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 Pre-amendment of 01/26/2026 and Amendment of 06/05/2026
The present office action is made in response to the pre-amendment filed on 01/26/2026 and the amendment filed on 06/05/2026.
2A) Regarding the pre-amendment, It is noted that in the pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claim(s). There was not any change being made to the abstract and the drawings.
2A1) Regarding the specification, applicant has made changes to paragraphs [0013], [0051] and [0134]; and
2A2) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claim 1.
2B) Regarding the amendment, It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
2B1) Regarding the claims, applicant has canceled claims 7, 9-10, 12, 14 and 18 and added a new set of claims, i.e., claims 21-26, into the application. There was not any claim being amended.
Both the pre-amendment filed on 01/26/2026 and the amendment filed on 06/05/2026 have been entered and resulted the following conclusions.
3A) Regarding the specification, the amendments to the specification as filed on 01/26/2026 have been entered; and
3B) Regarding the claims, the following conclusions are made:
3B1) Because applicant has canceled claims 7, 9-10, 12, 14 and 18 and added a new set of claims, i.e., claims 21-26, into the application, thus the pending claims are now claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19-26;
3B2) A review of the newly-added claims 21-26 has resulted that each of new claims further limit the subject matter recited in its base claim and has the same scope/subject matter as recited in the elected claim of the Invention I thus claims 1-6, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19-26 are examined in the present office action, and claim 8 has been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected invention.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claim 8 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 04/23/2026, applicant's made an election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 06/05/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be burdensome on the examiner because a search for the subjected matter of one of these species would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining species This is not found persuasive because of the following reason(s).
a) Applicant is respectfully invited to review the features recited in the claims of each groups of Inventions I-IV which recites different features and not overlapped from each other. In particular, the claims of the Invention I is directed to a transmission structure comprising a matrix having an electromagnetic wave surface, a plurality of first transmission portions and a plurality of second transmission portion wherein the each of the first transmission portion is disposed with a first medium block and each of the second transmission portions is disposed with a second medium block and specific features regarding thickness of the first and second medium blocks which features are not recited in each Inventions II-IV and vice versa.
b) It is noted that the Election/Restriction set forth in the office action of 04/23/2026 provides different classes/subclassed which is/are required to search for different feature recited in different Inventions.
Thus, the different features among claims of the Inventions I-IV require different searches for each Invention and thus cause a serious burden on the examiner to search and examination of different inventions if an election was not being issued.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT/CN2021/123600 listed in the information disclosure statement filed 04/12/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings contain ten sheets of figures 1-19 were received on 04/12/2024. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reasons.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See present specification in paragraphs [0027] and [0051]. SMPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the term thereof “Wavelength/nm” shown in each of figures 6-10 and 12-15 is unclear. What does applicant mean by “Wavelength/nm”? Does applicant intend to mean --Wavelength (nm)--, see the use of term in figure 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the description of figure 4 does not match or different from the description of the figure as provided in the paragraph [0067] of the specification. In particular, the specifications states that “As shown in FIG. 4, which shows the changing relationship curve of the reflection phase of the electromagnetic wave of a certain transmission unit versus a thickness (i.e., dc) of a matrix between an embedded layer and an …the transmission unit” (paragraph [0067] on lines 5-11) (examiner’s emphasis). However, in figure 4, the figure uses the term(s) thereof “Wavelength (nm)”. Correction or explanation of such term(s) in figure 4 with the teaching(s) provided in paragraph [0067] is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it longs more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment filed by applicant on 01/26/2026 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
14. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
15. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are: “matrix”, “first transmission portions”, “second transmission portions”, “first medium block”, “second medium block”, “first transmission unit” and “second transmission unit” as recited in present claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-6, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a1) the features thereof “a matrix … from the first thickness” (lines 2-10) makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the structure of the matrix. In particular, what does applicant mean by “a thickness of the matrix between the first (or second) medium block and the electromagnetic wave incident surface is a non-zero first (or second) thickness” (lines 5-6 or lines 8-9) wherein the matrix has an electromagnetic wave incident surface and have a plurality of first and second transmission portions which each comprises a medium block?
The examiner is of opinion that the so-called “a thickness of the matrix between the first (or second) medium block and the electromagnetic wave incident surface” (lines 5-6 or lines 8-9) should be changed to --a thickness between the first (or second) medium block and the electromagnetic wave incident surface is a non-zero first (or second) thickness-- (lines 5-6 or lines 8-9). The support is found in the present specification and in fig. 2 which shows the thickness (or difference) d1 which is a difference in distance from an electromagnetic wave incident surface P1 and the first medium block (120) and the thickness (or difference) d2 which is a difference in distance from an electromagnetic wave incident surface P2 and the second medium block (220). The thickness of the matrix (110 or 210) is the differences between an electromagnetic wave incident surface (P1 or P2), i.e., the top or upper surface of the matrix (110 or 120) and the bottom or lower surface of the matrix (110 or 120), see figure 2;
a2) each of the features thereof “the transmitted electromagnetic wave” (line 13), “the transmitted electromagnetic wave” (line 14), “the reflected electromagnetic wave of the first transmission unit” (lines 19-20), “the interference” (line 21), “the reflected electromagnetic wave of the second transmission unit” (lines 24-25), and “the interference” (line 26) lacks a proper antecedent basis;
a3) the feature thereof “wherein when electromagnetic waves ..the preset frequency band” (lines 11-28) makes the claim indefinite due to the use of term “when” in the mentioned feature. Applicant should note that the term “when” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d);
a4) the feature thereof “the first transmission portion” (line 17) is unclear. Which “first transmission portion” does applicant imply by “the first transmission portion”? Applicant is respectfully invited to review the claim, in particular, on lines 2-3, which recites a matrix having a plurality of first transmission portions and second transmission potions. Thus, which one form the “plurality of first transmission portions” is considered as “the first transmission portion” on line 17? The similar question is also raised to the feature thereof “the second transmission portion” recited in the claim on line 22; and
a5) the features thereof “a reflected electromagnetic wave … the present frequency band” (lines 17-28) makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the first thickness and the second thickness are “configured” to enable a first reflection phase of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the first transmission unit and a second reflection phase of the reflected electromagnetic wave of the second transmission unit satisfy the claimed condition of “0.6
π
≤ |ⱷr1 - ⱷr2 | ≤ 1.4
π
“ as claimed?
b) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because each of the features thereof “the transmittance” (line 2) and “the transmittance” (line 3) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
c) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the feature thereof “the first transmission area” (lines 18-19) is unclear. Which “first transmission area” does applicant imply by “the first transmission area”? Applicant is respectfully invited to review the claim, in particular, on lines 3-5, which recites a substrate having a plurality of first transmission areas and second transmission areas. Thus, which one form the “plurality of first transmission areas” is considered as “the first transmission area” on lines 18-19? The similar question is also raised to the feature thereof “the second transmission area” recited in the claim on line 21.
d) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because each of the features thereof “the reflectivity” (line 2) and “the reflectivity” (line 3) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
d) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
d1) the same reason as set forth in element b) above; and
d2) the same reason as set forth in element a3) above.
e) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 1-6, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19-26 and claim 8 which will be rejoined would be allowable if amened to overcome the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the present office action.
19. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The transmission structure having the features thereof “a matrix … as present frequency band” recited in the independent claim 1 on lines 2-16 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2020/0133014 by the features/limitations thereof “a reflected electromagnetic wave … the preset frequency band” recited in the claim on lines 17-28.
It is noted that a transmission structure having features thereof “a matrix … as present frequency band” recited in the independent claim 1 on lines 2-16 is disclosed in the mentioned US Publication, see paragraphs [0025]-[0062] and figs. 1, 2D and 3. However, the mentioned US Publication does not disclose the difference between the first and second reflection phases meets the condition of “0.6
π
≤ |ⱷr1 - ⱷr2 | ≤ 1.4
π
“ as claimed.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
21. The US Publication No. 2011/0133624 is cited as of interest in that it discloses
a matrix having an electromagnetic wave incident surface and comprising a plurality of first transmission portions and a plurality of second transmission portions randomly distributed;
wherein each of the first transmission portions is disposed with a first medium block to form a first transmission unit, and a thickness of the matrix between the first medium block and the electromagnetic wave incident surface is a non-zero first thickness;
wherein each of the second transmission portions is disposed with a second medium block to form a second transmission unit, a thickness of the matrix between the second medium block and the electromagnetic wave incident surface is a non-zero second thickness, and the second thickness is different from the first thickness; and
wherein when electromagnetic waves are incident on the first and second transmission units,
the transmitted electromagnetic wave of the first transmission unit has a first transmission phase, the transmitted electromagnetic wave of the second transmission unit has a second transmission, and the first transmission phase(t1 and the second transmission phase satisfy
the condition of “0
≤ |ⱷt1 - ⱷt2 | ≤ 0.5
π
“. However, the mentioned US Publication does not disclose the features “a reflected electromagnetic wave … the preset frequency band” recited in the independent claim 1 on lines 17-28.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights