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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election with traverse of the method claims (claims 10-18) in the reply filed 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
PNG
media_image1.png
109
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
289
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because Invention II (original claims 10-18) and Invention I (original claims 1-9 and 19-20) are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus and by hand. For example, the process does not require a compliant mechanism, and an electromagnetic parameter of a device could be adjusted by manually adjusting the orientation of the body by applying at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force. Invention I requires a compliant mechanism. There would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required as each of the inventions would require different search strategies, the searching of different terms, and a different determination of allowability which would be a serious search burden. The restriction is therefore maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 and 21 are both dependent on claim 10 and recite: “wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes moving arms of the body”.
Claims 13 and 22 are both dependent on claim 10 and recite “wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes rotating arms of the body”.
Claims 13 and 23 both recite “wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes flexing the body about a first pre-defined axis of flexion and flexing the body about a second pre-defined axis of flexion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to due to dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Adjusting an orientation of a body is interpreted as a change in the position, orientation, shape and/or geometry (see abstract and p. 10, ¶2, of instant Specification).
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 10-18 and 21-28 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 10 recites “adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device, the process comprising: adjusting an orientation of a body of an electromagnetic device”. This limitation is indefinite. It is not clear how the device and the electromagnetic device are related. Did the Applicant intend to claim two different devices, or are they the same device? Clarification is required.
Claim 10 will be interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claim 24 (dep on claim 10) recites “wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes compressing a unit cell of the body from a relaxed state to one or more compressed states via the compliant mechanism”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the compliant mechanism in claim 24. Also, as the structure or material of the compliant mechanism is not defined in the claim, it is not clear how the compliant mechanism acts to compress the unit cell of the body. Clarification is required.
Claim 24 will be interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claim 25 (dep on claim 10) recites “wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes applying at least one linearly applied force to the body to compress the body via the compliant mechanism”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the compliant mechanism in claim 25. Also, it is not clear which of the embodiments are being referred to in this claim, and so it is not clear what the compliant mechanism is in this case, and how it is acting to compress the body. Clarification is required.
Claim 25 will be interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claims 11-18, 21-23 and 26-28 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georgakopoulos et al. (US 10,020,586; “Georg”).
Claim 10: Georg discloses (fig. 2a below) A process for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device (segmented helical antenna with reconfigurable polarization, title), the process comprising:
adjusting an orientation of a body of an electromagnetic device by engaging the body via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (col. 5, lines 65-; “The top arm 345 is rotatable with respect to the support 330, thus the plurality of origami units 370 attached to the top arm 345 is rotated by rotating the top arm 345. When the plurality of origami unit 370 is rotated, the metal trace 350 formed on the edge of the plurality of origami units 370 changes its extending direction from a clockwise direction to a counterclockwise direction or vice versa when viewed from a top. Thus, the origami SHA 300 can change the sense of polarization between the RHCP and the LHCP by using easy mechanical rotation”).
PNG
media_image3.png
459
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 15: Georg discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the electromagnetic device is an antenna (segmented helical antenna with reconfigurable polarization, title).
Claim 21: Georg discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes moving arms (top arm 345 has two arm portions extending in opposite directions from support post 330) of the body (col. 5, line 65; “The top arm 345 is rotatable”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheeland et al. (US 2020/0028271; “Wheeland” or “W”).
Claim 10: Wheeland discloses A process (fig. 1A & fig. 6 below), for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device (abstract, A reconfigurable metamaterial apparatus, having a metamaterial structure capable of focusing incoming radiation. The metamaterial structure has a matrix frame structure and an array of elements disposed in relation to the matrix frame structure. Each element has a material with a specific refractive index corresponding to its location in the array; and each element has an alterability feature for facilitating selectively altering its refractive index. The alterability feature has at least one of an interchangeability feature and a tunability feature), the process comprising:
adjusting an orientation of a body (structure 100 comprising array of elements 200) of an electromagnetic device (metamaterial apparatus A) by engaging the body via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (¶38, “the refractive index profile is predeterminable and tunable as a function of a desired focal control. The mechanical force, if used in either the apparatus A or A′, effects reversibly deforming each element 200 or 200′ in any direction by at least one of tensing, straining, compressing, torquing, and bending.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
280
178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 24: Wheeland discloses the process of claim 10.
Wheeland discloses, as best understood, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes compressing a unit cell (element 200) of the body from a relaxed state to one or more compressed states (¶38, “reversibly deforming in any direction by compressing”) via the compliant mechanism (¶37, “Each element 200 or 200′ of the array comprises at least one geometry of a helical configuration 201, a spring configuration, and a material “block” having controlled material properties, by examples only. The helical configuration 201 or the a spring configuration facilitate their selective alteration in refractive index.” ¶41, “While fabrication of the reconfigurable apparatus is facilitated by the use of coils as elements in the array, the apparatus and methods of the present disclosure also encompass other configurations for the elements, such as split-ring resonators.”).
Claim 28: Wheeland discloses the process of claim 24.
W does not explicitly disclose wherein the electromagnetic device is adjustable between at least one orientation at which the electromagnetic device is a band stop filter and at least one orientation in which the electromagnetic device is a band pass filter.
However, W discloses all the structural features of the electromagnetic device of claims 10 and 24, upon which claim 28 depends. W also discloses that the elements can be split-ring resonators (the instant Specification discloses, at ¶103 of the printed publication, “The body 2 of the device 1 can be structured to include a conductive split ring resonator foil layer and also have a split ring resonator compliant substrate. The body 2 can be deformable via actuation of a force in at least one direction to compress the body 2 into different shapes as indicated in FIG. 20 . The compression of the body 2 can adjust how the body may function to resonate a signal or an electromagnetic field. Each body 2 can define a single cell 21. The cell can be utilized as a single cell device or in a multi-cell device (e.g. the embodiment shown in FIG. 21 )”).
W further discloses that the unit cells (elements 200) are compressible via the use of a mechanical actuator coupled with each element (¶31), and that the refractive index profile of the reconfigurable metamaterial is tunable and optimizable for frequency, whereby undesirable signals from the incoming radiation are wave-guidable (abstract). The Examiner therefore considers that Wheeland inherently discloses wherein the electromagnetic device is adjustable between at least one orientation at which the electromagnetic device is a band stop filter and at least one orientation in which the electromagnetic device is a band pass filter.
According to MPEP 2112.01, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gorinevsky et al. (US 2004/0021098; “Gorinevsky” or “G”).
Claim 10: Gorinevsky discloses (fig. 3) A process for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device (flexible electromagnetic radiation structure; ¶3, “Electromagnetic radiation structures have numerous applications. These applications include, but are not limited to reflecting, collecting, receiving, and/or emitting radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum”; reflecting an em signal changes its phase), the process comprising:
adjusting an orientation of a body (¶36, plurality of cells 306, where each cell is defined as a portion of the em radiation structure) of an electromagnetic device (flexible em radiation structure) by engaging the body (cells) via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (abstract, The control system includes a plurality of actuators and a plurality of computational elements. Each of the plurality of actuators is coupled to a portion of the radiation structure and can be selectively actuated by the plurality of computational elements. Thus, the plurality of actuators and the plurality of computational elements provide control of the flexible electromagnetic radiation structure shape).
Claim 26: Gorinevsky discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes moving at least one actuator to engage the body to adjust the orientation of the body (abstract, A control system is provided for controlling the shape of a flexible electromagnetic radiation structure. The control system includes a plurality of actuators and a plurality of computational elements. Each of the plurality of actuators is coupled to a portion of the radiation structure and can be selectively actuated by the plurality of computational elements. Thus, the plurality of actuators and the plurality of computational elements provide control of the flexible electromagnetic radiation structure shape.).
Claim 27: Gorinevsky discloses the process of claim 26, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes a controller controlling movement of the at least one actuator (abstract, The control system includes a plurality of actuators and a plurality of computational elements. ¶59, “new actuator set point is passed to the actuator controller, thus setting the actuator set point”).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorinevsky et al. (US 2004/0021098; “Gorinevsky” or “G”).
Claim 11: Gorinevsky discloses the process of claim 10.
Gorinevsky does not explicitly disclose determining that the at least one electromagnetic parameter fails to meet a pre-selected criteria; and wherein the adjusting of the orientation of the body is performed in response to the determining that the at least one electromagnetic parameter fails to meet a pre-selected criteria.
