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, 4-11 and 14-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the limitation “wherein a value of N is a minimum integer value that satisfies a condition of ʎ0< 2 x N x
ρ
, wherein ʎ0 represents a free space wavelength, and
ρ
represents a radiation period of the ITO radiation patch” in lines 13-15 of claim 1 and lines 14-16 of claim 11, renders the claimed indefinite because the specification does not provide examples that inform those of ordinary skill in the art of the boundaries or values of the radiation period 𝜌 to obtain the value of N.
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected for being dependent on the indefinite claims 1 and 11.
Clarifications are required.
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, 4-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 110071371 of record) in view of Wang (CN 106932947 of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Jiang discloses in Figures an array antenna, comprising:
an upper dielectric plate (6, Fig. 1c),
a middle dielectric plate (4-5, Fig. 1c) and a lower dielectric plate (7, Fig. 1c) disposed from top to bottom,
wherein the middle dielectric plate (4, 5, see Fig. 1a) comprises a metasurface structure (4, Figs. 1a-1c) formed by a liquid crystal material;
wherein the metasurface structure (4, Fig. 1c) comprises: a liquid crystal material layer (5), a digital radiation assembly (9) printed on the liquid crystal material layer (5), and a direct current bias wire (2);
wherein the digital radiation assembly (9) comprises
MxM digital radiation units (4x4 radiation units, see Fig. 1a, M=4) arranged in an array,
each (each unit 4, see Figs. 1a, 1b) of the digital radiation units comprises NxN
where M represents both a number of rows and a number of columns of the digital radiation units, and
N represents both a number of columns and a number of rows of the ITO radiation patches in each digital radiation unit;
wherein a value of N is a minimum integer value that satisfies a condition of ʎ0< 2 x N x
ρ
, wherein ʎ0 represents a free space wavelength, and
ρ
represents a radiation period of the ITO radiation patch.
Jiang does not disclose the radiation patches being made of indium tin oxide (ITO). However, such difference is not patentable merit. Radiating patches being made of ITO is well known in the art of antenna. One of such examples is the teaching of Wang in Figure 6 and par. 0045, the radiation patches (15a) being made of ITO. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the radiating patches of Jiang with the radiating patches being made of ITO as taught by Wang, and it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Note that, Jiang and Wang are silent on wherein a value of N is a minimum integer value that satisfies a condition of ʎ0< 2 x N x
ρ
, wherein ʎ0 represents a free space wavelength, and
ρ
represents a radiation period of the ITO radiation patch. However, such difference is not patentable merit, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to select the value of the radiating period to obtain the value of the rows and columns of each radiation unit to optimize the radiation characteristic for the array antenna and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, as applied to claims 1 and 11, Jiang discloses in Figures 1a-1c,
wherein the value of N is negatively correlated with a size of a maximum beam pointing angle and a number of beam pointing angles scanned by the metasurface structure, respectively.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Jiang discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly
recited in claims 1 and 11, except for each of the ITO radiation patches having a circular shape.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to change the shape of the radiation patches to achieve desired radiation characteristics, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape and generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 16-18, as applied to claims 1 and 11, Jiang discloses in Figures 1a-1c and par. 0038,
wherein within an operation frequency band of the array antenna, the digital radiation units are constructed to have either of two different states between which a reflection phase difference is 1800 depending on the liquid crystal material changing with a voltage; wherein the two different
states of the digital radiation units correspond to different representing values; wherein the digital
radiation units are controlled row by row (see Figs. 1a-1b).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as applied to claims 1 and 11, Jiang (Figure 1c and par. 0033) and
Wang disclose,
wherein the lower dielectric plate (7) comprises a grounding plate (3, see par. 0033) made of an
ITO material (see Wang, par. 0056) and a glass dielectric plate (7) from top to bottom.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, as applied to claims 1 and 11, Jiang discloses in par. 0033,
wherein the upper dielectric plate (6) is a glass dielectric substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11 and 14-20 with respect to the limitation “wherein a value of N is a minimum integer value that satisfies a condition of ʎ0< 2 x N x
ρ
, wherein ʎ0 represents a free space wavelength, and
ρ
represents a radiation period of the ITO radiation patch”
have been considered but are not moot for the reasons as set forth in the body rejections of the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 CRUZ LOPEZ can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights