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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 1, the phrase “the redirected instance” lack proper antecedent basis. It is suggested to amending it to “a redirected instance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-20 of copending Application No. 18/673,210 (US 2025/0361137 A1) in view of Schwartz et al (US 2003/0058069 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As set forth below, the table identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to the conflicting co-pending application.
Current Application 18/673,205
Co-Pending Application 18/673,210
1
1
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
As disclosed in the table above, co-pending application claims 1 and 4-20 matches up with claims 1 and 4-20 of the present application, respectively. However, the following differences are present.
Claims 1, 11 and 15 of the co-pending application recites “a metallic cantilever” while the present invention claims 1, 11 and 15 recites a “a bimorph MEMS cantilever”. The “bimorph MEMS cantilever” comprises of at least two generic layers, but the “bimorph MEMS cantilever” does not necessarily include a metallic layer.
Schwartz teaches in Fig. 1 a bimorph MEMS cantilever that comprising a metallic layer (132) made from aluminum and an insulating layer (136) made from polysilicon layer (para 39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before effective filing date to make the bimorph MEMS cantilever to include an aluminum as taught by Schwartz such a modification would have been well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative/equivalent for a bimorph MEMS cantilever material that able to perform the same function, as being motivated to make an excellent MEMS system.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/808,987 (US 2026/0051872 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As set forth below, the table identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to the conflicting co-pending application.
Current Application 18/673,205
Co-Pending Application 18/808,987
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-10, claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a unit cell device, comprising:
a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)-based resonating pattern on a substrate,
comprising:
a fixed resonating portion;
a bimorph MEMS cantilever comprising an anchored portion and a non-anchored
portion, the bimorph MEMS cantilever having a first vertical displacement relative to the
substrate at a tip of the non-anchored portion of the bimorph MEMS cantilever as a result
of residual stress, in response to the bimorph MEMS cantilever being in a non-actuated
state; and
electrical contact pads electrically coupled to the bimorph MEMS cantilever,
wherein energy applied via the electrical contact pads changes the non-actuated state of
the bimorph MEMS cantilever to an actuated state that strains the non-anchored portion of the
bimorph MEMS cantilever to change the first vertical displacement distance at the tip to a
second vertical displacement distance that is based on an amount of the energy applied, and
wherein, in response to an impinging electromagnetic wave on the unit cell device, the
resonating pattern resonates to redirect an instance of the electromagnetic based on a phase shift
determined by:
the first vertical displacement distance in response to the bimorph MEMS
cantilever being in the non-actuated state, and
the second vertical displacement distance in response to the bimorph MEMS
cantilever being in the actuated state as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claims 11-14, claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a method, comprising,
changing, by a system comprising a controller, a phase shift of a unit cell of a reconfigurable intelligent surface to redirect an electromagnetic wave impinging on the unit cell based on a target location, the changing comprising:
controlling a bias voltage applied to a moveable bimorph element of a microelectromechanical systems-based resonating pattern, wherein a first part of the moveable bimorph element is anchored to a substrate, and a second part of the moveable bimorph element comprises a non-anchored tip having a first vertical displacement distance, relative to the substrate, at a zero bias voltage level, and a second
vertical displacement distance, relative to the substrate, that is less than the first vertical displacement distance, at a non-zero bias voltage level,
wherein an amount of the second vertical displacement distance corresponds to an amount of the non-zero bias voltage level, and wherein the bias voltage determines the phase shift of the unit cell as set forth in the claimed combination;
Regarding claims 15-20, claims are allowable at least for the reason that the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a system, comprising:
a unit cell configured to redirect an incoming electromagnetic wave as a redirected
electromagnetic wave, the unit cell comprising:
a substrate;
a resonating pattern corresponding to the incoming electromagnetic wave, the resonating pattern comprising:
a fixed metallic resonator;
a bimorph cantilever comprising a first portion physically coupled to the substrate, and a second portion physically decoupled from the substrate, the bimorph cantilever being curved upward with a larger amount of curvature, due to residual stress, when not heated by joule heating, relative to a lesser amount of curvature, due to strain, when heated by a non-zero amount of joule heating, wherein a resultant amount of curvature corresponds to the amount of joule heating; and
electrical contacts coupled to the bimorph cantilever proximate to the first portion; and
a controller configured to selectively apply energy to the electrical contacts to selectively
heat the bimorph cantilever with a selected amount of joule heating, corresponding to a selected
resultant amount of curvature of the bimorph cantilever,
wherein the resultant amount of curvature determines a direction of the redirected
electromagnetic wave as set forth in the claimed combination.
Holyoak et al (US 2017/0141755 A1) discloses a MEMS device (Fig. 1-4) comprising a fixed resonating portion (10), a bimorph MEMS cantilever (50) comprising an anchored portion (Fig. 1, anchored portion on 10) and a non-anchored portion (Fig. 1, end of 50), the bimorph MEMS cantilever having a first vertical displacement relative to the substrate at a tip of the non-anchored portion.
However, the prior art does not disclose
electrical contact pads electrically coupled to the bimorph MEMS cantilever,
wherein energy applied via the electrical contact pads changes the non-actuated state of
the bimorph MEMS cantilever to an actuated state that strains the non-anchored portion of the
bimorph MEMS cantilever to change the first vertical displacement distance at the tip to a
second vertical displacement distance that is based on an amount of the energy applied, and
wherein, in response to an impinging electromagnetic wave on the unit cell device, the
resonating pattern resonates to redirect an instance of the electromagnetic based on a phase shift
determined by:
the first vertical displacement distance in response to the bimorph MEMS
cantilever being in the non-actuated state, and
the second vertical displacement distance in response to the bimorph MEMS
cantilever being in the actuated state as set forth in the claimed combination (claims 1-10);
controlling a bias voltage applied to a moveable bimorph element of a microelectromechanical systems-based resonating pattern, wherein a first part of the moveable bimorph element is anchored to a substrate, and a second part of the moveable bimorph element comprises a non-anchored tip having a first vertical displacement distance, relative to the substrate, at a zero bias voltage level, and a second
vertical displacement distance, relative to the substrate, that is less than the first vertical displacement distance, at a non-zero bias voltage level,
wherein an amount of the second vertical displacement distance corresponds to an amount of the non-zero bias voltage level, and wherein the bias voltage determines the phase shift of the unit cell as set forth in the claimed combination (claims 11-14);
electrical contacts coupled to the bimorph cantilever proximate to the first portion; and
a controller configured to selectively apply energy to the electrical contacts to selectively
heat the bimorph cantilever with a selected amount of joule heating, corresponding to a selected
resultant amount of curvature of the bimorph cantilever,
wherein the resultant amount of curvature determines a direction of the redirected
electromagnetic wave as set forth in the claimed combination (claims 15-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
6/19/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights