DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 11-13 and 22-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species of Fig. 6-7 and 9-16, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/08/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 and 14-21, directed to related species I-II (Fig. 4A-B) and IX (Fig. 8A-B), in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged. The grounds of traversal are addressed below:
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the examiner has not indicated which claims are directed to different embodiments or species” and that “the examiner has not provided evidence as to which claims are allegedly directed to mutually exclusive species”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the MPEP states that “claims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species. The scope of a claim may be limited to a single disclosed embodiment (i.e., a single species, and thus be designated a specific species claim)) (see MPEP 806.04(e)). In this case, the examiner respectfully submits that while “the burden is on the examiner to provide an example to support the determination that the inventions are distinct”, “applicant either proves or provides convincing evidence that the example suggested by the examiner is not workable” (see MPEP 806.05(j)). The examiner appreciates the applicant’s explanation with respect to the relationship between the species of Fig. 4A-B and 8A-B in the Remarks.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “restricting nearly all figures into separate species is highly unreasonable, despite the Examiner’s acknowledgement that some of the alleged species are “similar””, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the MPEP states that “the examiner may require restriction of the claims to not more than a reasonable number of species before taking further action in the application” (see MPEP 806.04, 37 CFR 1.146), the examiner may require the applicant in the reply to that action to elect a species of his or her invention to which his or her claim will be restricted if no claim to the genus is found to be allowable” (see 37 CFR 1.146) . With regards to the noted similarities or differences between the species of inventions, the examiner had relied on the language as stated in the instant disclosure to identify the distinct species or related species having materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect (see MPEP 806.05(j)). For example, at least the species of Fig. 6A-D, Fig. 7A-D, Fig. 9A-B, Fig. 10A-B appear to have materially different designs, mode of operation, function, or effect from one another.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, the species of Fig. 4A-B and 8A-B drawn to claims 1-10 and 14-21 will be examined.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that “at least one receiver configured to receive the first electromagnetic wave and acquire a first measurement of a first property of the first electromagnetic receiver wave”. The claim does not define or explain an element or component for generating the “first measurement of a first property” acquired by the receiver. The claim does not clearly define whether the “first measurement of a first property” is generated and transmitted by the at least one receiver or that the “first measurement of a first property” is generated by something else and then transmitted to the at least one receiver. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “at least one receiver configured to demodulate the first electromagnetic receive wave” and “at least one processor configured to determine a strain” and “to evaluate the first property of the demodulated signal”. In this case, there is a missing structural cooperative relationship between the at least one receiver and the at least one processor. The claim does not explain or define any coupling or connection between the receiver and the processor and how the processor is configured to receive the “demodulated signal” generated by the receiver. While the at least one receiver is configured to “acquire a first measurement of a first property”, in the independent claim 1, claims 1 and 6 do not really explain or define whether the measurement is generated and received by the receiver or generated by something else and then transmitted to the receiver. The claim appears incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a second metamaterial layer mechanically coupled to the first substrate” but does not disclose the structural cooperative relationship between the first metamaterial layer and the second metamaterial layer. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). For examination purposes, this the first and second metamaterial layers will be understood as being arranged adjacent to one another or overlapping one another and coupled to the first substrate. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 15-21 are rejected as depending on the rejected base claim.
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 1-8, 14-15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Demir et al. (Pub. No. US 20160198981) (hereafter Demir).
