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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the claims, the claims read “comprising” but should read, “comprises.” For example, claim 1 uses the word “comprising” but should use “comprises” in lines 10, 14, 16, and 20 of p. 1. “Comprising” appears similarly in many of the claims; please review each claim for this term.
Claim 1 reads, “patches” on p. 2, line 5, but should read “patch.”
Claim 1, p. 2, line 9, reads, “a DC voltage fed” but should read “a DC voltage is fed”
Claim 3, p. 3, line 1 reads, “The electronic beam-steering reflectarray system of claim 1 is controlled…,” but should read, “The electronic beam-steering reflectarray system of claim 1, wherein the electronic beam-steering reflectarray system is controlled…”
Claim 4, p. 3, line 10 reads, “performing simulation” but should read “performing a simulation.” Claims 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 contain the same error
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the first cylindrical metal post" in line 9 of p. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites multiple parenthetical statements, opening without closing multiple sets of parenthesis (see lines 15, 16, 17, 18). Claim language enclosed in parentheses is indefinite because it makes unclear whether the parenthetical matter is part of the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein length of the first trunk is less than length of the comb-shaped unit cell structure in the X-direction” in lines 18-20 of p. 2. The term “length” here is indefinite because it lacks an article. It is therefore unclear whether the two lengths of claim 2 are the same as the lengths of claim 1 or are being introduced as new lengths. To clarify this claim, the examiner recommends using either “a” or “the” prior to each “length” of the limitation above.
Claim 4 recites a method involving optimizing the first unit cell. However, because
Claim 4 is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the limitation below, from p. 4, lines 14-20, are unclear
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where a reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase response greater than a predefined reflection phase and for a desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations
Specifically, it is unclear how precisely the optimum comb arm length is being obtained based on the reflection phase response. This claim could be read to mean,
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where an optimum comb arm length results in a reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase response at a desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations is greater than a predefined reflection phase
But could also be read to mean,
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where a reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase responses greater than a predefined reflection phase and for a desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations meets a particular characteristic (desired angle, desired capacitance, etc.)
Claims 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 contain the same indefinite language as claim 4, above, and are therefore rejected for the same reason. Claims 5, 8, and 11 contain a similar issue in step (e), on p. 7, lines 10-16, p. 13, lines 9-15, and 19, lines 6-12.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation, “obtaining, the plurality of reflection phase responses, for each of the plurality of capacitance values.” The comma after “obtaining” makes the relationship between the plurality of reflection phase responses and the plurality of capacitance values. The limitation above could mean one of:
Obtaining the plurality of reflection phase responses for each of the plurality of capacitance values
Obtaining, for the plurality of reflection phase responses, the plurality of capacitance values
Obtaining, for each of the plurality of reflection phase responses, each of the plurality of capacitance values
All three of the interpretations above has different meaning in the art, thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim 5 recites multiple limitations referencing the structure of the second unit cell. Two examples of these limitations are “the optimum comb arm length” on p. 5, line 15 and ‘the plurality of first arms” on p. 5, line 16. A full list of limitations referencing the structure of the second unit cell is not included in this office action, but most lines of claim 5 reference elements of the second unit cell structure. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims because claim 3, upon which claim 5 depends, does not claim any second unit cell structure. To render this claim definite, the examiner recommends adding the limitations of claim 2 to independent claim 1. However, this recommendation is not the only way to render claim 5 definite.
Claims 8 and 11, like claim 5, contain references to the physical structure of the second unit cell that lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the plurality of first arms" in line 11 or p. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 contains the same limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the varactor diode” on p. 9, line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 contains the same limitation.
Claims 7 and 10 further recite multiple references to the first unit cell structure. However, because claims 7 and 10 are not dependent on claim 1, in which the first unit cell structure is described, it is unclear whether the first unit cell being optimized in claims 7 and 10 has the same structure as that of claim 1. Barring a positive recitation of the structure of the first unit cell, it is unclear how the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm are structurally related to one other.
To render claims 7 and 10 definite, the examiner recommends including the limitations that positively recite the structure of the first unit cell that are recited in claim 1.
