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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to claims 12-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 12-20 has been withdrawn.
The remarks of 06/15/2026 have been considered. However, part of the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sievenpiper is determined to be proper and is, therefore, maintained.
On page 8-9 of the remarks, applicant argues that Sievenpiper does not disclose “a metal layer directly formed on the ferroelectric layer” and applicant points to fig. 2 of Sievenpiper for this argument stating “an ILD layer is sandwiched between the ferroelectric layer and the metal layer”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in fig. 3A of Sievenpiper, the ILD layer (207) is sandwiched between the metal layer (208) and the ferroelectric layer (206), however, it can be clearly seen in fig. 3A that 206 and 208 are still in direct contact. This part of the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12. And 15-16 as obvious over Sievenpiper is, therefore, maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, and 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the remaining arguments.
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 1-2, 4-11, 12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Sievenpiper et al. (US20070182639; hereinafter Sievenpiper) in view of Hong et al. (US20240079792; hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “A unit cell comprising: a biasing layer (407); a first substrate (¶[0057]; In an exemplary embodiment, the ground plane 408 and the control circuits 407 may be separated by an insulating layer (not shown) which may be patterned and etched for making the control circuit connections as desired) formed on the biasing layer; a ground layer (408) formed on the first substrate; a second substrate (403) formed on the ground layer; a ferroelectric layer (205/206) formed on the second substrate; a metal layer (208) directly formed on the ferroelectric layer (206 connects to 208 of the metal layer); and a first via and a second via (vias 410) electrically connecting the ferroelectric layer to the biasing layer.
Sievenpiper does not disclose “wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via”.
However, Hong teaches “wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via (The liquid crystal molecules may be molecules having a positive type of dielectric anisotropy, but are not limited thereto. When a voltage is applied to each of the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120, an electric field (E-field) may be generated in the liquid crystal layer 130 between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120. Depending on the strength of the electric field, that is, the voltage difference between the applied voltages, the liquid crystal molecules may be rotated in an orientation parallel to the electric field)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong and make the unit cell of Sievenpiper, wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via, in order to change the propagation properties of the ferroelectric layer.
Regarding claim 2, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 1, wherein the first substrate comprises silicon, FR4, glass sapphire, quartz, or rogers RF and wherein the second substrate comprises silicon, FR4, glass sapphire, quartz, or rogers RF (¶[0055]; In an exemplary embodiment, the substrates 403, 411 may be silicon substrates, for example silicon wafers, glass, quartz, alumina, ceramic, saphire (single crystal alumina), LAlO, MgO, NdGaO, YSZ or SrTiO3)”.
Regarding claim 4, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric layer covers only a portion of a top surface of the second substrate (see fig. 3)”.
Regarding claim 5, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric layer comprises barium strontium titanate (¶[0034]; In an exemplary embodiment, a varactor structure 201 may also include a ferroelectric element 205, for example BST)”.
Regarding claim 6, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 1, wherein the metal layer is shaped to be resonant to a range of frequencies (¶[0018]; The antenna may be capable of steering a beam of microwave or millimeter wave energy in one or two dimensions, using a set of electrical control signals)”.
Regarding claim 7, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 6, wherein the range of frequencies is greater than 30 GigaHertz, greater than 35 GigaHertz, less than 30 GigaHertz, or between 30 GigaHertz and 300 GigaHertz (¶[0018]; The antenna may be capable of steering a beam of microwave or millimeter wave energy in one or two dimensions, using a set of electrical control signals)”.
Regarding claim 8, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 1, wherein the biasing layer (407) comprises a first bias pad (414) connected through the first via (410) to a first side of the ferroelectric layer (205) and a second bias pad (414) connected through the second via (410) to a second side of the ferroelectric layer (see fig. 5)”.
Regarding claim 9, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 8, wherein dielectric constant of the ferroelectric layer changes according to a voltage placed across the ferroelectric layer using the first and second bias pads (¶[0023]; In an exemplary embodiment, the method 100 may also include depositing 104 a layer of ferroelectric material. In an exemplary embodiment, the ferroelectric material may be barium strontium titanate (BST). In an exemplary embodiment, the ferroelectric material may be between 500-30000 A thick, for example about 2000 A. In an exemplary embodiment, the ferroelectric material may include Ba(1-x) Sr(x) Ti O3 (BST) with x to be about 0.5 as the active ferroelectric material. This composition may be in the paraelectric phase at the operating temperature and does not show hysteresis in the polarization-electric field (P-E) characteristic. When operated as a paraelectric, the material shows a permittivity which varies as a function of applied voltage)”.
Regarding claim 10, Sievenpiper discloses “The unit cell of claim 9, wherein a relative tunable phase of 360 degrees is achieved in a signal reflected by the unit cell (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. See MPEP 2112.01. Since all the elements of claim 9 and the voltage control of ¶0020] and ¶[0027] are anticipated in Sievenpiper, the relative tunable phase of 360 by controlling the voltage is presumed to be inherent)”.
