([0244]), the wave is steered on a plane including the second direction ([0073]).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Nakano to include “wherein, when a bias voltage is applied to the first electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells and the second electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells are grounded, the wave is steered on a plane including the second direction,” as taught by Nakano, for the purpose of achieving a desired beam scanning direction (see also [0073]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Nakano as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Okita et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0364008 A1), hereinafter known as Okita.
Regarding claim 19, Chang does not specifically teach wherein, when the first electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells are grounded and a bias voltage is applied to the second electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells, the wave is steered on a plane including the first direction.
However, Okita teaches (Fig. 4) when the first electrodes (102) included in the plurality of unit cells are grounded and a bias voltage is applied to the second electrodes (104a, 104b) included in the plurality of unit cells, the wave is steered on a plane including the first direction (left direction).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Okita to include “when the first electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells are grounded and a bias voltage is applied to the second electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells, the wave is steered on a plane including the first direction,” as taught by Okita, for the purpose of steering the reflected wave in a desired direction and reducing interference (see also [0055]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Nakano as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Olk et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0412005 A1), hereinafter known as Olk.
Regarding claim 20, Chang does not specifically teach wherein, when a bias voltage is applied to the first electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells and the second electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells such that a same voltage is applied to unit cells arranged in a fourth direction crossing both the first direction and the second direction from among the plurality of unit cells, the wave is steered on a plane including a fifth direction perpendicular to the fourth direction.
However, Olk teaches (Fig. 10) when a bias voltage is applied to the first electrodes (352) included in the plurality of unit cells and the second electrodes (358) included in the plurality of unit cells such that a same voltage is applied to unit cells ([0109]) arranged in a fourth direction (diagonal direction) crossing both the first direction (y-direction) and the second direction (x-direction) from among the plurality of unit cells, the wave is steered on a plane including a fifth direction perpendicular to the fourth direction (the wave is steered on a plane including the z-direction which is perpendicular to the diagonal direction).
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 reconfigurable intelligent surface of Chang with Olk to include “wherein, when a bias voltage is applied to the first electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells and the second electrodes included in the plurality of unit cells such that a same voltage is applied to unit cells arranged in a fourth direction crossing both the first direction and the second direction from among the plurality of unit cells, the wave is steered on a plane including a fifth direction perpendicular to the fourth direction,” as taught by Olk, for the purpose of simplify operation of the reconfigurable intelligent surface by reducing the number of bias voltages required (see also [0113]).
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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