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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 14-17 (group II) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the combined search and examination burned for all claims is reasonable”. This is not found persuasive because as outlined in the 7/25/25 restriction requirement, the distinct inventions have different classifications, which would require a different field of search, thereby resulting in a serious search and/or an examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 16-17 are 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.
Claim 16 reciting a second instance of “a metasurface” is indefinite, since it’s unclear whether this limitation is related (or in addition) to “a metasurface” recited in claim 14. For examination purposes, this second instance of “a metasurface” will be interpreted as --the metasurface--.
Claim 17 reciting “the varactor” is indefinite, since it’s unclear whether this limitation is related (or in addition) to “varactors” recited in claim 14. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as --each of the varactors--, thereby being commensurate with claim 14 and Fig. 4 of the invention.
There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable method of steering a beam.
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Pelletti” (US 2019/0326670).
Claim 14: Pelletti discloses a method of steering a beam comprising:
providing a flat feed array 60 (Fig. 3);
generating waves with the feed array (¶ [0043]: “The layers 1 and 2 are substrates of dielectric material, effectively forming a waveguide structure for EM waves travelling in the x-direction”);
providing a metasurface comprising an array of unit cells 51 having varactors (55, 56), the unit cells configured to steer beams according to capacitance of the varactors (¶ [0045]: “…the reactance control means enable beam steering of signals radiated from the radiating elements”);
impinging (inherently) the waves on the metasurface (¶ [0043]); and
varying the capacitance of the varactors (¶ [0066]: “a varactor control may be a capacitance control array, wherein each of a set of varactor diodes is controlled by an individual reverse bias voltage resulting in an effective capacitance change to at least one individual MTM element”).
Palletti fails to expressly teach the waves generated being plane waves and varying the capacitance of the varactors to steer beams resulting from the plane waves.
However, Palletti teaches in ¶ [0022], “The present invention provides smart beam steering and beam forming using MTM radiating structures in a variety of configurations, wherein electrical changes to the antenna are used to achieve phase shifting and adjustment thereby reducing the complexity and processing time and enabling fast scans of up to approximately a 360° field of view for long range object detection.”
Palletti further discusses “plane wave” in ¶ [0056], and teaches in ¶ [0066], “The feed structure provides the transmission signal energy to each of the array elements by way of multiple parallel transmission paths. While the same signal is provided to each MTM element, the antenna controller controls the phase of each transmission line and/or each MTM element by a variable reactance element. For example, a varactor control may be a capacitance control array, wherein each of a set of varactor diodes is controlled by an individual reverse bias voltage resulting in an effective capacitance change to at least one individual MTM element. The varactor then controls the phase of the transmission of each MTM element, and together the entire MTM antenna array transmits an electromagnetic radiation beam.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Palletti’s method such that the waves generated are plane waves, and varying the capacitance of the varactors to steer beams resulting from the plane waves, in order to facilitate smart beam steering and beam forming using the metasurface.
Claim 15: Pelletti fails to expressly teach separating the flat feed array and the metasurface by a distance on the order of a longest wavelength the steerable antenna is configured to amplify.
However, Pelletti teaches in ¶ [0047], “The feed network may include passive or active lump components for matching phase control, amplitude tampering, and other RF enhancement functionalities. The distances between the metamaterial structures can be much lower than half wavelength of the radiating frequency of the antenna.”
Pelletti further teaches in ¶ [0057], “Different biasing conditions realize different effective dielectric constants, creating a steerable beam along the length of the antenna structure, and specifically, along the length of a super element. The beam may be steered along other dimensions of the array by embedding active elements in a feed structure coupled to the element array.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Pelletti’s method to separate the flat feed array and the metasurface by a distance on the order of a longest wavelength the steerable antenna is configured to amplify, in order to create a steerable beam along the length of the metasurface.
Claim 16: As best understood, Pelletti teaches the method of claim 14 wherein the step of providing a metasurface comprising an array of unit cells provides four spaced apart layers 502-508 (Fig. 6), each layer including a substrate and each unit cell including a conductive overlay on each substrate (see Fig. 6 and ¶ [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pinto (US 20230275348)
Volkel (US 11385326)
Rmili (US 10594032)
Gautier (US 5148182)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845