Regarding claim 1, Demir teaches a sensor system, comprising:
a first flexible substrate (i.e., substrate 307) (see Fig. 3) configured to undergo a deformation in response to at least one force applied to the first flexible substrate or an environmental condition to which the first flexible substrate is exposed (see Fig. 44);
a first metamaterial layer (i.e., sensor 1210) (see Fig. 6-7 and 12-13) mechanically coupled to the first flexible substrate (i.e., a split-ring-resonator (SRR) structure as a metamaterial for the sensor) (see Fig. 6),
wherein the first metamaterial layer comprises a first array of conductive elements (i.e., array 710 of split ring resonators 712-1…712-N) (see Fig. 7) that are mutually coupled by a first strain-dependent coupling that changes based on the deformation of the first flexible substrate (i.e., the resonant frequency of the sensor can be excited by subjecting the sensor to an alternating magnetic or electromagnetic field. At 120, temporal changes in strain of the hardware are determined based on the determined shift. The temporal changes can be determined by analyzing signals from the sensor, where the signals are generated from the sensor in response to subjecting the sensor to the alternating magnetic or electromagnetic field) (see paragraph section [0051]);
at least one transmitter configured to transmit a first electromagnetic transmit wave towards the first metamaterial layer (i.e., transmitter antenna 1214) (see Fig. 12),
wherein the first metamaterial layer is configured to convert the first electromagnetic transmit wave into a first electromagnetic receive wave based on the first strain-dependent coupling (i.e., strain sensor can be configured to produce a resonance frequency shift that is sufficiently large so that small changes in strain can be detected by the sensor) (see paragraph section [0059]); and
at least one receiver configured to receive the first electromagnetic receive wave (i.e., antenna 1216) (see Fig. 12) and acquire a first measurement of a first property of the first electromagnetic receive wave (i.e., receiver 1925 is operable to receive signals from sensor 1905 generated in response to sensor 1905 being excited by electromagnetic fields at different times) (see paragraph section [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Demir teaches that the at least one receiver is configured to determine a strain resulting from the at least one force applied to the first flexible substrate or the environmental condition to which the first flexible substrate is exposed based on the first measurement (i.e., spectrum analyzer 1935 is operable to determine resonant frequencies of sensor 1905 from the received signals. Analyzer 1945 is operable to determine a temporal change in strain of the hardware, based on a shift in resonant frequency of sensor 1905 over time) (see paragraph sections [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 3, Demir teaches that the first strain-dependent coupling includes at least one of capacitive coupling, inductive coupling (i.e., The components of the sensing system can include an inductor or other means of applying electromagnetic fields, the implantable sensor, a receiving antenna. The implantable sensor can be also referred to as the “resonator” of the sensing system. The receiving antenna can be realized as a receiving antenna/spectrum analyzer apparatus. The inductor produces an alternating external magnetic field that induces an electric current in the sensor. The sensor has an associated resonance frequency that is uniquely related to the current configuration of the circuit formed of the sensor. The resonance frequency of the sensor changes as the sensor is deformed. Signals generated at the sensor, in response to the applied electromagnetic fields, can be received from the sensor at the attached antenna of the spectrum analyzer and can be used to determine the resonance frequency of the circuit formed by the sensor) (see paragraph section [0050]), or galvanic coupling.
Regarding claim 4, Demir teaches that the first property of the first electromagnetic receive wave is a phase shift of the first electromagnetic receive wave relative to a phase of the first electromagnetic transmit wave or an amplitude shift of the first electromagnetic receive wave relative to an amplitude of the first electromagnetic transmit wave (i.e., temporal changes in strain of the hardware are determined based on the determined shift. The temporal changes can be determined by analyzing signals from the sensor, where the signals are generated from the sensor in response to subjecting the sensor to the alternating magnetic or electromagnetic field. In various embodiments, the shift in resonant frequency is used without using the absolute values of the resonant frequencies with respect to determining the temporal changes in strain of the hardware. Based on the temporal changes in strain of the hardware, changes in the subject can be determined) (see paragraph section [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Demir teaches that the first strain-dependent coupling affects a millimeter (mm)-wave property of the first metamaterial layer such that the mm-wave property changes based on the at least one force applied to the first flexible substrate or the environmental condition to which the first flexible substrate is exposed (i.e., temporal changes in strain of the hardware are determined based on the determined shift. The temporal changes can be determined by analyzing signals from the sensor, where the signals are generated from the sensor in response to subjecting the sensor to the alternating magnetic or electromagnetic field. In various embodiments, the shift in resonant frequency is used without using the absolute values of the resonant frequencies with respect to determining the temporal changes in strain of the hardware. Based on the temporal changes in strain of the hardware, changes in the subject can be determined) (see paragraph section [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Demir teaches that at least one processor configured to determine a strain resulting from the at least one force applied to the first flexible substrate or the environmental condition to which the first flexible substrate is exposed based on the first electromagnetic receive wave, wherein the at least one receiver is configured to demodulate the first electromagnetic receive wave to generate a demodulated signal, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to evaluate the first property of the demodulated signal using at least one of phase analysis, amplitude analysis, or spectral analysis, and determine the strain based on the evaluated first property (i.e., spectrum analyzer 1935 is operable to determine resonant frequencies of sensor 1905 from the received signals. Analyzer 1945 is operable to determine a temporal change in strain of the hardware, based on a shift in resonant frequency of sensor 1905 over time) (see paragraph sections [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 7, Demir teaches that the deformation of the first flexible substrate causes a positional shift of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements relative to each other, thereby causing a change in the first strain-dependent coupling (i.e., temporal changes in strain of the hardware are determined based on the determined shift. The temporal changes can be determined by analyzing signals from the sensor, where the signals are generated from the sensor in response to subjecting the sensor to the alternating magnetic or electromagnetic field. In various embodiments, the shift in resonant frequency is used without using the absolute values of the resonant frequencies with respect to determining the temporal changes in strain of the hardware. Based on the temporal changes in strain of the hardware, changes in the subject can be determined) (see paragraph section [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Demir teaches that the deformation of the first flexible substrate causes the positional shift of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements relative to each other without deforming a geometry of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements (i.e., the design can be directed to obtaining a high quality RF signal using bio-compatible materials with a maximum, relative to various design trade-offs, possible resonance frequency shift per unit strain. In designing such a resonator, a number of parameters are considered. Such factors include substrate effects, dielectric thickness, dielectric material, choice of metal, metal layer thickness, line width and spacing, number of circuit turns, and total chip area. This approach utilizes the film capacitance of the sensor as the LC (inductance-capacitance) tank circuit capacitance. In various embodiments, the main driver of the observed change in the resonance frequency of the sensor is the capacitance change, as opposed to targeting changes in inductance. Since the sensor has a substrate and metal layer with a relatively high Young's modulus (stiffness), the resonance frequency shift is mainly due to the change in the capacitor area, and thus, overall capacitance) (see paragraph section [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, Demir teaches a second metamaterial layer mechanically coupled to the first flexible substrate, wherein the second metamaterial layer comprises a second array of conductive elements that are mutually coupled by a second strain-dependent coupling that changes based on the deformation of the first flexible substrate, wherein the at least one transmitter is configured to transmit a second electromagnetic transmit wave at the second metamaterial layer, wherein the second metamaterial layer is configured to convert the second electromagnetic transmit wave into a second electromagnetic receive wave based on the second strain-dependent coupling, and wherein the at least one receiver is configured to receive the second electromagnetic receive wave and acquire a second measurement of a second property of the second electromagnetic receive wave (i.e., an array with a number of circular spiral coil resonators and a rectangular coil resonator. Hybrid resonator arrays as shown in FIG. 17 are not limited to one rectangular coil resonator with a plurality of circular spiral coil resonators. A sensor can include a number of different type resonators, where the number for each individual type can vary) (see paragraph section [0074]).
Regarding claim 15, Demir teaches that the at least one receiver is configured to determine a strain resulting from the at least one force applied to the first flexible substrate or the environmental condition to which the first flexible substrate is exposed based on the second measurement (i.e., an array with a number of circular spiral coil resonators and a rectangular coil resonator. Hybrid resonator arrays as shown in FIG. 17 are not limited to one rectangular coil resonator with a plurality of circular spiral coil resonators. A sensor can include a number of different type resonators, where the number for each individual type can vary) (see paragraph section [0074]).
Regarding claim 20, Demir teaches that the first metamaterial layer and the second metamaterial layer are formed in a common conductive layer that is mechanically coupled to the first flexible substrate (i.e., an array with a number of circular spiral coil resonators and a rectangular coil resonator. Hybrid resonator arrays as shown in FIG. 17 are not limited to one rectangular coil resonator with a plurality of circular spiral coil resonators. A sensor can include a number of different type resonators, where the number for each individual type can vary) (see paragraph section [0074]).
Regarding claim 21, Demir teaches that the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements are intermixed with the conductive elements of the second array of conductive elements within the common conductive layer (i.e., an array with a number of circular spiral coil resonators and a rectangular coil resonator. Hybrid resonator arrays as shown in FIG. 17 are not limited to one rectangular coil resonator with a plurality of circular spiral coil resonators. A sensor can include a number of different type resonators, where the number for each individual type can vary) (see paragraph section [0074] and Fig. 17), or the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements are mechanically coupled to a first region of the first flexible substrate and the conductive elements of the second array of conductive elements are mechanically coupled to a second region of the first flexible substrate, wherein the first region and the second region are mutually exclusive regions.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demir et al. (Pub. No. US 20160198981) (hereafter Demir)
Regarding claim 9, Demir teaches that the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements have a first Young's Modulus and the first flexible substrate has a second Young's Modulus that is greater than the first Young's Modulus (i.e., the sensor has a substrate and metal layer with a relatively high Young's modulus (stiffness), the resonance frequency shift is mainly due to the change in the capacitor area, and thus, overall capacitance) (see paragraph section [0080]); but does not explicitly teach a factor of at least 10,000. However, the claimed range is an optimization of a result-effective variable such that the claimed range would have been discoverable through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a factor of at least 10,000, as a discovery of optimum or workable range by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Demir as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the deformation of the first flexible substrate causes the positional shift of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements relative to each while a geometry of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements remains substantially unchanged based on a difference between the first Young's Modulus and the second Young's Modulus (i.e., the design can be directed to obtaining a high quality RF signal using bio-compatible materials with a maximum, relative to various design trade-offs, possible resonance frequency shift per unit strain. In designing such a resonator, a number of parameters are considered. Such factors include substrate effects, dielectric thickness, dielectric material, choice of metal, metal layer thickness, line width and spacing, number of circuit turns, and total chip area. This approach utilizes the film capacitance of the sensor as the LC (inductance-capacitance) tank circuit capacitance. In various embodiments, the main driver of the observed change in the resonance frequency of the sensor is the capacitance change, as opposed to targeting changes in inductance. Since the sensor has a substrate and metal layer with a relatively high Young's modulus (stiffness), the resonance frequency shift is mainly due to the change in the capacitor area, and thus, overall capacitance) (see paragraph section [0080]).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demir et al. (Pub. No. US 20160198981) (hereafter Demir) in view of Hammerschmidt et al. (Pat. No. US 11,435,345).
Regarding claim 16, Demir as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the at least one force comprises a first force applied to the first flexible substrate along a first axis and a second force applied to the first flexible substrate along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, and the at least one receiver is configured to determine a first strain based on the first measurement and determine a second strain based on the second measurement. However, Hammerschmidt teaches that the at least one force comprises a first force applied to the first flexible substrate along a first axis and a second force applied to the first flexible substrate along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, and the at least one receiver is configured to determine a first strain based on the first measurement and determine a second strain based on the second measurement (i.e., The manner in which the structures are coupled affects the coupling behavior of the array or a portion of that array. In turn, this coupling behavior impacts an effect the individual structures or a group of structures have on a transmission wave or signal incident on that structure or that group of structures. Furthermore, the coupling effect between structures is different if gaps or openings of neighboring structures are face-to-face or if the gaps face (i.e., are adjacent to) a closed segment of a neighboring structure. For example, FIG. 2B shows an example of 2D array 21 of split ring resonators in which an orientation of the split ring resonators changes in both the horizontal (width) and vertical (length) directions of the array 21 (i.e., of the metamaterial track). In other words, the location of the gap of each split ring resonator varies across neighboring structures and the rows of structures have different patterns. Here, while not required, it is possible that each row of structures has a unique pattern) (see Column 7, line 43, to Column 8, line 65). In view of the teaching of Hammerschmidt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the split ring resonators in order to change the coupling effect between the structures along the array in the rotation direction.