However, Gorinevsky does teach the use of a distributed control system (¶36) that controls the shape of the flexible electromagnetic structure and which provides for fault tolerance (¶42). The control system receives sensor data from the cells in order to determine a difference between the desired shape and the actual shape of each cell. From this shape data, an adjustment to the actuator set point for a cell can be calculated (¶45) to adjust the cell’s shape (a cell is a body of the flexible em structure). As the structure can be used in reflecting, collecting, receiving, and/or emitting radiation in RF frequencies (¶3), the shapes of the cells determine the electromagnetic parameter of the structure.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of G, further comprising: determining that the at least one electromagnetic parameter fails to meet a pre-selected criteria; and wherein the adjusting of the orientation of the body is performed in response to the determining that the at least one electromagnetic parameter fails to meet a pre-selected criteria. Doing so allows for the shape of the surface to be corrected such that an electromagnetic parameter of the surface can be controlled (¶42).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 12-13, 16-17, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cumming et al. (WO 03/041223 A1; “Cumming” or “C”).
Claim 10: Cumming discloses (fig. 13A below) A process for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device (filter device 60 for electromagnetic radiation which is tunable across a wide range of the e-m spectrum, abstract), the process comprising: adjusting an orientation of a body (internal portion of filter device comprising layers 64a-c and spring 70) of an electromagnetic device by engaging the body via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (p. 2, lines 32-33, the means for tuning may comprise the means for moving the at least one layer relative to at least one other layer. P. 20, lines 34-37, “As the spindles 68 are rotated, the separation of the layers/wafers 64 changes).
PNG
media_image5.png
268
485
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12: Cumming discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the compliant mechanism (compression spring 70) is defined in the body to facilitate continuous adjustment in the orientation of the body between a first orientation and a second orientation (p. 20, lines 34-37, “As the spindles 68 are rotated, the separation of the layers/wafers 64 changes; p. 3, lines 27-29, “the tuning means may allow the filter to be tuned continuously across a frequency range”).
Claim 13: Cumming discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes one or more of moving arms (spindles 68 extend from the base 62a,b of the housing, and can be considered to be arms) of the body (p. 20, lines 34-37, “As the spindles 68 are rotated, the separation of the layers/wafers 64 changes), rotating arms of the body, flexing the body about a first pre-defined axis of flexion and flexing the body about a second pre-defined axis of flexion.
Claim 16: Cumming discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation changes the at least one electromagnetic parameter such that the electromagnetic device is adjustable from a band stop configuration to a band pass configuration (tunable across a wide range of the e-m spectrum, e.g. 30 GHz to 100 THz; the filter can be tuned for frequency of stopband, width of stop band, and the frequency of a narrow transmission peak, abstract; Figure 2b results in the position of the pass band and stop band changing).
Claim 17: Cumming discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation changes the at least one electromagnetic parameter such that the electromagnetic device is receptive within a band that is over 2 GHz (tunable across a wide range of the e-m spectrum, e.g. 30 GHz to 100 THz; the filter can be tuned for frequency of stopband, width of stop band, and the frequency of a narrow transmission peak, abstract).
Claim 22: Cumming discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes rotating arms (spindles 68 extend from the base 62 a,b of the housing, and can be considered to be arms; p. 20, lines 34-37, “As the spindles 68 are rotated) of the body.
Claim 25: Cumming discloses the process of claim 10, and discloses, as best understood, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes applying at least one linearly applied force to the body to compress the body via the compliant mechanism (the layers are brought closer together, i.e., compressed by rotating the spindles 68, and a linear force is applied to the uppermost layer 64d by the compression spring 70).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumming et al. (WO 03/041223 A1; “Cumming” or “C”).
Claim 18: Cumming discloses the process of claim 17.
C discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the band is between 3.46 GHz and 6.37 GHz or the band is between 3.5 GHz and 6.2 GHz.
However, C discloses that by adjusting the separation of the layers/wafers 64a-c, the filter device 10 can be arranged to operate at a different frequency, as desired.
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Cumming, wherein the band is between 3.46 GHz and 6.37 GHz or the band is between 3.5 GHz and 6.2 GHz. The motivation to do so is to provide a tunable electromagnetic filter that works in the C-band for satellite communications.
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kingman (US 11,165,134).
Claim 10: Kingman discloses (fig. 6 below) A process for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter (changing the position of an antenna changes its gain) of a device (antenna), the process comprising:
adjusting an orientation of a body (pivot member 66) of an electromagnetic device (antenna) by engaging the body via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (abstract, The pivot mechanism allows the antenna to move to a pivoted position in response to contact with an object; col. 13, lines 58-, “the pivoting mechanism 54 can be a living hinge whereby the two sections 58/60 are integrally formed, thereby eliminating the need for a separate pivot member 66. The configuration and use of such living hinges are well known to persons skill in the relevant arts”; see force EF in fig. 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
548
263
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 13-14 and 23 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kingman (US 11,165,134) in view of Carey et al. (US 2015/0067983; “Carey”).
Claim 13: Kingman discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes one or more of moving arms of the body, rotating arms of the body, flexing the body (pivot member 66) about a first pre-defined axis of flexion.
Kingman does not explicitly disclose flexing the body about a second pre-defined axis of flexion.
Carey teaches (fig. 2A & fig. 2B below) a flexible structure that includes multiple members and a hinge set including at least one living hinge where multiple living hinges are separated by segment portions (abstract). Carey teaches a first living hinge (110A) having a first pre-defined axis of flexion (any living hinge has a pre-defined axis of flexion). Carey also teaches second (110B) and third (110C) living hinges which can define a second pre-defined axis of flexion.
PNG
media_image7.png
222
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kingman to include flexing the body about a second pre-defined axis of flexion, as taught by Carey, in order to provide the required kinematic, controlled motion of associated members. Multiple living hinges provide multiple degrees of freedom that can be formed in parts without the use of complicated manufacturing techniques (¶6 of Carey).
Claim 14: the modified Kingman teaches the process of claim 13, wherein the first pre-defined axis of flexion (formed by first living hinge 110A) is perpendicular to the second pre-defined axis of flexion (formed by third living hinge 110C, which is perpendicular to first living hinge 110A).
Claim 23: Kingman discloses the process of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of the orientation includes flexing the body about a first pre-defined axis of flexion (pivot member 66).
Kingman does not explicitly disclose flexing the body about a second pre-defined axis of flexion.
Carey teaches (fig. 2A & fig. 2B) a flexible structure that includes multiple members and a hinge set including at least one living hinge where multiple living hinges are separated by segment portions (abstract). Carey teaches a first living hinge (110A) having a first pre-defined axis of flexion (any living hinge has a pre-defined axis of flexion). Carey also teaches second (110B) and third (110C) living hinges which can define a second pre-defined axis of flexion.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Kingman to include flexing the body about a second pre-defined axis of flexion, as taught by Carey, in order to provide the required kinematic, controlled motion of associated members. Multiple living hinges provide multiple degrees of freedom that can be formed in parts without the use of complicated manufacturing techniques (¶6 of Carey).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaddour et al. (US 10,833,404) discloses A process for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device (scrolling reflectarray antenna system), the process comprising: adjusting an orientation of a body of an electromagnetic device (reconfigurable reflectarray comprising unit cells on a flexible substrate) by engaging the body via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (the reflectarray antenna can further comprise an actuator system coupled with the flexible substrate and configured to move flexible substrate in a horizontal direction to scroll a portion or entirety of the layout of the plurality of reflectarray elements disposed on the flexible substrate to different operational positions such that when the layout of the plurality of reflectarray elements is changed, at least one electromagnetic (EM) characteristic of the reflectarray antenna is reconfigured accordingly).
Lu et al. (NPL “Design of Compliant Mechansims for Morphing Structural Shapes”, published 2003) disclose (page 387) A process for adjusting at least one electromagnetic parameter of a device (antenna reflector – beam shaping and beam steering), the process comprising: adjusting an orientation of a body (antenna reflector) of an electromagnetic device by engaging the body via at least one linearly applied force and/or at least one rotationally applied force (p. 388, col. 2, “uniform external loads of -1 N downwards are applied to the reflector surface” ).
Cui et al. (NPL “A 3D-Printed mm-Wave Deployable Origami Dielectric Reflectarray Antenna”, published 2020) is formed of a flexible substrate and can be compressed.
Pryce et al. (US 2012/0154793) – a tunable compliant optical metamaterial.
Kim et al. (US 2006/0181465) – PIFA with selectable shorting pins.
Chiang et al. (US 2003/0201940) – folding directional antenna formed on a deformable dielectric material.
Weller et al. (US 9,263,803) – mechanically reconfigurable antennas including actuated linkages where the linkages comprise flexible polymeric material so that the shape of elements of the antenna can deform.
Jahromi et al. (US 2018/0348025) – programmable elastic metamaterials.
Murphey et al. (US 2021/0271007) – foldable reflectors made with composite materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights