Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/526,266

METASURFACE UNIT AND METASURFACE UNIT DESIGN METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 01, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, AMAL A
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
287 granted / 415 resolved
+1.2% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
427
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 415 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “equal distance” in claim 1 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “equal distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term ‘equal distance’ is relative to another element or object, for example, a distance between two objects can be an equal distance to a distance between two other objects. However the claim limitation does not further define or suggest what the element being compared to the first element is with regard to; the Specification does not further specify or define the term. For example, Paragraph 140 only repeats the claim language with regard to metal structures 1031. For example Paragraph 178 of the Specification suggests “grid bars are at an equal distance in the fourth direction Q”, however there is no comparison as to what they are at an equal distance from, e.g., other grid bars. Furthermore, FIG. 14(c) is a resonant slot ring structure which is not equal distances relative to any other elements of the structure which causes confusion as to what is attempting to be claimed. This embodiment introduces confusion into what the claimed subject matter may be, thus the rejection of the claim limitation. The Examiner suggests (and interprets for examination purposes) amending the claims to recite “metal unit structures which are arranged equidistantly from each other in a third direction” or the similar language property describing the relationship of the elements of the metal unit structures to be spaced equally from each other. Claim 11 recites “resonant slot ring structure” which is indefinite given the above explanation for the claims 1 and 17 rejection under this heading. It is unclear how metal unit structures of the resonant slot ring structure as shown in FIG. 14(c) are equal distance in any direction or equal distances from each other. Claim 7 recites “wherein the first included angle is greater than or equal to K° and less than or equal to K°, and K° is greater than 0 and less than 30 [emphasis added]”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the first included angle can be anything other than equal to K given the mathematical expressions in the limitation of the first included angle being both greater than and less than K. The Examiner suggests reverting back to the original claim language for this Claim, i.e., first included angle greater than -Y and less than +Y. Claim 8 is rejected for being dependent on Claim 7 and for the same reasons regarding the variable K. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims would be allowable if amended as indicated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. For example, Weller (US 9780434 B1) teaches a single planar dipole radiating element on a first substrate and frequency selective surface high impedance surface on a second substrate however Weller does not teach two dipoles having first dipole arm pair and second dipole arm pair disposed orthogonally in two directions and the metal unit structures arranged equidistantly from each other in a third direction parallel to the first direction or second direction, or the third direction has a first included angle with the first direction or the second direction nor is there discussion of the relative direction of the frequency selective high impedance surface relative to the dipole, rather Weller seems to be concerned with the resonant circuit properties of the FSS. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Diaz (US 20170179596 A1) teaches parallel conductive dipoles printed on two levels of a multilayered grounded substrate. Behdad (US 11239555 B2) teaches a crossed dipole elements forming a phase shift element. Osterhues (US 6396449 B1) teaches layered crossed dipoles with switched grids. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AMAL PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603422
Antenna Mount System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597711
ANTENNA DEVICE AND WIRELESS TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592497
MICROWAVE BEAM-FORMING ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12567677
ANTENNA INCLUDING DEICING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12567675
ANTENNA STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 415 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month