Claims 8 and 11 contain the same lack of clarity regarding the second unit cell structure as claims 7 and 10 lack with respect to the first unit cell. The examiner recommends positively reciting the structure of the second unit cell that are recited in claim 2 in either claims 7 and 10 or 8 and 11 to render claims 8 and 11 definite.
Claims 2-6 are further rejected due to their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 8-9 are further rejected due to their dependence on indefinite claim 7.
Claims 11-12 are further rejected due to their dependence on indefinite claim 10.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budhu et al. (Budhu, J., Ventresca, N., and Grbic, A. (21 Nov. 2022). Unit cell design for aperiodic metasurfaces. Arxiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.11588), hereinafter Budhu.
Regarding claim 7, Budhu teaches (note: for limitations written in alternative form, the alternative(s) not taught by Budhu are italicized for clarity),
A processor implemented method (p. 4, left col., para. 3-right col., para. 3 “The local electric field, Eploc, is impressed onto a parameterized (by l) printed-circuit geometry using the magnetic current sheet box shown in Fig. 3, and the surface current density induced on the printed-circuit geometry is computed using a full-wave solver, in this case COMSOL Multiphysics” The examiner notes that COMSOL Multiphysics is a software program whose system requirements include hardware processors coupled to a memory through one or more communication interfaces, as noted on the COMSOL Multiphysics system requirements, attached to this office action. Thus, the use of COMSOL Multiphysics to design the reflectarray indicates that the system must be controlled by a hardware processor coupled to a memory via one or more communication interfaces.)comprising:
optimizing, via an optimization technique executed by one or more hardware processors of a control unit controlling an electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system (p. 4, left col., para. 3-right col., para. 3 “The local electric field, Eploc, is impressed onto a parameterized (by l) printed-circuit geometry using the magnetic current sheet box shown in Fig. 3, and the surface current density induced on the printed-circuit geometry is computed using a full-wave solver, in this case COMSOL Multiphysics…The cost function (3) is minimized as a function of the length of the interdigitated metallic fingers, l, of the interdigitated capacitor, for example. This process is repeated for each element p in the metasurface to obtain the patterned metallic cladding.” The examiner notes that COMSOL Multiphysics is a software program whose system requirements include hardware processors coupled to a memory through one or more communication interfaces, as noted on the COMSOL Multiphysics system requirements, attached to this office action. Thus, the use of COMSOL Multiphysics to design the reflectarray indicates that the system must be controlled by a hardware processor coupled to a memory via one or more communication interfaces.), a design of one of (i) a first unit cell structure and (ii) a second unit cell structure of a comb shaped unit cell of the electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system (p. 4, right col., para. 3 “The cost function (3) is minimized as a function of the length of the interdigitated metallic fingers, l, of the interdigitated capacitor, for example. This process is repeated for each element p in the metasurface to obtain the patterned metallic cladding.” The examiner notes that figs. 3(a), 4, and 9 show that the elements p make up comb-shaped unit cells in the patterned metal cladding of the metasurface. Absent any specific design of the second unit cell structure, the optimization and structure of the comb-shaped unit cell structure of Budhu teach a second unit cell structure….),
wherein the optimization technique of the first unit cell structure comprising: performing simulation comprising a mode1 simulation and a mode2 simulation on the first unit cell structure to (i) obtain an optimum comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, a second top arm, and a second bottom arm and (ii) estimate a plurality of reflection phase responses by:
(a) setting a plurality of parameters of the first unit cell structure as constant values except comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm;
(b) obtaining a plurality of frequency variations of an incident electromagnetic wave and a corresponding plurality of reflection phase responses of a reflected beam, without mounting the varactor diode on the first unit cell structure for a plurality of comb arm length variations, wherein the comb arm length varies between first value and a second value by steps of a predefined value, wherein varying the comb arm length enables the plurality of frequency variations between a first frequency value and a second frequency value of the electromagnetic wave incident on the first unit cell structure, wherein the mode1 simulation comprises field lines of an electromagnetic wave incident parallel to the first trunk, and wherein the mode2 simulation comprises the field lines of the electromagnetic wave incident parallel to the plurality of first arms;
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where a reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase response greater than a predefined reflection phase and for a desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations;
(d) mounting the varactor diode across the predefined gap between the comb shaped first part and the comb shaped second part; and
(e) obtaining, the plurality of reflection phase responses, for each of the plurality of capacitance values of the DC voltage of the varactor diode for the obtained optimum comb arm length and the desired frequency of operation.
The examiner notes that claim 7 requires only that the comb-shaped cells that are optimized are designed as one of a first unit cell structure and a second unit cell structure, and only gives instructions for optimizing the first unit cell structure. Budhu teaches optimizing a second unit cell structure. Thus, any limitations relating to optimizing the first unit cell structure are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 7 as written.
Regarding claim 10, Budhu teaches (note: for limitations written in alternative form, any alternative(s) not taught by Budhu are italicized for clarity),
One or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors (p. 4, left col., para. 3-right col., para. 3 “The local electric field, Eploc, is impressed onto a parameterized (by l) printed-circuit geometry using the magnetic current sheet box shown in Fig. 3, and the surface current density induced on the printed-circuit geometry is computed using a full-wave solver, in this case COMSOL Multiphysics…This process is repeated for each element p in the metasurface to obtain the patterned metallic cladding.” The examiner notes that COMSOL Multiphysics is a software program whose system requirements include hardware processors coupled to a memory through one or more communication interfaces, as noted on the COMSOL Multiphysics system requirements, attached to this office action. Thus, the use of COMSOL Multiphysics to design the reflectarray indicates that the system must be a non-transitory computer-readable medium) cause:
optimizing, via an optimization technique of a control unit controlling an electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system, a design of one of (i) a first unit cell structure and (ii) a second unit cell structure of a comb shaped unit cell of the electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system (p. 4, right col., para. 3, “The cost function (3) is minimized as a function of the length of the interdigitated metallic fingers, l, of the interdigitated capacitor, for example. This process is repeated for each element p in the metasurface to obtain the patterned metallic cladding.” The examiner notes that figs. 3(a), 4, and 9 show that the elements p make up comb-shaped unit cells in the patterned metal cladding of the metasurface. Absent any specific design of the second unit cell structure, the optimization and structure of the comb-shaped unit cell structure of Budhu teach a second unit cell structure….),
wherein the optimization technique of the first unit cell structure comprising:
performing simulation comprising a mode1 simulation and a mode2 simulation on the first unit cell structure to
(i) obtain an optimum comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, a second top arm, and a second bottom arm and (ii) estimate a plurality of reflection phase responses by:
(a) setting a plurality of parameters of the first unit cell structure as constant values except comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm;
(b) obtaining a plurality of frequency variations of an incident electromagnetic wave and a corresponding plurality of reflection phase responses of a reflected beam, without mounting the varactor diode on the first unit cell structure for a plurality of comb arm length variations, wherein the comb arm length varies between first value and a second value by steps of a predefined value, wherein varying the comb arm length enables the plurality of frequency variations between a first frequency value and a second frequency value of the electromagnetic wave incident on the first unit cell structure, wherein the mode1 simulation comprises field lines of an electromagnetic wave incident parallel to the first trunk, and wherein the mode2 simulation comprises the field lines of the electromagnetic wave incident parallel to the plurality of first arms;
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where a reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase response greater than a predefined reflection phase and for a desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations;
(d) mounting the varactor diode across the predefined gap between the comb shaped first part and the comb shaped second part; and
(e) obtaining, the plurality of reflection phase responses, for each of the plurality of capacitance values of the DC voltage of the varactor diode for the obtained optimum comb arm length and the desired frequency of operation.
The examiner notes that claim 10 requires only that the comb-shaped cells that are optimized are designed as one of a first unit cell structure and a second unit cell structure, and only gives instructions for optimizing the first unit cell structure. Budhu teaches optimizing a second unit cell structure. Thus, any limitations relating to optimizing the first unit cell structure are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 10 as written.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budhu in view of Wikipedia (Wikipedia (04 April 2022). Dipole antenna. Internet Archive.https://web.archive.org/web/20220421142532/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_antenna).
Regarding claim 10, Budhu teaches (note: for limitations written in alternative form, any alternative(s) not taught by Budhu are italicized for clarity, while non-alternate limitations not taught by Budhu are struck through. The examiner further notes that underlined text in the claim language is added by the examiner to clarify the full extent teachings of Budhu),
An electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system (p. 1, right col., para. 2, “Next-generation antennas designed using metasurfaces promise extreme wavefront control.” See also p. 4, right col., final para., “An aperiodic metasurface with fast field variation is a finite width, wide-angle reflecting metasurface. “) comprising:
a reflectarray metasurface positioned at a predetermined height below an electric line source (p. 6, left col., para. 3, “The metasurface is fed by a 10-GHz electric line source placed along the y -axis at F=2λ above the metasurface.” See fig. 10, electric line source is shown above the metasurface, as shown below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
408
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of comb-shaped unit cells arranged as a matrix over the reflectarray metasurface (fig. 10, metasurface of example 2 contains multiple comb-shaped unit cells, in light grey, see below),
PNG
media_image2.png
351
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of comb-shaped unit cells is designed as one of (i) a first unit cell structure, and (ii) a second unit cell structure (fig. 10, metasurface of example 2 is designed as a second unit cell structure), and
wherein the first unit cell structure comprising:
a comb shaped structure with a comb shaped first part and a comb shaped second part separated by a predefined gap to mount a varactor diode at a designated position,
wherein the comb shaped first part comprising a first trunk, and a plurality of first arms comprising a first top arm, a first center arm and a first bottom arm,
wherein the comb shaped second part comprising a second trunk, and a plurality of second arms comprising a second top arm, a second center arm, and a second bottom arm, and a structural design of the first trunk, the second trunk, the plurality of first arms and the plurality of second arms comprising a copper bottom layer reflector, a first dielectric substrate separating the copper bottom layer reflector and the comb shaped structure,
wherein the first trunk and the second trunk has one or more X-directed copper patches, and the plurality of first arms and the plurality of second arms has a single Y-directed copper patches,
wherein the first trunk spans across length of the comb-shaped unit cell along the X-direction,
wherein the second center arm is of fixed length and connected to the copper bottom layer reflector through the first cylindrical metal post, and
wherein a DC voltage fed to the varactor diode through the first trunk.
The examiner notes that claim 1 requires only that the comb-shaped cells are designed as one of a first unit cell structure and a second unit cell structure. Because Budhu teaches a second unit cell structure rather than a first unit cell structure, any additional limitations relating to the first unit cell structure are not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 as written.
Wikipedia teaches that an electric line source can be a standard half-wavelength dipole antenna (“The dipole is the simplest type of antenna from a theoretical point of view. Most commonly it consists of two conductors of equal length oriented end-to-end with the feedline connected between them…The most commonly used is the center-fed half-wave dipole which is just under a half-wavelength long.”).
Budhu and Wikipedia are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, namely, antennas. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric line of Budhu to be the standard half-wavelength dipole antenna of Wikipedia. Budhu teaches a generic electric line source suspended above the metasurface and further teaches that the metasurface is intended for use with “next-generation antennas” (p. 1, right col., para. 2). However, Budhu is silent as to the type of antenna fed by said electric line source suspended above the metasurface. Wikipedia teaches that the dipole half-wavelength antenna is the most common form of antenna, and one of the easiest to theoretically understand. Thus, it would be an obvious species to consider using as the antenna fed by the generic electric line source of Budhu.
Regarding claim 3, Budhu in view of Wikipedia teaches the electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system of claim 1. Budhu further teaches,
…wherein the electronic beam-steering reflectarray system is controlled by a control unit comprising one or more hardware processors, coupled to a memory via one or more communication interfaces (p. 4, left col., para. 3-right col., para. 3, “The local electric field, Eploc, is impressed onto a parameterized (by l) printed-circuit geometry using the magnetic current sheet box shown in Fig. 3, and the surface current density induced on the printed-circuit geometry is computed using a full-wave solver, in this case COMSOL Multiphysics…This process is repeated for each element p in the metasurface to obtain the patterned metallic cladding.” Underlining added for emphasis. The examiner notes that COMSOL Multiphysics is a software program whose system requirements include hardware processors coupled to a memory through one or more communication interfaces, as noted on the COMSOL Multiphysics system requirements, attached to this office action. Thus, the use of COMSOL Multiphysics to design the reflectarray indicates that the system must be controlled by a hardware processor coupled to a memory via one or more communication interfaces).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budhu in view of Wikipedia, further in view of Venneri et al. (F. Venneri, S. Costanzo and G. Di Massa, "Design and Validation of a Reconfigurable Single Varactor-Tuned Reflectarray," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 635-645, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2012.2226229.), hereinafter Venneri, and further in view of Cho et al. (Cho, K. W., Gummeson, J., and Abari, O. (Apr. 2023). mmWall: A Steerable, Transflective, Metamaterial surface for NextG mmWave Networks. Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/nsdi23-cho-kun-woo.pdf), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 6, Budhu as previously combined with Wikipedia teaches the electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system of claim 1.
The previous combination of Budhu in view of Wikipedia does not teach,
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to tilt the reflected beam in a desired direction, from the obtained plurality of reflection phase responses by:
identifying a reflection phase gradient of the reflectarray meta surface, from a plurality reflection phase responses corresponding to each of the plurality of unit cells for a desired angle received from a user;
obtaining a capacitance value of a plurality of capacitance values, for each of the plurality of unit cells, from the reflection phase gradient;
mapping the obtained plurality of capacitance values to the DC voltages corresponding to the varactor diodes using a predefined lookup table; and
applying suitable DC voltage to the varactor diode in each of the plurality of unit cells, to tilt the reflected beam over the desired direction.
Venneri teaches (note: what Venneri does not teach is struck through),
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to tilt the reflected beam in a desired direction, from the obtained plurality of reflection phase responses (p. 641, right col., paras. 5-6, “To verify the beam-scanning operation mode, the synthesis algorithm is applied for obtaining the correct phase distributions giving a main beam pointed to some specific directions in the H-plane. The array grid spacing, in conjunction with the array size, allows us to actively move the radiated mainlobe along all directions θmb ranging from −25o to 25°”) by:
identifying a reflection phase gradient of the reflectarray meta surface, from a plurality reflection phase responses corresponding to each of the plurality of unit cells for a desired angle received from a user (p. 640, right col., para. 4. Note that para. 4 continues onto the next page. “The varactor voltages distributions are computed by adopting a synthesis procedure that receives as input the desired radiation features, in terms of pattern behavior, and automatically returns the required excitation phase on each reflectarray element.” “To verify the beam-scanning operation mode, the synthesis algorithm is applied for obtaining the correct phase distributions giving a main beam pointed to some specific directions in the H-plane. The array grid spacing, in conjunction with the array size, allows us to actively move the radiated mainlobe along all directions θmb ranging from −25o to 25°”);
obtaining a capacitance value of a plurality of capacitance values, for each of the plurality of unit cells, from the reflection phase gradient (fig. 8, graph of capacitance vs. phase);
mapping the obtained plurality of capacitance values to the DC voltages corresponding to the varactor diodes (p. 639, right col., para. 2, “The phase curves of the antenna are measured at different frequencies within the operating band, by varying the applied bias voltages from 0 to 20 V. As remarked at the beginning of the section, this corresponds to a variation of the diode capacitance Cv from 0.2 to 2 pF, thus providing results comparable to those obtained in the parametric analysis of Section II-B.”); and
applying suitable DC voltage to the varactor diode in each of the plurality of unit cells, to tilt the reflected beam over the desired direction (p. 641, right col., para. 2, “The measured phase curves (Fig. 11), relating the element reflection phase to the supplied bias voltage, are considered as input design data for the implemented algorithm”).
Cho teaches,
mapping the obtained plurality of capacitance values to the DC voltages corresponding to the varactor diodes using a predefined lookup table (p. 1652, left col., para. 2, “We do this by running one-time optimization that searches for the voltage pair that maximizes ∣T∣ (or ∣Γ∣) for each phase and generates a static lookup table that will later be used for beam steering.”)
Venneri and Cho are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic beam-steering reflectarray system of Budhu as previously modified by Wikipedia to follow the beamsteering procedure of Venneri using the lookup table of Cho. The beamsteering procedure of Venneri offers significant advantages in the wide angular range of the antenna and flexibility of programming the beam center of the antenna emission, while the lookup table of Cho allows for real-time beamsteering by limiting the computational load needed to adjust the voltages of each unit cell in the reflectarray.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budhu in view of Venneri et al. (F. Venneri, S. Costanzo and G. Di Massa, "Design and Validation of a Reconfigurable Single Varactor-Tuned Reflectarray," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 635-645, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2012.2226229. ), hereinafter Venneri, and further in view of Cho et al. (Cho, K. W., Gummeson, J., and Abari, O. (Apr. 2023). mmWall: A Steerable, Transflective, Metamaterial surface for NextG mmWave Networks. Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/nsdi23-cho-kun-woo.pdf), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 9, Budhu teaches the processor implemented method of claim 7. Claim 9 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, Budhu teaches the one or more non-transitory machine readable information storage mediums of claim 10. Claim 12 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Budhu in view of Wikipedia teaches the electronic beam-steering reflectarray system of claim 1. However, said combination only teaches the reflectarray for a generic second unit cell structure, as can be seen in fig, 10 of Budhu. Neither Budhu nor Wikipedia teaches a first unit cell structure that comprises,
a comb shaped structure with a comb shaped first part and a comb shaped second part separated by a predefined gap to mount a varactor diode at a designated position,
wherein the comb shaped first part comprising a first trunk, and a plurality of first arms comprising a first top arm, a first center arm and a first bottom arm,
wherein the comb shaped second part comprising a second trunk, and a plurality of second arms comprising a second top arm, a second center arm, and a second bottom arm, and a structural design of the first trunk, the second trunk, the plurality of first arms and the plurality of second arms comprising a copper bottom layer reflector, a first dielectric substrate separating the copper bottom layer reflector and the comb shaped structure,
wherein the first trunk and the second trunk has one or more X-directed copper patches, and the plurality of first arms and the plurality of second arms has a single Y-directed copper patches,
wherein the first trunk spans across length of the comb-shaped unit cell along the X-direction,
wherein the second center arm is of fixed length and connected to the copper bottom layer reflector through the first cylindrical metal post, and
wherein a DC voltage fed to the varactor diode through the first trunk.
Therefore, the combination of Budhu and Wikipedia cannot teach a second unit cell structure comprising a variation of the first unit cell structure, let alone a second unit cell structure comprising,
a variation to the first unit cell structure with an additional copper layer positioned below the copper bottom layer reflector through a hole with the second cylindrical metal post from the first center arm, a second dielectric substrate separating the copper bottom layer reflector and the additional copper layer and wherein length of the first trunk is less than length of the comb-shaped unit cell structure in the X-direction.
That is, the combination of Budhu and Wikipedia teaches a design of one of (i) a first unit cell structure and (ii) a second unit cell structure of a comb shaped unit cell of the electronic beam-steering reflectarray antenna system generically, but neither reference teaches, suggests, or renders obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art the combination of limitations recited above describing the first and second unit cell structures. Because claim 2 depends on claim 1, claim 2 as written requires that all unit cell structures contain either the combination of limitations describing the first unit cell recited in claim 1 or the combination of limitations describing the second unit cell recited in claim 2. Therefore, Budhu in view of Wikipedia would not result in the invention of claim 2 of the present application.
Regarding claim 4, Budhu in view of Wikipedia teaches the electronic beam-steering reflectarray system of claim 3. However, neither Budhu nor Wikipedia teaches nor renders obvious the combination of limitations recited in claim 1 with respect to the structure of the first unit cell, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 4 positively recites,
the one or more hardware processors of the control unit are configured by instructions to execute an optimization technique for optimizing the design of the first unit cell structure
By positively reciting a structure that carries out an optimization technique for the first unit cell structure, claim 4 requires that any combination of references used to reject claim 4 must contain a structure capable of carrying out the optimization technique recited in the claim, namely,
performing simulation comprising a mode1 simulation and a mode2 simulation on the first unit cell structure to (i) obtain an optimum comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm, and (ii) estimate a plurality of reflection phase responses by:
(a) setting a plurality of parameters of the first unit cell structure as constant values except comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm;
(b) obtaining a plurality of frequency variations of an incident electromagnetic wave and a corresponding plurality of reflection phase responses of a reflected beam, without mounting the varactor diode on the first unit cell structure for a plurality of comb arm length variations, wherein the comb arm length varies between first value and a second value by steps of a predefined value, wherein varying the comb arm length enables the plurality of frequency variations between a first frequency value and a second frequency value of the electromagnetic wave incident on the first unit cell structure, wherein the mode1 simulation comprises field lines of an electromagnetic wave incident parallel to the first trunk, and wherein the mode2 simulation comprises the field lines of the electromagnetic wave incident parallel to the plurality of first arms;
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where a reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase response greater than a predefined reflection phase and for a desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations;
(d) mounting the varactor diode across the predefined gap between the comb shaped first part and the comb shaped second part; and
(e) obtaining, the plurality of reflection phase responses, for each of the plurality of capacitance values of the DC voltage of the varactor diode for the obtained optimum comb arm length and the desired frequency of operation.
A structure capable of carrying out the optimization technique above requires the first unit cell structure, at least because step (d) states, “mounting the varactor diode across the predefined gap between the comb shaped first part and the comb shaped second part,” a limitation that requires both the first and second comb-shaped parts of the first unit cell structure. However, neither Budhu nor Wikipedia teach the combination of limitations that make up the first unit cell structure. Therefore, the combination of Budhu and Wikipedia does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the combination of limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Budhu in view of Wikipedia teaches the electronic beam-steering reflectarray system of claim 5. However, neither Budhu nor Wikipedia teaches nor renders obvious the combination of limitations recited in claim 2 with respect to the structure of the second unit cell, as noted above in the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter for claim 2. Claim 5 positively recites,
the one or more hardware processors of the control unit are configured by instructions to execute an optimization technique for optimizing the design of the second unit cell structure
By positively reciting a structure that carries out an optimization technique for the second unit cell structure, claim 5 requires that any combination of references used to reject claim 5 must contain a structure capable of carrying out the optimization technique recited in the claim, namely,
performing simulation comprising mode1 simulation and a mode2 simulation on the second unit cell structure to (i) obtain the optimum comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm and an optimum comb trunk length corresponding to first trunk, and (ii) estimate the plurality of reflection phase responses by:
(a) setting the plurality of parameters of the second unit cell structure as constant values except the comb arm length corresponding to the plurality of first arms, the second top arm, and the second bottom arm, and length of the first trunk;
(b) obtaining the plurality of frequency variations of an incident electromagnetic wave and the corresponding plurality of reflection phase responses of the reflected beam, without mounting the varactor diode on the second unit cell structure, for the plurality of comb arm length variations, wherein the comb arm length varies between the first value and the second value by steps of the predefined value, wherein initially the length of the first trunk initialized with length of the comb-shaped unit cell;
(c) obtaining the optimum comb arm length among the plurality of comb arm length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where the reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase responses greater than the predefined reflection phase response and for the desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations;
(d) obtaining the plurality of frequency variations of an incident electromagnetic wave and a corresponding plurality of reflection phase responses of the reflected beam, without mounting the varactor diode on the second unit cell structure, for the plurality of comb trunk length variations, wherein the comb trunk length varies between a first trunk length value and a second trunk length value by steps of a predefined trunk length value;
(e) obtaining the optimum comb trunk length among the plurality of comb trunk length variations from one of (i) the mode1 simulation and (ii) the mode2 simulation, where the reflection phase response of the plurality of reflection phase responses greater than the predefined reflection phase for the desired frequency of operation of the plurality of frequency variations;
(f) mounting the varactor diode across the predefined gap between the comb shaped first part and the comb shaped second part; and
(g) obtaining the plurality of reflection phase responses, for each of the plurality of capacitance values of the DC voltage of the varactor diode, for the obtained optimum comb arm length, the optimum comb trunk length, and the desired frequency of operation.
A structure capable of carrying out the optimization technique above requires the first unit cell structure, at least because step (f) states, “mounting the varactor diode across the predefined gap between the comb shaped first part and the comb shaped second part,” a limitation that requires both the first and second comb-shaped parts of the second unit cell structure. However, neither Budhu nor Wikipedia teach the combination of limitations that make up the second unit cell structure. Therefore, the combination of Budhu and Wikipedia does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the combination of limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner notes that claim 5 and the claims upon which it depends also do not recite the combination of limitations that make up the second unit cell structure, hence the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) recited above. For claim 5 to be allowable, either claim 5 or a claim upon which it depends would have to positively recite the limitations that make up said second unit cell structure, such as those recited in claim 2.
Claim 8 is allowable for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 5.
Claim 11 is allowable for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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 K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648