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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome some of the drawing objections, specification objections and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant argued that “Applicant also points to FIG. 2 of the application as published as showing the plurality of RF receiver elements, with an annotated version of FIG. 2 reproduced below” and “Applicant respectfully submits that this objection to the drawings is now moot, and requests the objection be withdrawn.”
However, the annotated fig. 2 has not been submitted with the amendments, therefore the drawings still fail to show the feature “RF receiver elements” of the invention specified in the claims. Moreover, in the annotated fig. 2, “RF elements” should read “RF receiver elements”.
Regarding the specification objections, Applicant argued that “Applicant respectfully submits that the objection to the specification is now moot, and requests the objection be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because the term “RF receiver elements” has not been mentioned in the spec, therefore the spec still fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection, Applicant argued that “Claim 1 is amended to recite "wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements are configured to at least partially block a RF signal originating from a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) from passing through the RIS antenna when the plurality of RF receiver elements are in the on mode." Applicant respectfully submits that Dai fails to disclose this amended feature. In particular, Dai is directed towards "controlling channels between the BS 205 and any suitable number of UEs 215." Dai, para. [0059]. For example, Dai further states that "the RIS 218 may modify an incident radio signal waveform in a controlled manner to enhance or improve channel diversities." Id., para. [0060]. The system in Dai relies on an RIS to enhance spatial diversity for communications between a base station and UEs. The system in Dai is not configured to block Directed Energy Weapon signals from passing through the RIS. The system in Dai therefore fails to disclose wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements are configured to at least partially block a RF signal originating from a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) from passing through the RIS antenna when the plurality of RF receiver elements are in the on mode," as recited in claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because the following reasons:
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The phrase “originating from a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW)” is only the intended use of the claimed invention, it does not matter what the RF signal is originated from, as long as the reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) antenna of the prior art has the same structure and be able to block a RF signal from passing through the RIS antenna when the plurality of RF receiver elements are in the on mode, the prior art still reads the claim.
According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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)”.
However, Examiner combines Dai reference with Hunt (US-20170244511-A1) to teach the limitation “an RF signal originating from a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW)” as explained below.
The system in Dai does not only enhance spatial diversity for communications between a base station and UEs, the system in Dai is configured to block an RF signal from passing through the RIS (para [0061]: When the PIN diodes are switched to the second state, the majority of the incoming energy of incident signal 217 is reflected away from the surface of the array 236). “Reflected away from the surface of the array” means blocking the signal from passing through.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 1 recites “A reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) antenna, comprising: a plurality of radio frequency (RF) receiver elements”. Specification does not mention the RF receiver elements and drawings do not show what are the radio frequency (RF) receiver elements.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements form a spiral antenna”. Drawings do not show the plurality of RF receiver elements.
No new matter should be entered.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites “A reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) antenna, comprising: a plurality of radio frequency (RF) receiver elements”. Specification does not mention the RF receiver elements.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements form a spiral antenna”. Specification does not support this limitation.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al, US-20220322321-A1 (hereinafter Dai) in view of Hunt, US-20170244511-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses the following:
a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) antenna, comprising:
a plurality of radio frequency (RF) receiver elements (237, fig. 2);
a RF switch (PIN diode switch, para [0061]) electrically coupled to the plurality of RF receiver elements (237) and configured to convert the plurality of RF receiver elements between an on mode and an off mode (para [0061]); and
a substrate (232-234) that each of the plurality of RF receiver elements are disposed on,
wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements are configured to at least partially block a RF signal from passing through the RIS antenna when the plurality of RF receiver elements are in the on mode (para [0061]: When the PIN diodes are switched to the second state, the majority of the incoming energy of incident signal 217 is reflected away from the surface of the array 236), and
wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements are configured to permit at least partial passage of the RF signal through the RIS antenna when the plurality of RF receiver elements are in the off mode (para [0061]: In the first state when the PIN diodes are off, the element 237 may represent an RF transparent surface which allows the incoming energy of incident signal 217 to pass through the element 237).
Dai does not disclose the RF signal originating from a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW).
Hunt suggests the structure generated a plasma shield to block the RF signal originating from a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) (para [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the RIS antenna taught in Dai to block the signal from the DEW as suggested in Hunt as claimed for the purpose of disabling the DEW affect in order to prevent damages caused by the DEW and give support to the miliary operations.
Regarding claim 3, Dai discloses wherein RIS antenna comprises a wideband antenna (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, although Dai does not explicitly disclose wherein the RIS antenna is characterized by an impedance bandwidth of 1.3 GHz to 7 GHz, the invention is applicable in below 1GHz to about 6 GHz, to high-frequency bands such as mmWave bands (para [0003], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the impedance bandwidth of the RIS antenna taught in Dai and Hunt to be of 1.3 GHz to 7 GHz as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to need to achieve the desired impedance bandwidth depending on the requirements of the application.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai and Hunt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilbert, US-6396450-B1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dai and Hunt does not disclose wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements form a spiral antenna.
Gilbert suggests wherein the plurality of RF receiver elements form a spiral antenna (fig. 2a-2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a spiral antenna as suggested by Gilbert from the plurality of RF receiver elements as taught in Dai and Hunt as claimed for the purpose of supporting wideband operation of the antenna (Gilbert, col 1, lines 28-35) in order to have a broad coverage to improve the quality of the wireless communication.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai and Hunt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al, US-20180302149-A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dai and Hunt does not disclose wherein the RIS antenna is characterized by a 3-dB axial ratio bandwidth of 2 GHz to 7 GHz.
Dai discloses the RIS antenna may include metamaterial (para [0066]).
Park suggests is the metasurface is characterized by a 3-dB axial ratio bandwidth of 2.34 to 2.68 GHz (para [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the axial ratio bandwidth of the RIS antenna taught in Dai and Hunt to be 3-dB as suggested in Park of 2 GHz to 7 GHz as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired radiating characteristics at a desired frequency range depending on the requirements of the application.
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
