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 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 1-20 and 22-27 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.
The term “a regular reflection direction” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “regular” is not defined by the claim and examiner cannot determine what is meant by “a regular reflection direction”. For examining purposes, examiner does not consider patentable weight to the limitation “a regular reflection direction” and will only consider “a frequency selective reflector reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band”. Clarification/correction required.
Claims 2-20 and 22-27 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 7,710,326 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee (Figures 2 and 3) teaches a frequency selective reflector reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band, the frequency selective reflector 12 comprising a plurality of regions 16A-C; and a function of adjusting a reflected beam profile (col 4 line 15 to col 5 line 28).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Lee (Figures 2 and 3) teaches that an entire surface of the frequency selective reflector 12 is divided into a plurality of divided regions 16A-16C, the plurality of divided regions includes a main region that is a divided region positioned in a center of the frequency selective reflector, and a plurality of sub regions being divided regions other than the main region, the plurality of sub regions is disposed around the main region, reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions are different from each other, and the reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective sub regions are set so as to spread outward around the reflection direction vector of the electromagnetic waves in the main region.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Lee (Figures 2 and 3) teaches that an entire surface of the frequency selective reflector 12 is divided into a plurality of divided regions, reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions are different from each other, and the reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions are set so as to spread outward around a main reflection direction vector of electromagnetic waves derived from a sum of the reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Lee (Figures 2 and 3) teaches that a frequency selective reflector 12 reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band in different directions, wherein an entire surface of the frequency selective reflector 12 is divided into a plurality of divided regions 16A-16C, the plurality of divided regions includes a main region that is a divided region positioned in a center of the frequency selective reflector, and a plurality of sub regions being divided regions other than the main region, the plurality of sub regions is disposed around the main region, reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions are different from each other, and the reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective sub regions are set so as to converge inwardly around the reflection direction vector of the electromagnetic waves in the main region.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Lee (Figure 2 and 3) teaches that a frequency selective reflector 12 reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band in different directions, wherein an entire surface of the frequency selective reflector 12 is divided into a plurality of divided regions 16A-16C, reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions are different from each other, and the reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions are set so as to converge inwardly around a main reflection direction vector of electromagnetic waves derived from a sum of the reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in the respective divided regions.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 3, Lee (Figures 5, 7 and 8, col 5 line 29 to col 7 line 44) teaches that a plurality of unit structures each including a plurality of cell regions 16A-16C is disposed, the plurality of cell regions has reflection phases of the electromagnetic waves that differ from one another, and each of the divided regions includes at least one of the cell regions.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 3, Lee (Figure 4, col 5 lines 33-42) teaches that the frequency selective reflector 12 includes a reflecting member reflecting the electromagnetic waves, and the reflecting member includes a reflection phase control function 36 controlling a reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama et al (US 9,184,508 B2), hereinafter Maruyama.
Regarding claim 1, Maruyama (Figure 9) teaches a frequency selective reflector M1-M12 reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band in different directions (beams reflected in directions α1 and α2, the frequency selective reflector comprising a plurality of regions M1-M2 and M2-M3; and a function of adjusting a reflected beam profile (directions α1 and α2 have an increasing angle over the x-direction).
Claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elsharkawy et al (“Single and double-beam reflectarrays for Ka band communication”, SADHANA, SPRINGER INDIA, NEW DELHI, vol. 44, no.5, 6 April 2019 (2019-04-06), pages 1-13, XP036781116, ISSN: 0256-2499, DOI: 10.1007/S12046-019-1109-X [retrieved on 2019-04-06], hereinafter Elsharkawy. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Elsharkawy (Figures 13 and 14, section 6) teaches a frequency selective reflector (reflectarray) reflecting electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band, the frequency selective reflector comprising a plurality of regions (plurality of M subarrays); and a function of adjusting a reflected beam profile (section 7).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Elsharkawy (Figure 14(a)) teaches that an angle formed by reflection direction vectors of the electromagnetic waves in divided regions adjacent to each other is within 15o (section 7).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Elsharkawy (Figures 13(a)-(d)) teaches that a plurality of cell regions (M subarrays) having reflection phases of the electromagnetic waves different from one another is repeatedly arranged, and when a relative reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves in each cell region is set to be over -360o and 0o or less with reference to a reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves in the cell region with the largest advance in the reflection phases of the electromagnetic waves, a boundary part, in which a gradually decreasing relative reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves abruptly increases, has a non-branching and continuously curved shape.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 15, Elsharkawy (Figure 17(a)) teaches that the frequency selective reflector includes a reflecting member reflecting the electromagnetic waves, in the reflecting member, a plurality of reflection elements having size different from one another is repeatedly arranged, and the boundary part is a part where a size of the reflection element gradually increasing is abruptly reduced.
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 1, Elsharkawy (Figure 17(a)) teaches that a plurality of cell regions having reflection phases of the electromagnetic waves different from one another is repeatedly arranged.
Regarding claim 26, as applied to claim 24, Elsharkawy (Figure 17(a)) teaches that the frequency selective reflector includes a reflecting member reflecting the electromagnetic waves, in the reflecting member, a plurality of reflection elements having size different from one another is repeatedly arranged, and the cell region is a region where one of the reflection element among the plurality of reflection elements of different sizes is disposed.
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 7-9, 18-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Lee teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 2 and 3, respectively, except explicitly mention that a full width at half maximum of the reflected beam profile is within 40° in a graph in which a horizontal axis represents deviation angle from the reflection direction vector of the electromagnetic waves in the main region and a vertical axis represents reflection intensity of the electromagnetic waves of the frequency selective reflector. Since beam width depends on the aperture size of a region, thus it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the size of the region such as a half-power beamwidth within 40°.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 3, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure an area S1 of the frequency selective reflector satisfies formula S1 ≥ S0 * Sr1/Sr0 , wherein S1 is an area (m2) of the frequency selective reflector, Sr1 is a solid angle of a reflected beam meeting a desired receive area of the electromagnetic waves, S0 is an area (m2) of the frequency selective reflector capable of reflecting the electromagnetic waves of power required for the receive area when the frequency selective reflector does not include the divided regions, and Sr0 is a solid angle of the reflected beam by the frequency selective reflector whose area is So when the frequency selective reflector does not include the divided regions.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize reflectarrays as passive relays for relaying communication between a base station and a user terminal, the communication relay system comprising a plurality of direction controlling devices changing a traveling direction of electromagnetic waves in a particular frequency band, wherein the plurality of direction controlling devices is disposed on a propagation path of the electromagnetic waves from the base station.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 18, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the plurality of direction controlling devices such that the propagation path of the electromagnetic waves is one path starting from the base station.
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 18, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to dispose the plurality of direction controlling devices such that the communication relay system has the propagation path of the electromagnetic waves, the propagation path starting at the base station and branching.
Regarding claim 22, as applied to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a transmission direction controlling device transmitting the electromagnetic waves to be included as the direction controlling device.
Regarding claim 23, as applied to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure at least one reflective direction controlling device reflecting the electromagnetic waves to be included as the direction controlling device.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsharkawy in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 25, Elsharkawy teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 24, except explicitly mention that a pattern shape in a planar view of the cell region is a stripe shape.
Lee (Figure 2) teaches a pattern shape in a planar view of the cell region (16A-16C) is a stripe shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Elsharkawy’s pattern shape of the cell region to be stripe shape, as taught by Lee, doing so would achieve a desired reflection characteristics.
Regarding claim 27, Elsharkawy teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 24, wherein the frequency selective reflector includes a reflecting member reflecting the electromagnetic waves, in the reflecting member, a plurality of reflection elements having size different from one another is repeatedly arranged.
Elsharkawy does not further teach that the cell region is a region where the reflection elements with the same reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves are arranged.
Lee (Figure 2) teaches a frequency selective reflector having a cell region where the reflection elements with the same reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves are arranged.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the reflection elements in a cell region to have the same reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves, as taught by Lee, doing so would effectively control the incident direction and reflection direction of the electromagnetic waves for optimum coverage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112 issues and/or in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, neither Lee, Maruyama, nor Elsharkawy further teaches that the frequency selective reflector comprising a dielectric layer that is disposed at an incident side of the electromagnetic waves with respect to the reflecting member, that includes a concave and convex structure in which a plurality of unit structures including a thickness distribution of increasing a thickness in a predetermined direction is arranged, and that transmits the electromagnetic waves, each of the unit structures of the dielectric layer includes a plurality of cell regions having thickness different from one another, in each of the unit structures of the dielectric layer, in a graph setting a horizontal axis as a length of the predetermined direction of the unit structure, and setting a vertical axis as a relative reflection phase when the electromagnetic waves are transmitted through the dielectric layer, reflected by the reflecting member and emitted to the incident side of the electromagnetic waves by being transmitted through the dielectric layer again, in the graph, a value of the relative reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves is over -360° and 0° or less, when a point corresponding to a central position in the predetermined direction in each cell region and corresponding to the relative reflection phase of the electromagnetic waves in each cell region is plotted, and a straight line passing through a point corresponding to a minimum thickness cell region having a minimum thickness is drawn, each point is on a same straight line, the dielectric layer includes, as the unit structure, at least a first unit structure including three or more of the cell regions having thicknesses different from one another, and a reflection direction of the electromagnetic waves is controlled by controlling a relative reflection phase distribution of the electromagnetic waves based on the thickness distribution of the dielectric layer.
Claims 12-13 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Elsharwaky fails to teach that the frequency selective reflector includes a reflecting member, a dielectric layer that is disposed at an incident side of the electromagnetic waves with respect to the reflecting member, and that transmits the electromagnetic waves, in the dielectric layer, a plurality of dielectric cell regions having thicknesses different from one another is repeatedly arranged, and the boundary part is a ridgeline part of the dielectric layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845