Regarding claim 11, Sievenpiper discloses “The unit cell of claim 10, wherein the signal reflected by the unit cell is steerable to a specified direction by controlling the voltage (According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Since all the elements of claim 10 and the voltage control of ¶0020] and ¶[0027] are anticipated in Sievenpiper, the steering of unit cell is presumed to be inherent)”.
Regarding claim 12, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “A panel (fig. 5A) comprising: a plurality of unit cells arranged in a grid pattern, wherein each of the unit cells comprises: a biasing layer (407); a first substrate (¶[0057]; In an exemplary embodiment, the ground plane 408 and the control circuits 407 may be separated by an insulating layer (not shown) which may be patterned and etched for making the control circuit connections as desired) formed on the biasing layer; a ground layer (408) formed on the first substrate; a second substrate (403) formed on the ground layer; a ferroelectric layer (205/206) formed on the second substrate (206 connects to 208 of metal layer); a metal layer (208) formed on the ferroelectric layer; and a first via and a second via (vias 410) electrically connecting the ferroelectric layer to the biasing layer.
Sievenpiper does not disclose “wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via”.
However, Hong teaches “wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via (The liquid crystal molecules may be molecules having a positive type of dielectric anisotropy, but are not limited thereto. When a voltage is applied to each of the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120, an electric field (E-field) may be generated in the liquid crystal layer 130 between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120. Depending on the strength of the electric field, that is, the voltage difference between the applied voltages, the liquid crystal molecules may be rotated in an orientation parallel to the electric field)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong and make the unit cell of Sievenpiper, wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via, in order to change the propagation properties of the ferroelectric layer.
Regarding claim 15, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The panel of claim 12, wherein the metal layer is shaped to be resonant to a range of frequencies, wherein the range of frequencies is greater than 30 GigaHertz, greater than 35 GigaHertz, greater than 40 GigaHertz, less than 30 GigaHertz, or between 30 GigaHertz and 300 GigaHertz (¶[0018]; The antenna may be capable of steering a beam of microwave or millimeter wave energy in one or two dimensions, using a set of electrical control signals)”.
Regarding claim 16, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The panel of claim 12, wherein the biasing layer (407) comprises a first bias pad (414) connected through the first via (410) to a first side of the ferroelectric layer (205) and a second bias pad (414) connected through the second via (410) to a second side of the ferroelectric layer (see fig. 5) and wherein dielectric constant of the ferroelectric layer changes according to a voltage placed across the ferroelectric layer using the first and second bias pads (¶[0023]; In an exemplary embodiment, the method 100 may also include depositing 104 a layer of ferroelectric material. In an exemplary embodiment, the ferroelectric material may be barium strontium titanate (BST). In an exemplary embodiment, the ferroelectric material may be between 500-30000 A thick, for example about 2000 A. In an exemplary embodiment, the ferroelectric material may include Ba(1-x) Sr(x) Ti O3 (BST) with x to be about 0.5 as the active ferroelectric material. This composition may be in the paraelectric phase at the operating temperature and does not show hysteresis in the polarization-electric field (P-E) characteristic. When operated as a paraelectric, the material shows a permittivity which varies as a function of applied voltage)”.
Claims 3, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievenpiper in view of Hong.
Regarding claim 3, Sievenpiper discloses the unit cell of claim 1 as shown previously, Sievenpiper further disclose “wherein the ground layer comprise metal or are metallic (¶[0057]; In an exemplary embodiment, the ground plane 408 may be a metal layer )”.
Sievenpiper does not disclose “wherein the biasing layer comprise metal or are metallic”.
However, Sievenpiper teaches a metal ground layer in ¶[0057] as well as control circuitry on layer 407 which would require a similar metal material in order to function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sievenpiper and make the unit cell of claim 1, wherein the biasing layer comprise metal or are metallic, in order to have the circuity function properly given its electrical nature.
Regarding claim 13, Sievenpiper discloses “The panel of claim 12, wherein the first substrate comprises silicon, FR4, glass sapphire, quartz, or rogers RF wherein the second substrate comprises silicon, FR4, glass sapphire, quartz, or rogers RF (¶[0055]; In an exemplary embodiment, the substrates 403, 411 may be silicon substrates, for example silicon wafers, glass, quartz, alumina, ceramic, saphire (single crystal alumina), LAlO, MgO, NdGaO, YSZ or SrTiO3), and wherein the ferroelectric layer covers only a portion of a top surface of the second substrate (see fig. 3)”, Sievenpiper further disclose “wherein the ground layer comprise metal or are metallic (¶[0057]; In an exemplary embodiment, the ground plane 408 may be a metal layer )”.
Sievenpiper does not disclose “wherein the biasing layer comprise metal or are metallic”.
However, Sievenpiper teaches a metal ground layer in ¶[0057] as well as control circuitry on layer 407 which would require a similar metal material in order to function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sievenpiper and make the unit cell of claim 12, wherein the biasing layer comprise metal or are metallic, in order to have the circuity function properly given its electrical nature.
Regarding claim 14, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The unit cell of claim 13, wherein the ferroelectric layer comprises barium strontium titanate (¶[0034]; In an exemplary embodiment, a varactor structure 201 may also include a ferroelectric element 205, for example BST)”.
Regarding claim 17, Sievenpiper discloses the unit cell of claim 16 as shown previously. Sievenpiper further disclose “controlling the voltage applied to the ferroelectric layer (¶[0020] and ¶[0027])”.
Sievenpiper does not disclose “wherein a relative tunable phase of 360 degrees is achieved in a signal reflected by the panel and wherein the signal reflected by the panel is steerable to a specified direction by controlling the voltage”.
However, According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Since all the elements of claim 16 are anticipated in Sievenpiper, the steering of unit cell and 360 degree phase by controlling the voltage is presumed to be inherent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Sievenpiper and make the unit cell of claim 16, wherein a relative tunable phase of 360 degrees is achieved in a signal reflected by the panel by controlling the voltage placed across the ferroelectric layers of the unit cells and wherein the signal reflected by the panel is steerable to a specified direction by controlling the voltage, in order to have the antenna adjust properly.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievenpiper in view of Hong, further in view of Yiyang et al. (CN116567860; hereinafter Yiyang).
Regarding claim 18, Sievenpiper discloses “A method for steering a signal (figs. 1-10), the method comprising: operating a panel in an environment, the panel including unit cells (figs. 1-5); determining a direction for steering a signal (¶[0052]; In an exemplary embodiment, the control circuits 307 provide bias voltage to respective biased elements 309a. The varactors 301 allow the capacitance between the neighboring elements 309a, 309b to be controlled by controlling the voltage applied to each element 309a. A controller may be programmed to address particular elements 309a and provide bias voltages to particular elements 309a in a pattern to selectively steer a beam illuminating the surface); applying a voltage to each of the unit cells such that the signal is reflected in the determined direction (¶[0052]), wherein each of the unit cells is configured to be controlled independently (fig. 1-2, V1-Vn implies individual voltages) and wherein applying the voltage applied to each of the unit cells comprises :applying a first voltage to one surface of a ferroelectric layer of each unit cell through a first via of each unit cell”
Sievenpiper does not disclose “applying a second voltage, different from the first voltage, to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer of each unit cell through a second via of each unit cell or “wherein the signal is received from a base station, an access point, or a different panel”.
However, Hong teaches “applying a second voltage, different from the first voltage, to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer of each unit cell through a second via of each unit cell (The liquid crystal molecules may be molecules having a positive type of dielectric anisotropy, but are not limited thereto. When a voltage is applied to each of the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120, an electric field (E-field) may be generated in the liquid crystal layer 130 between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 120. Depending on the strength of the electric field, that is, the voltage difference between the applied voltages, the liquid crystal molecules may be rotated in an orientation parallel to the electric field)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong and make the unit cell of Sievenpiper, wherein the biasing layer is configured such that a first voltage is to be applied to one surface of the ferroelectric layer through the first via and a second voltage, different from the first voltage, is to be applied to another surface, opposite the one surface, of the ferroelectric layer through the second via, in order to change the propagation properties of the ferroelectric layer.
Sievenpiper does not disclose “wherein the signal is received from a base station, an access point, or a different panel”.
However, Yiyang teaches the use of reflect arrays with ferroelectric thin films in communication schemes using base station signals in fig. 1 and ¶[0002-0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yiyang and modify the method of Sievenpiper wherein the signal is received from a base station, an access point, or a different panel, in order to adjust and operate the signal in the required configuration.
Regarding claim 19, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The method of claim 18, further comprising reconfiguring the panel by applying a different voltage to the unit cells (fig. 1-2, V1-Vn implies individual voltages)”.
Regarding claim 20, Sievenpiper (figs. 3-5) discloses “The method of claim 18: wherein each of the plurality of unit cells comprises: a metallic biasing layer (407); a first substrate (¶[0057]; In an exemplary embodiment, the ground plane 408 and the control circuits 407 may be separated by an insulating layer (not shown) which may be patterned and etched for making the control circuit connections as desired) formed on the biasing layer; a ground metal layer (408) formed on the first substrate; a second substrate (403) formed on the ground layer; a ferroelectric layer (205/206) formed on the second substrate; a metal layer (208) directly formed on the ferroelectric layer (206 directly forms to 208); wherein the metal layer is configured to have a resonance with a signal having a frequency of interest ((¶[0018]; The antenna may be capable of steering a beam of microwave or millimeter wave energy in one or two dimensions, using a set of electrical control signals); and a first via and a second via (vias 410) electrically connecting the ferroelectric layer to the biasing layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights