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 filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Ra’di fails to disclose a macro-pattern unit cell comprising two or more pixelated array metasurfaces. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ra’di clearly discloses a unit cell (Page 10; Figure 3(a), described in further detail in the rejection of claim 1 below), where the unit cell may be considered a macro-pattern of two pixelated array metasurfaces, and the individual pixelated array metasurfaces may be considered a sub-pattern.
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 1-3, 8-9, 11, 14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di et al (“Reconfigurable Metagratings” as cited in IDS dated 01/09/2024 of record, “Ra’di”) in view of Almasri et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0025619 A1 of record, “Almasri”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ra’di discloses an apparatus (Ra’di, abstract discloses metagratings) comprising:
A substrate comprising a retroreflective metasurface comprising a plurality of unit cells defining a macro-pattern each unit cell comprising two or more types pixelated-array metasurfaces that define a sub-pattern within the respective unit cell (Ra’di, Figure 3(a) discloses a substrate comprising a retroreflective metasurface having two or more pixelated-array metasurface which are strips a and b, where the unit cell is each set of two strips of the pixelated array metasurface and thereby forms a macro-pattern, where the strips form a sub-pattern; Page 10, l.2 discloses it as a unit cell; Page 10, l.40-42 discloses a retroreflective structure),
Including a first pixelated-array metasurface and a second pixelated-array metasurface (Figure 3(a), first pixelated-array metasurface a, second pixelated-array metasurface b),
The first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface being configured to reflect a signal wavefront at a pre-defined range of angle of incident to generate a scattered wavefront having a resulting first scattered wavefront portion and a second scattered wavefront portion that destructively cancel or interfere, in part, of one another to reduce specular mode of the scattered wavefront (Figures 3b-3d; Page 6, l.36-39 discloses the total scattered fields written in terms of Floquet modes; Page 10, l.24 discloses that almost 97% of the normally incident power is redirected into the desired direction; Page 11, l.12-17 discloses a periodic array of these unit cells creates a specular radiation that cancels the direct reflection of the incident wave from the ground plane; Page 15, l.16-19 discloses highly efficient reconfigurable metagratings for arbitrary wavefront manipulation), wherein
The first pixelated-array metasurface has a first pattern having a first associated periodicity (Figure 3a shows a first array metasurface a having a first periodicity; Page 5, l.16-21 discloses setting a first periodicity), and wherein
The second pixelated-array metasurface has a second pattern having a second associated periodicity (Figure 3a discloses a second array metasurface b having a second periodicity; Page 5, l.16-21 discloses setting a second periodicity; Page 10, l.6-8 discloses having two strips with two different widths); and
A ground plane coupled to the substrate, the ground plane having a reflective surface to the signal wavefront (Page 11, l.12-17 discloses direct reflection of the incident wave from the ground plane).
Ra’di fails to explicitly disclose pixelated-array metasurfaces.
However, Almasri discloses a similar apparatus comprising pixelated-array metasurfaces (Almasri, Paragraph 0010 discloses 2D arrays with metamaterial structure; Paragraph 0016 discloses a pixel of a metasurface; Paragraph 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metasurface as disclosed by Ra’di to include a pixelated-array metasurface as disclosed by Almasri. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the sensitivity of the apparatus and optimizing precision of light absorption and transmission (Almasri, Paragraph 0007; Paragraph 0117).
Regarding Claim 2, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first pixelated-array metasurface or second pixelated-array metasurface includes a pixelated pattern comprising a plurality of pixel elements, each having a first reflective surface or a second reflective surface.
However, Almasri discloses a similar apparatus where the first pixelated-array metasurface or second pixelated-array metasurface includes a pixelated pattern comprising a plurality of pixel elements, each having a first reflective surface or a second reflective surface (Almasri, Paragraph 0096 discloses a first pixelated-array metasurface having a plurality of pixel elements, where Paragraph 0118 discloses a first reflective surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Ra’di to include a plurality of pixel elements having a reflective surface as disclosed by Almasri. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of maximizing absorption and reflection thereby achieving optimized light transmittance (Almasri, Paragraph 0118).
Regarding Claim 3, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are located on a same plane on the substrate (Ra’di, Figure 3a discloses both first and second pixelated-array metasurfaces a and b located on a same plane on the substrate).
Regarding Claim 8, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more unit cells are configured for dual-polarized retroreflection (Ra’di, Page 7, l.33-46 disclose taking into account polarizabilities in terms of retroreflection).
Regarding Claim 9, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more unit cells are configured for single-polarized retroreflection (Ra’di, Page 7, l.33-46 disclose taking into account polarizabilities in terms of retroreflection).
Regarding Claim 11, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface collectively provide an overall response of the retroreflective metasurface as a weighted average of the first pixelated- array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface (Ra’di, Page 10, l.35-50).
Regarding Claim 14, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an electrical circuit component located in proximity to the retroreflective metasurface (Ra’di Figure 3a discloses an electrical circuit component).
Regarding Claim 18, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pre- defined range of angle of incidence is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees from normal, and wherein the first associated periodicity and the second associated periodicity establish an angle at which retroreflection is most efficient for a given frequency (Ra’di, page 10 discloses an angle of incidence between 0 and 90 degrees, where Figure 3 discloses efficiency at those angles).
Regarding Claim 19, a system comprising: an apparatus (Ra’di, abstract discloses metagratings), the apparatus comprising:
A substrate comprising a retroreflective metasurface comprising a plurality of unit cells defining a macro-pattern, each unit cell comprising two or more pixelated-array metasurfaces that define a sub-pattern within the respective unit cell (Ra’di, Figure 3(a) discloses a substrate comprising a retroreflective metasurface having two or more pixelated-array metasurface which are strips a and b, where the unit cell is each set of two strips of the pixelated array metasurface and thereby forms a macro-pattern, where the strips form a sub-pattern; Page 10, l.2 discloses it as a unit cell; Page 10, l.40-42 discloses a retroreflective structure),
Including a first pixelated-array metasurface and a second pixelated-array metasurface (Figure 3(a), first pixelated-array metasurface a, second pixelated-array metasurface b),
The first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface being configured to reflect a signal wavefront at a pre-defined range of angle of incident to generate a scattered wavefront having a resulting first scattered wavefront portion and a second scattered wavefront portion that destructively cancel or interfere, in part, of one another to reduce specular mode of the scattered wavefront (Figures 3b-3d; Page 6, l.36-39 discloses the total scattered fields written in terms of Floquet modes; Page 10, l.24 discloses that almost 97% of the normally incident power is redirected into the desired direction; Page 11, l.12-17 discloses a periodic array of these unit cells creates a specular radiation that cancels the direct reflection of the incident wave from the ground plane; Page 15, l.16-19 discloses highly efficient reconfigurable metagratings for arbitrary wavefront manipulation), wherein
The first pixelated-array metasurface has a first pattern having a first associated periodicity (Figure 3a shows a first array metasurface a having a first periodicity; Page 5, l.16-21 discloses setting a first periodicity), and wherein
The second pixelated-array metasurface has a second pattern having a second associated periodicity (Figure 3a discloses a second array metasurface b having a second periodicity; Page 5, l.16-21 discloses setting a second periodicity; Page 10, l.6-8 discloses having two strips with two different widths); and
A ground plane coupled to the substrate, the ground plane having a reflective surface to the signal wavefront (Page 11, l.12-17 discloses direct reflection of the incident wave from the ground plane); and
A controller configured to interrogate the apparatus (Figure 3a discloses a controller; Page 12, l3-6).
Ra’di fails to explicitly disclose pixelated-array metasurfaces.
However, Almasri discloses a similar apparatus comprising pixelated-array metasurfaces (Almasri, Paragraph 0010 discloses 2D arrays with metamaterial structure; Paragraph 0016 discloses a pixel of a metasurface; Paragraph 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metasurface as disclosed by Ra’di to include a pixelated-array metasurface as disclosed by Almasri. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the sensitivity of the apparatus and optimizing precision of light absorption and transmission (Almasri, Paragraph 0007; Paragraph 0117).
Regarding Claim 20, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses a method of fabricating the apparatus of claim 1, the method comprising: setting a retroreflection angle of interest for a unit cell; partitioning the unit cell into two or more parts; modeling reflected fields from the two subcells and computing a relative phase value between the subcell reflections of a current pattern; varying patterns of the two subcells until the determined relative phase value of the current pattern of the two subcells is 180 degrees; and verifying design performance for the two subcells (Ra’di, Page 10; Figure 3).
Claims 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di in view of Almasri in further view of Arbabi et al (“Planar Metasurface Retroreflector” of record, as cited in IDS dated 01/09/2024, “Arbabi”).
Regarding Claim 4, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the substrate is transparent to the signal wavefront , wherein the first pixelated-array metasurface is located on a first surface of the substrate, and wherein the second pixelated-array metasurface is located on a second surface of the substrate, and wherein the first surface is parallel to the second surface, and wherein the first pixelated-array metasurface overlaps with the second pixelated-array metasurface for the pre-defined range of angle of incidence.
However, Arbabi discloses a similar apparatus where the substrate is transparent to the signal wavefront , wherein the first pixelated-array metasurface is located on a first surface of the substrate, and wherein the second pixelated-array metasurface is located on a second surface of the substrate, and wherein the first surface is parallel to the second surface, and wherein the first pixelated-array metasurface overlaps with the second pixelated-array metasurface for the pre-defined range of angle of incidence (Arbabi, Figure 3a discloses an overlap in metasurfaces on opposite sides of substrate; Figure 3 caption discloses two metasurfaces are patterned on opposite sides of a glass substrate; Page 4, column 1, paragraphs 1-2 discloses an overlap in metasurfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Ra’di to be transparent and have metasurfaces disposed on opposite sides as disclosed by Arbabi. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the performance of the components for low-power and low-weight passive optical transmitters (Arbabi, abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Ra’di in view of Almasri and Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first pixelated-array metasurface has a first retroreflective frequency characteristic and a transparent frequency characteristic, and wherein the second pixelated-array metasurface has a second retroreflective frequency characteristic.
However, Arbabi discloses a similar apparatus where the first pixelated-array metasurface has a first retroreflective frequency characteristic and a transparent frequency characteristic, and wherein the second pixelated-array metasurface has a second retroreflective frequency characteristic (Arbabi, Figure 1 caption discloses metasurface I performs a spatial Fourier transformation directing light with different incident angles to different spots on metasurface II, and Metasurface II operates as a gradient metasurface and adds a spatially varying momentum equal to twice that of the incident light, but with opposite sign; Figure 2 caption discloses differences in the first and second metasurfaces in terms of frequency/wavelength and diameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metasurfaces as disclosed by Ra’di to have different frequencies as disclosed by Arbabi. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the performance of the components for low-power and low-weight passive optical transmitters (Arbabi, abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface each has a size defined by wavelength parameter and an angle of incidence.
However, Arbabi discloses a similar apparatus where the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface each has a size defined by wavelength parameter and an angle of incidence (Arbabi, Figure 2 caption discloses a difference in diameter size defined by wavelength parameter and an angle of incidence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metasurfaces as disclosed by Ra’di to have different frequencies as disclosed by Arbabi. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the performance of the components for low-power and low-weight passive optical transmitters (Arbabi, abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di in view of Almasri and Arbabi in further view of Liu (WO 2019/033140 A1 of record).
Regarding Claim 5, Ra’di in view of Almasri and Arbabi discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first surface is orthogonal to the second surface.
However, Liu discloses a similar apparatus where the first surface is orthogonal to the second surface (Liu, Figure 7B, first metasurface 701 is orthogonal to second metasurface 703; Figure 7D; Paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the substrate as disclosed by Ra’di to have orthogonal surfaces as disclosed by Liu. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the controlling of direction, scattering, and polarization of the wave (Liu, Paragraphs 0003-0005).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di in view of Almasri in further view of Towers et al (US Patent No.: US 8,228,591 B1 of record, “Towers”).
Regarding Claim 10, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the one or more unit cells are configured for dual-band retroreflection, including a first retroreflection frequency range having a first center frequency and a second retroreflection frequency range having a second center frequency, and wherein the reduced specular mode of the scattered wavefront increases a bandwidth and angular range of retro-reflectivity of the apparatus.
However, Towers discloses a similar apparatus where the one or more unit cells are configured for dual-band retroreflection, including a first retroreflection frequency range having a first center frequency and a second retroreflection frequency range having a second center frequency, and wherein the reduced specular mode of the scattered wavefront increases a bandwidth and angular range of retro-reflectivity of the apparatus (Towers, Column 4, l.35-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unit cells as disclosed by Ra’di to have dual-band retroreflection as disclosed by Towers. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of increasing contrast and refining the retroreflected image (Towers, Column 4, l.35-55).
Regarding Claim 15, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are configured for steep angle operation, broad- or multi-band operation, dual-polarized operation, or low CSWAP (cost, size, weight, and power) operation.
However, Towers discloses a similar apparatus where the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are configured for steep angle operation, broad- or multi-band operation, dual-polarized operation, or low CSWAP (cost, size, weight, and power) operation (Towers, Column 4, l.35-55 discloses multi-band operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unit cells as disclosed by Ra’di to have dual-band retroreflection as disclosed by Towers. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of increasing contrast and refining the retroreflected image (Towers, Column 4, l.35-55).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di in view of Almasri in further view of Green et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0028272 A1 of record, “Green”).
Regarding Claim 12, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first pattern of the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pattern of the first pixelated-array metasurface each comprises a binary Huygens metasurface.
However, Green discloses a similar apparatus where the first pattern of the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pattern of the first pixelated-array metasurface each comprises a binary Huygens metasurface (Green, Paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metasurfaces as disclosed by Ra’di to have binary Huygens as disclosed by Green. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving strong retroreflection at near-grazing incidence for dual polarizations (Green, Paragraph 0114).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di in view of Almasri in further view of Akselrod et al (US Patent No.: US 10,727,601 B1 of record, “Akselrod”).
Regarding Claim 13, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the apparatus is configured as a passive or active radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, optical or RF tagging device, or a smart surface for wireless communication.
However, Akselrod discloses a similar apparatus where the apparatus is configured as a passive or active radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, optical or RF tagging device, or a smart surface for wireless communication (Column 2, l.10-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Ra’di to be used for wireless communication or RF tagging device as disclosed by Akselrod. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing transmission of information (Akselrod, Column 2, l.10-25).
Regarding Claim 17, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are configured to reflect the signal wavefront having a frequency in an RF portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
However, Akselrod discloses a similar apparatus where the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are configured to reflect the signal wavefront having a frequency in an RF portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (Column 2, l.10-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Ra’di to be used with RF waves as disclosed by Akselrod. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing transmission of information (Akselrod, Column 2, l.10-25).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ra’di in view of Almasri in further view of Chen et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0103141 A1 of record, “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 16, Ra’di in view of Almasri discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ra’di fails to disclose that the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are configured to reflect the signal wavefront having visible light in a visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
However, Chen discloses a similar apparatus where the first pixelated-array metasurface and the second pixelated-array metasurface are configured to reflect the signal wavefront having visible light in a visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (Chen, Paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Ra’di to reflect visible light as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving spherical aberration (Chen, Paragraph 0055).
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 MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871