Regarding claim 17, Demir as modified by Hammerschmidt as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the first electromagnetic transmit wave is linearly polarized in a first direction and the second electromagnetic transmit wave is linearly polarized in a second direction that is non-parallel to the first direction. However, Hammerschmidt teaches that the first electromagnetic transmit wave is linearly polarized in a first direction and the second electromagnetic transmit wave is linearly polarized in a second direction that is non-parallel to the first direction (i.e., The manner in which the structures are coupled affects the coupling behavior of the array or a portion of that array. In turn, this coupling behavior impacts an effect the individual structures or a group of structures have on a transmission wave or signal incident on that structure or that group of structures. Furthermore, the coupling effect between structures is different if gaps or openings of neighboring structures are face-to-face or if the gaps face (i.e., are adjacent to) a closed segment of a neighboring structure. For example, FIG. 2B shows an example of 2D array 21 of split ring resonators in which an orientation of the split ring resonators changes in both the horizontal (width) and vertical (length) directions of the array 21 (i.e., of the metamaterial track). In other words, the location of the gap of each split ring resonator varies across neighboring structures and the rows of structures have different patterns. Here, while not required, it is possible that each row of structures has a unique pattern) (see Column 7, line 43, to Column 8, line 65). In view of the teaching of Hammerschmidt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the split ring resonators in order to change the coupling effect between the structures along the array in the rotation direction.
Regarding claim 18, Demir as modified by Hammerschmidt as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the first metamaterial layer is sensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the first direction and is substantially insensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the second direction, and the second metamaterial layer is sensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the second direction and is substantially insensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the first direction. However, Hammerschmidt teaches that that the first metamaterial layer is sensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the first direction and is substantially insensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the second direction, and the second metamaterial layer is sensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the second direction and is substantially insensitive to electromagnetic waves linearly polarized in the first direction (i.e., The manner in which the structures are coupled affects the coupling behavior of the array or a portion of that array. In turn, this coupling behavior impacts an effect the individual structures or a group of structures have on a transmission wave or signal incident on that structure or that group of structures. Furthermore, the coupling effect between structures is different if gaps or openings of neighboring structures are face-to-face or if the gaps face (i.e., are adjacent to) a closed segment of a neighboring structure. For example, FIG. 2B shows an example of 2D array 21 of split ring resonators in which an orientation of the split ring resonators changes in both the horizontal (width) and vertical (length) directions of the array 21 (i.e., of the metamaterial track). In other words, the location of the gap of each split ring resonator varies across neighboring structures and the rows of structures have different patterns. Here, while not required, it is possible that each row of structures has a unique pattern) (see Column 7, line 43, to Column 8, line 65). In view of the teaching of Hammerschmidt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the split ring resonators in order to change the coupling effect between the structures along the array in the rotation direction.
Regarding claim 19, Demir as modified by Hammerschmidt as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that each of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements have a first sensitivity axis aligned with the first direction and each of the conductive elements of the second array of conductive elements have a second sensitivity axis aligned with the second direction. However, Hammerschmidt teaches that each of the conductive elements of the first array of conductive elements have a first sensitivity axis aligned with the first direction and each of the conductive elements of the second array of conductive elements have a second sensitivity axis aligned with the second direction (i.e., The manner in which the structures are coupled affects the coupling behavior of the array or a portion of that array. In turn, this coupling behavior impacts an effect the individual structures or a group of structures have on a transmission wave or signal incident on that structure or that group of structures. Furthermore, the coupling effect between structures is different if gaps or openings of neighboring structures are face-to-face or if the gaps face (i.e., are adjacent to) a closed segment of a neighboring structure. For example, FIG. 2B shows an example of 2D array 21 of split ring resonators in which an orientation of the split ring resonators changes in both the horizontal (width) and vertical (length) directions of the array 21 (i.e., of the metamaterial track). In other words, the location of the gap of each split ring resonator varies across neighboring structures and the rows of structures have different patterns. Here, while not required, it is possible that each row of structures has a unique pattern) (see Column 7, line 43, to Column 8, line 65). In view of the teaching of Hammerschmidt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the split ring resonators in order to change the coupling effect between the structures along the array in the rotation direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights