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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 19, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 8, 12, 13 & 15 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 12, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 1-5 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended independent claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guraliuc et al. (“Solid Phantom for Body-Centric Propagation Measurements at 60 GHz,” in IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1373-1380, June 2014, hereinafter Guraliuc) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, in light of the amendment(s), a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made in view of Bowers et al. (US 2012/0019432 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 26, 2012, hereinafter, Bowers). Therefore, the rejection(s) of amended independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-18, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-7 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 4 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan et al. (WO 2009/078814 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 25, 2009, hereinafter, Tan). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into four sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “phantom having a bulk second layer beneath a dielectric slab illuminated (at approximately normal incidence…)”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figure(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, previously presented dependent claim 4 and/or figure(s) associated, do not recite or define the “phantom having a bulk second layer beneath a dielectric slab illuminated (at approximately normal incidence…)”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claims 4-10 depend from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers, further corroborate and teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in dependent claims 4-10 as previously recited.
In response to applicant's argument that Tan is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as stated above, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claims 4-10 depend from, prior art references Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and in light of the amendments, further in view of Bowers, further teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in claims 4-10 as previously recited.
In response to applicant’s argument that Tan teaches away from the limitations in previously presented dependent claim 4, the examiner further recognizes that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 4, and dependent claims 5 & 8-10, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 5 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into one section. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “provides any guidance on matching a skin-like reflection using materials with complex permittivity different from human tissue” or “none of these teaches or suggests configuring a phantom to reproduce the reflection coefficient of a refence tissue.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figure(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, previously presented dependent claim 5 and/or figure(s) associated, do not recite or define the “provides any guidance on matching a skin-like reflection using materials with complex permittivity different from human tissue” or “none of these teaches or suggests configuring a phantom to reproduce the reflection coefficient of a refence tissue.” The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 5, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 1 and previously presented dependent claim 4, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 6 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into one section. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “reproducing the reflection characteristics of a reference object such as the EM reflection coefficient at a skin surface.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figure(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, previously presented dependent claim 6 and/or figure(s) associated, do not recite or define the “reproducing the reflection characteristics of a reference object such as the EM reflection coefficient at a skin surface.” The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 6, and dependent claim 7, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 7 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “a through-hole in a conductive second layer forms a transparent zone for an externally incident field impinging approximately orthogonally to the surface.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figure(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, previously presented dependent claim 7 and/or figure(s) associated, do not recite or define the “a through-hole in a conductive second layer forms a transparent zone for an externally incident field impinging approximately orthogonally to the surface.” The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 7, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 1 and previously dependent claim 6, are respectively maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claim 7 depends from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers, further corroborate and teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in claim 7 as previously recited.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the currently amended claim 8 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into one section. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which currently amended dependent claim 8 depends from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers, further corroborate and teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in currently amended claim 8. Therefore, the rejection(s) of currently amended dependent claim 8, and dependent claim 9, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 9 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies In response to applicant’s argument that Tan fails to teach, disclose, and/or suggest “where the phantom is specifically designed to reproduce those reflection characteristics at the skin (or tissue) surface”, arguing against references individually is discussed in MPEP § 2145(IV). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argues that Tan individually, does not teach all of the claim limitations. One cannot show non-obviousness by focusing on references individually. All of the limitations of previously presented claim 9 are disclosed in either Guraliuc, or Tan, and/or Bowers, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of previously presented dependent claim 9 as obvious over Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which previously presented dependent claim 9 depends from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers, further corroborate and teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in previously presented dependent claim 9. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 9, and dependent claim 9, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 10 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into three sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to highlight the phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed frequency-selective layer, positioned orthogonal to the incident field and configured to make the phantom reflective at f1 and transparent at f2 for waves passing through the structure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figure(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, previously presented dependent claim 10 and/or figure(s) associated, do not recite or define the “…positioned orthogonal to the incident field…”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 10, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 1 and previously presented dependent claim 4, are respectively maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that Tan fails to teach, disclose, and/or suggest “the claimed frequency-selective layer, positioned orthogonal to the incident field and configured to make the phantom reflective at f1 and transparent at f2 for waves passing through the structure”, arguing against references individually is discussed in MPEP § 2145(IV). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argues that Tan individually, does not teach all of the claim limitations. One cannot show non-obviousness by focusing on references individually. All of the limitations of previously presented claim 10 are disclosed in either Guraliuc, or Tan, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of previously presented dependent claim 10 as obvious over Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which previously presented dependent claim 10 depends from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers, further corroborate and teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in previously presented dependent claim 10.
In response to applicant’s argument that Tan teaches away from the limitations in previously presented dependent claim 10, the examiner further recognizes that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 10, which depends from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1 and previously presented dependent claim 4, are respectively maintained
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-11 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 11 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama et al. (EP 1326070 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 07, 2007, hereinafter, Iyama). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claims 11-14 depend from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Iyama, and further in view of Bowers, further teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in claims 11-14 as previously recited. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 11, and dependent claims 12-14, are respectively maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that Iyama fails to teach, disclose, and/or suggest “a dielectric layer” and ““unit structures” within one phantom nor teaches designing a phantom to provide locally varying electromagnetic responses along its surface”, arguing against references individually is discussed in MPEP § 2145(IV). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argues that Iyama individually, does not teach all of the claim limitations. One cannot show non-obviousness by focusing on references individually. All of the limitations of previously presented claim 11 are disclosed in either Guraliuc, or Iyama, or Bowers, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of previously presented dependent claim 11, and dependent claims 12-14, as obvious over Guraliuc, in view of Tan, and further in view of Bowers is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the currently amended claim 12 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama et al. (EP 1326070 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 07, 2007, hereinafter, Iyama). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). In response to applicant’s argument that Iyama fails to teach, disclose, and/or suggest “size, shape and composition of the layers forming each unit structure, and/or the distance between two adjacent unit structures”, arguing against references individually is discussed in MPEP § 2145(IV). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argues that Iyama individually, does not teach the above stated claim limitation, yet the limitation(s) in this claim further state(s) “and/or the distance between two adjacent unit structures…”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. One cannot show non-obviousness by focusing on references individually. All of the limitations of currently amended claim 12 are disclosed in either Guraliuc, or Iyama, or Bowers, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection(s) of currently amended dependent claim 12, and dependent claims 13-14, as obvious over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama, and further in view of Bowers, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claims 11-14 depend from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Iyama, and further in view of Bowers, further teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in claims 11-14 as previously recited/amended. Therefore, the rejection(s) of currently amended dependent claim 12, and dependent claims 13-14, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the currently amended claim 13 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama et al. (EP 1326070 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 07, 2007, hereinafter, Iyama). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into four sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). In response to applicant's argument that Iyama is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as stated above, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claims 11-14 depend from, prior art references Guraliuc, in view of Iyama, and in light of the amendments, further in view of Bowers, further teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in claims 11-14 as previously recited.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argues that Iyama individually, does not teach the above stated claim limitation, yet the limitation(s) in this claim further state(s) “and/or the distance between two adjacent unit structures…”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. One cannot show non-obviousness by focusing on references individually. In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which dependent claims 11-14 depend from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Iyama, and further in view of Bowers, further teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in dependent claims 11-14 as previously recited.
In response to applicant’s argument that Iyama teaches away from the limitations in previously presented dependent claim 11-14, the examiner further recognizes that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, the rejection(s) of currently amended dependent claim 13, and dependent claim 14, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented claim 14 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama et al. (EP 1326070 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 07, 2007, hereinafter, Iyama). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to highlight the phantom’s argument(s). The Examiner appreciates the explanation and the evidence provided; however, it is noted that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “the spacers do not contribute to or modify the reflection from the phantom surface, and their number or thickness does not change the phantom’s reflection characteristics”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) or figure(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Currently, previously presented dependent claim 14 and/or figure(s) associated, do not recite or define the “the spacers do not contribute to or modify the reflection from the phantom surface, and their number or thickness does not change the phantom’s reflection characteristics”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 14, which depends from and incorporates the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that Iyama fails to teach, disclose, and/or suggest “the spacers do not contribute to or modify the reflection from the phantom surface, and their number or thickness does not change the phantom’s reflection characteristics”, arguing against references individually is discussed in MPEP § 2145(IV). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references and instead only argues that Iyama individually, does not teach the above stated claim limitation, yet the limitation(s) in this claim further state(s) “and/or the curvature of the upper surface of the unit structure, or an effective complex…”. The Applicant may believe that their terminology defines the phantom device arrangement as described above, but when the claims are examined, they are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. One cannot show non-obviousness by focusing on references individually. All of the limitations of previously presented claim 14 are disclosed in either Guraliuc, or Iyama, or Bowers, and the combination of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of previously presented dependent claim 14, as obvious over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama, and further in view of Bowers is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 12-14 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 12, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action do not teach the previously presented dependent claim 18 limitations, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Podhajsky et al. (US 2011/0299719 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 08, 2011, hereinafter, Podhajsky). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into one section. The first part the Examiner would like to highlight is regarding, phantom’s argument(s). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the immediate case of this application, in light of the amendment(s) to independent claim 1, which previously presented dependent claim 18 depends from, prior art references, Guraliuc, in view of Podhajsky, and further in view of Bowers, further teach, disclose, and/or suggest the limitations in previously presented dependent claim 18 as previously recited. Therefore, the rejection(s) of previously presented dependent claim 18, is respectively maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, “the at least one first layer or attached to the bottom surface of the at least one first layer”, in ll. 4-5, should read “the at least one first dielectric layer or attached to the bottom surface of the at least one first dielectric layer”.
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 1-18 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 limitations “the frequency range of…” in line 4, “a bottom surface opposite to the upper surface” in line 10, and “the electromagnetic waves emitted by the source” in ll. 11-12, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a frequency range of…”, “a bottom surface opposite to an upper surface”, and “the electromagnetic waves emitted by the EM source. Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of dependance to amended independent claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "at least the absolute value of the complex reflection coefficient from the surface…at least for the case of the normal…" in ll. 3-4, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “at least absolute value of a complex reflection coefficient from a surface…at least for a case of the normal…”.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the penetration depth…into the medium…” in ll. 2-3, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a penetration depth…into a medium…”.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the absolute value of the reflection coefficient from the surface…” in ll. 4-5, “at the interface…” in line 6, and “into the total reflection coefficient…” in line 7, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “the absolute value of a reflection coefficient from a surface…”, “at an interface…”, and “into a total reflection coefficient…”. Claims 5 & 8-10 are rejected by virtue of dependance to dependent claim 4, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the medium of the second layer…” in ll. 2-3, “the absolute value of the complex reflection coefficient…” in ll. 4-5, and “while remaining at least partly transparent to the incident EM wave.” in ll. 5-6, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a medium of a second layer…”, “the absolute value of a complex reflection coefficient…”, and “while remaining at least partly transparent to an incident EM wave.”
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the volume ratio…” in line 5, “at the interface…” in line 7, and “into the total reflection coefficient…” in line 8, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a volume ratio…”, “at the interface…”, and “into a total reflection coefficient…”. Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of dependance to dependent claim 6, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the penetration depth…” in line 3, “the total surface…” in line 6, “the length…” in line 8, “the wavelength…” in line 8, and “the medium” in line 9, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a penetration depth…”, “a total surface…”, “a length…”, “a wavelength…”, and “a medium…” or “the electromagnetic lossy medium”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least two different values…” in line 2, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this limitation to read as “at least two different values…”. Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependance to dependent claim 8, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the thickness…” in line 1, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this limitation to read as “a thickness…”.
Claims 12-13 recite the limitations "wherein the size, the shape and the composition of the layers…” in ll. 1-2, and “and/or the distance between…” in line. 1, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “wherein a size, a shape and a composition of the first and second dielectric layers…” and “and/or a distance between…”.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the total thickness of the unit structure and/or the curvature of the upper surface…” in ll. 2-3, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a total thickness of the unit structure and/or a curvature of the upper surface …”.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "a phantom device of claim 1…said unit structure being at least partly transparent to the EM wave…through the whole unit…” in ll. 4-7, “through the upper surface” in ll. 11-12, and “analyze the signal transmitted…” in 13, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis and indefiniteness for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to read as “a phantom device of claim 1…said unit structure being at least partly transparent to an EM wave…through a whole unit…”, “through an upper surface…” or could also be read/interpreted as “through the upper surface face”, and “analyze a signal transmitted…”. The indefiniteness results from the claim language initially referring to “a phantom device of claim 1…”, for examination purposes, examiner interprets this limitation to read as “the phantom device of claim 1…”. Claims 16-18 are rejected by virtue of dependance to amended dependent claim 15, which do not rectify the defect.
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 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc et al. (“Solid Phantom for Body-Centric Propagation Measurements at 60 GHz,” in IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1373-1380, June 2014, hereinafter Guraliuc), in view of Bowers et al. (US 2012/0019432 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 26, 2012, hereinafter, Bowers).
Regarding independent claim 1, Guraliuc, teaches:
A phantom device for reproducing at least one electromagnetic (EM) characteristic of a reference object made of an electromagnetic lossy medium, in particular a biological tissue ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]: discloses a skin-equivalent (biological tissue) phantom designed to reproduce an EM characteristic (reflection coefficient) of a lossy medium (the human body)), when illuminated by an EM wave with a predetermined frequency f1 emitted by an EM source ([Title], [Pg. 1, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. I]), said predetermined frequency f1 being in the frequency range of 1 GHz to 10 THz ([Title], [Pg. 1, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. I]: discloses operation at a predetermined frequency of 60 GHz, falls within the claimed range, and matches the preferred range of 6-300 GHz), preferably between 6 GHz and 300 GHz ([Title], [Pg. 1, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. I]), and comprising:
at least one first dielectric layer comprising an upper surface face to the electromagnetic source and a bottom surface opposite to the upper surface (Fig. 4a; [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-B], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D] & [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D]: discloses a dielectric layer (Carbon-PDMS) with an upper surface (air interface) and a bottom surface (metal backing),
said upper surface being at least partly transparent to the electromagnetic waves emitted by the source ([Abstract], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-B], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D] & [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D]: discloses an upper surface (air/phantom interface) that admits EM waves (partly transparent/partly reflecting), teaches a first dielectric layer (the carbon-PDMS composite sheet), the upper surface (air/phantom interface) is partly transparent because EM waves penetrate it to be absorbed/reflected by the underlying layers (matching the ~40% reflection coefficient of skin, meaning ~60% transmits through the top surface));
said bottom surface being at least partly reflecting for the electromagnetic waves transmitted through the first dielectric layer (Disclosed in combination: Guraliuc: [Abstract], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C]: discloses a bottom surface that is an aluminum foil tape which is fully reflective, which satisfies the “at least partially reflecting” limitation; Bowers: Fig. 1; [0035], [0040], [0098], [0102]-[0104], [0109], [0116], [0125], [0137], [Claim 141], [Claim 144] & [Claim 359]: discloses a “partially reflecting layer”);
said at least one first dielectric layer characterized by an effective complex dielectric permittivity of its bulk material ε*1 = ε’1 – jε”1 having an absolute value in a range between 3 and 40 ([Pg. 3, Table II], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]: discloses a dielectric layer with a complex permittivity absolute value of approximately 11.9, which is between 3 and 40, given the complex permittivity ε’ = εr = 11.68 – j * 2.92 has a magnitude (sqrt(11.68^2 +2.92^2)) of approximately 12.04 and tan σ = 0.25, and ε” = ε’ x tan σ = 11.26 * 0.25 = 2.9, these values fall perfectly within the range of 3 and 40);
said at least one first dielectric layer further characterized by a thickness T1 selected to reproduce the at least one electromagnetic characteristics of the reference object for a combination of the effective complex dielectric permittivity and the thickness T1 ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]: discloses selecting a specific thickness (1.3 mm) is selected and optimized in combination with the lossy PDMS sheet’s permittivity to reproduce the EM characteristic (reflection coefficient) of the reference object (human skin)).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
said phantom device comprising at least one unit structure, said unit structure being at least partly transparent to the EM wave at the predetermined frequency f1 to provide at least partial transmission of the incident EM wave through the whole unit,
However, Bowers, further teaches:
said phantom device comprising at least one unit structure, said unit structure being at least partly transparent to the EM wave at the predetermined frequency f1 to provide at least partial transmission of the incident EM wave through the whole unit (Figs. 1 & 10 Box 1020; [Abstract], [0043], [0067], [0083], [0120], [0129], [Claim 121], [Claim 129], [0144], & [Claim 337]: teaches a solid block unit blocks/stacks that are designed to at least partially transmit EM waves through the whole unit using partially reflecting layers),
PNG
media_image2.png
554
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
587
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is recognized that the citation and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Additionally, doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Both Guraliuc and Bowers are in the same field of endeavor: the engineering and manipulation of dielectric layers to control the reflection, transmission, and absorption of electromagnetic (EM) waves at microwave and millimeter-wave frequencies. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the solid, fully reflective aluminum backing of Guraliuc’s phantom with the partially reflecting layer taught by Bowers for the following reasons: to enable backside signal measurement and to simulate thinner or transmissive tissue layers. Modifying Guraliuc’s backing to be partially transmissive as taught by Bowers allows a sensor to be placed behind the phantom to measure wave propagation through the device. Further, a POSITA would be motivated to replace a fully reflecting metal layer with a partially reflecting layer to accurately model the partial transmission of EM waves through thinner appendages. The substitution of one known reflective boundary (solid aluminum tape) for another known reflective boundary (a partially reflective EM layer) is a simple substitution of known elements. A POSITA would recognize that replacing the fully opaque backing of Guraliuc with the partially transmissive layer of Bowers would yield the predictable result (KSR) of allowing a portion of the EM wave to transmit through the entire phantom block while maintaining a matched reflection coefficient at the front interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phantom device of Guraliuc by incorporating the partially reflecting and transmitting layer of Bowers to create a unit structure that is at least partly transparent to the incident EM wave through the whole unit, in order to facilitate backside signal detection and better simulate the transmissive properties of biological tissues.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 1 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), wherein the reference object representing a human tissue ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]: discloses that the phantom device is designed to represent human tissue, specifically skin), the complex dielectric permittivity ε*1 and the thickness T1 of the first dielectric layer are jointly selected so as to reproduce at least the absolute value of the complex reflection coefficient from the surface of the reference object ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]: teaches that both the complex dielectric permittivity (composite properties) and the layer thickness (1.3 mm) are jointly optimized/selected to reproduce the reflection coefficient of the reference object (skin)) at least for the case of the normal incidence of the EM wave (Figs. 3a/b & 5; [Pg. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-B], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]: evaluates and matches the reflection coefficient for normal incidence (Angle of Incidence = 0 degrees, Fig. 3A illustrates plots matching the reflection coefficient at normal incidence (0 degrees)), said absolute value being in the range of 0.40 - 0.75 at the frequency f1 (Fig. 3A; [Abstract], [Pg. 3, Sec. III], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]: discloses an absolute reflection coefficient value (approximately 0.63, calculated as √0.40) falling within the claimed range) in the frequency range of 6 GHz to 300 GHz ([Title], [Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 1 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), wherein the at least one first dielectric layer further has the thickness T1 smaller or equal to the penetration depth of the EM wave into the medium of said first dielectric layer (Figs. 1A, 3A, & 3B; [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C], [Pg. 3, Table II], & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-B]: discloses a dielectric layer (Carbon-PDMS) with a thickness (1.3 mm) that is smaller than the calculated penetration depth of the material (approximately 1.8 mm), given ε’ = εr = 11.68 and tan σ = 0.25, and ε” = ε’ x tan σ = 11.68 * 0.25 = 2.92, using properties provided in Table II for the 40% Carbon-PDMS at 60 GHz, Penetration Depth (σp) ≈ c/2πf √ε’/2 (√1+tan2σ -1), with values (ε’ ≈ 11.68, tan σ ≈ 0.25): σp ≈ 1.8 mm, where the disclosed thickness T1 = 1.3 mm is smaller than the penetration depth σp ≈ 1.8 mm) and is at least partly transparent to the EM wave at frequency f1 emitted by the EM source ([Abstract], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C], [Pg. 3, Table II], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: discloses that the dielectric layer is partly transparent, allowing the wave to transmit through the backing).
PNG
media_image4.png
301
447
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
644
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 15, Guraliuc, teaches:
A dosimetry system for measuring an electromagnetic dosimetry quantity related to an electromagnetic field emitted by an electromagnetic source ([Title], [Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]), the dosimetry system comprising ([Abstract], [Page 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D] & [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D]: acknowledges that phantoms are used in systems to quantify EM exposure levels and SAR (dosimetry quantities), implements a measurement system using a VNA and antennas to measure the physical quantities):
at least one sensor attached to or arranged beneath the bottom surface (Fig. 2; [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D] & [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D]: teaches a receiving “Horn WR-15” antenna (a sensor) arranged beneath/behind the sample to receive and measure the EM wave that successfully transmits through the material, Fig. 2 illustrates a “sample holder” containing the phantom, placed between two “Horn WR-15” antennas, one horn acts as the source, and the other is arranged beneath/behind the phantom to receive the signal transmitted through it, the receiving horn acts as the sensor measuring the EM wave exiting the bottom/back surface of the phantom) and configured to measure a physical quantity related to the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the upper surface (Fig. 10; [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: discloses measuring physical quantities (dielectric properties, S-parameters) related to the transmitted wave, the system measures the wave transmitted through the phantom to calculate these quantities);
a signal analyzing unit configured to analyze the signal transmitted from the at least one sensor ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: utilizes a Vectron Network Analyzer (VNA) acting as the signal analyzing unit that evaluates the transmitted S-parameters (e.g., S21), connected to the receiving sensor),
a processing unit configured to calculate the electromagnetic dosimetry quantities from the signal ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A], [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A], [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-B], [Pg. 6, Sec. IV-B] & [Pg. 6, Sec. V]: discloses a processing unit (part of the VNA or connected computer) that calculates the quantities, the VNA inherently contains a processing unit and memory to store calibration data, perform averaging, and calculate derived complex quantities (e.g., determining complex permittivity and reflection coefficients from raw sensor voltage signals)) and a memory unit ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: inherently discloses a memory unit within the VNA/computer system used to store measurement data, standard VNAs like the Rohde & Schwarz ZVA67 mentioned, include memory to store calibration coefficients, “averaging is performed during the calibration” and measurement results, as evidenced by the stored data points presented in Tables II, III, and Figs. 3-12).
PNG
media_image6.png
389
885
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
607
873
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
a phantom device of claim 1, comprising at least one unit structure, said unit structure being at least partly transparent to the EM wave emitted by the electromagnetic source at the predetermined frequency f1 to provide at least partial transmission of the incident EM wave through the whole unit, an upper surface face to the electromagnetic source and a bottom surface;
However, Guraliuc, in combination with Bowers, further teach:
a phantom device of claim 1, comprising at least one unit structure, said unit structure being at least partly transparent to the EM wave emitted by the electromagnetic source at the predetermined frequency f1 to provide at least partial transmission of the incident EM wave through the whole unit, an upper surface face to the electromagnetic source and a bottom surface (Disclosed in Combination: Guraliuc: Figs. 2 & 7; [Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D] & [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D]: teaches the base phantom device with upper and bottom surfaces; Bowers: Figs. 1 & 10 Box 1020; [Abstract], [0043], [0067], [0083], [0120], [0129], [Claim 121], [Claim 129], [0144], & [Claim 337]: Bowers is applied to modify the unit structure of Guraliuc with a partially reflecting layer to allow “at least partial transmission…through the whole unit”);
PNG
media_image8.png
694
891
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It is recognized that the citation and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Additionally, doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the solid, fully reflective aluminum backing of Guraliuc’s phantom with the partially reflecting and transmitting layer taught by Bowers, and integrate the transmission measurement setup disclosed by Guraliuc ( the receiving horn antenna and VNA), to create a dosimetry system, according to known methods. The rationale is to enable real-time measurements to the EM penetrating the tissue-equivalent phantom. Guraliuc demonstrates that placing a receiving sensor (horn antenna) behind the dielectric material to feed a signal analyzer (VNA) is a known and highly effective technique for calculating EM wave propagation and derived quantities. Applying this known measurement arrangement to a fully assembled phantom incorporating Bower’s partial transmission layer yield the predictable result (KSR) of a complete dosimetry system capable of monitoring backend wave penetration.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Guraliuc, teaches:
The dosimetry system of claim 15 ([Title], [Abstract], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]), wherein the at least one sensor comprises an electromagnetic sensor ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: discloses using receiving antennas (horns or waveguides) connected to the VNA, which function as electromagnetic sensors to detect the electromagnetic field properties (magnitude/phase)) operating at a frequency of the electromagnetic source ([Abstract], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: discloses that the sensors (receiving waveguides) operate at the same frequency (60 GHz band) as the source (transmitting waveguide)).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Guraliuc, teaches:
The dosimetry system of claim 15 ([Title], [Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg.4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]), wherein the at least one sensor comprises an electromagnetic sensor ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]) operating at a frequency different from that of the electromagnetic source, the device further comprising a frequency converter element ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 4, Sec. IV-A] & [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-A]: discloses the use of a Millimeter-wave Vector Network Analyzer (MVNA) like the ABmm or ZVA67, typically employ frequency converter elements (harmonic mixers or samples) located in the receiver modules (sensors) to down-convert the received 60 GHz RF signal (source frequency) to a lower Intermediate Frequency (IF) for processing (inherently uses frequency conversion)).
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Tan et al. (WO 2009/078814 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 25, 2009, hereinafter Tan), and further in view of Bowers.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 1 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), further comprising at least one second layer ([Pg. 2, Table I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-B] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C]: teaches a structure with two layers: the lossy composite (first layer) and a backing (second layer)), the first dielectric layer being positioned on the at least one second layer (Fig. 1B; [Abstract]: teaches the positioning of the first layer on the second layer, Fig. 1B shows the Carbon-PDMS composite (first layer) being peeled back/positioned on the aluminum foil (second layer)), said first dielectric layer and said second dielectric layer jointly configured to reproduce at least the absolute value of the reflection coefficient from the surface of the reference object (Fig. 5; [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 3, Sec. III], [Pg. 5, Sec. IV-B] & [Pg. 6, Sec. IV-B]: teaches configuring the first layer (thickness/permittivity) and the second layer (backing) to reproduce the reference object’s reflection coefficient, Fig. 5 shows the power reflection coefficient at the air/DMBP interface), with a relative contribution of a portion of the EM wave reflected from the bottom surface, at the interface between the first layer and the second layer, into the total reflection coefficient from the upper surface of the phantom device constituting at least 5% ([Pg. 4, Sec. III-B]: teaches a design where the reflection relies on the wave traveling to the bottom surface and reflecting back (short circuit model), contributing significantly (>5%) to the total reflection, the reflection is calculated using a transmission line model terminated in a short circuit (the second layer), the total reflection Γ is a function of Z(h), that depends on the wave propagating through the first layer heigh h and reflecting off the second layer).
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
said at least one second layer being made of a dielectric material,
However, Tan, further teaches:
said at least one second layer being made of a dielectric material (Figs. 9 & 11; [Abstract], [Pg. 5, ll. 25-29], [Pg. 14, ll. 16-22], [Pg. 15, ll. 2-11] & [Pg. 18, ll. 5-20]: teaches using a dielectric material (absorber, air, or second dielectric strip) as the second layer/backing for layered media test objects where the layers are dielectrics, further teaches that the underlying second layer (tissue) possesses its own distinct dielectric properties (complex permittivity), making it a dielectric material),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate said at least one second layer being made of a dielectric material, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom by substituting the metallic second layer with a dielectric second layer (such as the absorbers or secondary layers taught by Tan). To improve and more accurately simulate the internal dielectric contrast of the human body (e.g., skin-to-fat interface) rather than a skin-to-metal interface, or to allow for transmission measurements as taught by Tan, retaining Guraliuc’s configuration method (optimizing thickness/permittivity) to maintain the target surface reflection coefficient. Determining the exact percentage to meet the match is a matter of routine optimization, arriving to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 4 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), said first dielectric layer and said second dielectric layer being jointly configured to reproduce the absolute value of the complex reflection coefficient from the surface of the reference object ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 3, Sec. III], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]: teaches configuring layers (composite thickness and backing) to reproduce the reflection coefficient),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
wherein the second layer has a thickness T2 selected such that the penetration depth of the electromagnetic wave into the medium of the second layer is at least equal to the thickness of said second layer, while remaining at least partly transparent to the incident EM wave.
However, Tan, further teaches:
wherein the second layer has a thickness T2 selected such that the penetration depth of the electromagnetic wave into the medium of the second layer is at least equal to the thickness of said second layer ([Pg. 18, ll. 5-12], [Pg. 21, ll. 6-11]: teaches layered structures (phantom/tissue) where the penetration depth (skin depth) is larger than the thickness layers, allowing the wave to pass through), while remaining at least partly transparent to the incident EM wave ([Pg. 5, ll. 25-29], [Pg. 7, ll. 11-14], [Pg. 15, ll. 2-11]: teaches modifying phantoms/media to be transparent (dielectric) to allow transmission requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second layer has a thickness T2 selected such that the penetration depth of the electromagnetic wave into the medium of the second layer is at least equal to the thickness of said second layer, while remaining at least partly transparent to the incident EM wave, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom by substituting the metallic second layer with a dielectric second layer (such as the absorbers or secondary layers taught by Tan). To improve and more accurately render the device “at least partly transparent” to allow for transmission measurements, as taught by Tan’s use of S21 parameters, and to more accurately simulate the human body where skin is backed by other tissues (fat/muscle) rather than a skin-to-metal interface, ensuring the penetration depth exceeds the layer thickness as taught by Tan, arriving to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 1 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), further comprising at least one second layer ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-A] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C]: teaches a structure comprising two layers: the lossy composite (first layer) and a backing (second layer)), the first dielectric layer being positioned on the at least one second layer (Fig. 1B; [Abstract]: teaches the positioning of the first layer on the second layer, Fig. 1B shows the Carbon-PDMS composite (first layer) being peeled back/positioned on the aluminum foil (second layer)), said at least one second layer is made of a composite medium, comprising a first fraction made of a conductive material having an electric conductivity σ2 equal at least 102 s/m ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-B], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C] & [Pg. 3, Table II]: discloses a second layer made of aluminum foil, which is a conductive material with conductivity σ2 equal at least 102 s/m, where aluminum conductivity is approx.. 3.5 X107 s/m) being selected in a range between 10% and 90% ([Pg. 3, Table II]: teaches varying the fraction of carbon powder (conductive material) in the first layer) to provide a relative contribution of a portion of the EM wave reflected from the bottom surface, at the interface between the first layer and the second layer, into the total reflection coefficient from the upper surface of the phantom device constituting at least 5% ([Pg. 4, Sec. III-B]: teaches a design where the reflection relies on the wave traveling to the bottom surface and reflecting back (short circuit model) contributing to the total reflection, where the reflection is calculated using a transmission line model terminated in a short circuit (second layer), the total reflection Γ is a function of Z(h), that depends on the wave propagating through the first layer heigh h and reflecting off the second layer).
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
and a second fraction made of a dielectric material, the volume ratio between the first fraction and the second fraction
However, Tan, further teaches:
and a second fraction made of a dielectric material, the volume ratio between the first fraction and the second fraction ([Pg. 11, ll. 14-26] & [Pg. 15, ll. 13-14]: teaches varying the composition of layers using “absorbers” (composites) to tune properties)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second fraction made of a dielectric material, the volume ratio between the first fraction and the second fraction, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s second layer (aluminum foil) by replacing it with a composite medium containing a conductive fraction and a second fraction (e.g., a lossy dielectric or absorber as taught by Tan) or to configure the second layer as a compositive to fine-tune the reflection properties. To improve and more accurately model the complex internal structure of the body (e.g., tissues with more water content or conductivity) rather than a simple conductor backing, or to adjust the relative contribution of the bottom reflection to a specific percentage (5%) for precise calibration, as Guraliuc emphasizes optimizing parameters for accurate reflection matching. The specific conductivity range (102 S/m) and fractions (10%-90%) are design choices that a POSITA would select based on the target tissue properties (e.g., muscle vs. fat) and the desired total reflection coefficient, as taught by Tan’s discussion of detecting dielectric contrasts, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 6 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), wherein the at least one second layer is made of a conductive material, characterized by the electrical conductivity at least equal to 102 S/m ([Pg. 2, Sec. II-A] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C]: teaches a second layer made of aluminum foil, a highly conductive material (σ ≈ 3.5 x 107 S/m, which is > 102 S/m)), with a thickness T2 being larger than the penetration depth of the EM wave into said conductive material ([Pg. 2, Sec. II], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-B] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C]: uses aluminum foil, the skin depth (penetration depth) of aluminum at 60 GHz is approximately 0.3 µm, standard aluminum foil tape is typically 10-20 µm or thicker, which is larger than the penetration depth),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
said second layer further comprising at least one through hole forming a transparent zone for the EM wave, said at least one through hole having a surface area in the range of 10 to 90% of the total surface of the unit structure and being filled in with a dielectric medium, said at least one through hole having an arbitrary shape in xy-plane aligned with the bottom surface, defined by a contour line with the length at least equal to a half of the wavelength of the EM wave in the dielectric medium filling the at least one through hole or in the medium of the first layer.
However, Tan, further teaches:
said second layer further comprising at least one through hole forming a transparent zone for the EM wave (Fig. 29; [Pg. 10, ll. 5] & [Pg. 12, ll. 13-15]: teaches modifying conductive plates with through holes (slots) which create zones where the metal is absent (transparent to the wave)), said at least one through hole having a surface area in the range of 10 to 90% of the total surface of the unit structure ([Pg. 12, ll. 10-13]: teaches varying the dimensions of dielectric and conductive regions to achieve desired propagation properties) and being filled in with a dielectric medium ([Pg. 11, ll. 9-21]: teaches filling openings/spaces in the conductive structure with dielectric material), said at least one through hole having an arbitrary shape in xy-plane aligned with the bottom surface, defined by a contour line with the length at least equal to a half of the wavelength of the EM wave in the dielectric medium filling the at least one through hole or in the medium of the first layer (Fig. 29; [Pg. 11, ll. 9-21] & [Pg. 12, ll. 10-15]: teaches dimensioning slots/spaces based on the wavelength, slotted line slots are typically longitudinal and have lengths related to λ (often > λ/2 or multiple λ) to allow effective coupling or measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate said second layer further comprising at least one through hole forming a transparent zone for the EM wave, said at least one through hole having a surface area in the range of 10 to 90% of the total surface of the unit structure and being filled in with a dielectric medium, said at least one through hole having an arbitrary shape in xy-plane aligned with the bottom surface, defined by a contour line with the length at least equal to a half of the wavelength of the EM wave in the dielectric medium filling the at least one through hole or in the medium of the first layer, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom device by introducing at least one through hole (slot) in the conductive second layer (aluminum foil), as taught by Tan, and filling it with a dielectric material, that would create a transparent zone to allow for transmission measurements (S21) or to filter specific propagation modes, as taught by Tan. While maintaining the conductive backing for the majority of the surface to reproduce the required reflection coefficient (S11), and the specific dimensions (area, thickness, contour length), which would be design choices optimized by a POSITA based on the operating wavelength and desired transparency ratio, using the wavelength-dependent scaling taught by Tan, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 4 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), wherein the first layer and the second layer are jointly configured to reproduce the at least two different values of the at least one EM characteristic of a reference object (Fig. 6; [Pg. 3, Sec. III], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A], & [Pg. 3, Sec. III-B]: teaches configuring the first layer (thickness/permittivity) and second layer (backing) to match the reflection coefficient (EM characteristic) across a frequency band where the value changes, Fig. 6 illustrates the reflection coefficient varies with frequency (58, 60, 63 GHz) and the phantom tracks the changes) said two sub-ranges within the frequency range of 6 GHz to 300 GHz ([Title] & [Abstract]: operates primarily at 60 GHz which is within 6 GHz - 300 GHz).
PNG
media_image9.png
549
863
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
when illuminated by two different EM waves, a first EM wave with a frequency f1 within a first frequency subrange and a second EM wave with a frequency f2 within a second frequency sub-range,
However, Tan, further teaches:
when illuminated by two different EM waves (Fig. 16; [Pg. 9, ll. 9-10] & [Pg. 19, ll. 20-23]: teaches measuring distinct values at difference frequencies to characterize the object), a first EM wave with a frequency f1 within a first frequency subrange and a second EM wave with a frequency f2 within a second frequency sub-range (Fig. 16; [Pg. 9, ll. 9-10], [Pg. 15, ll. 24-30], [Pg. 19, ll. 20-23], [Pg. 21, ll. 28-30]: teaches using multiple frequencies or a frequency scan to obtain different responses, where f1 = 3.9 GHz and f2 = 6 GHz, which are distinct frequencies within sub-ranges of the operation band),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate when illuminated by two different EM waves, a first EM wave with a frequency f1 within a first frequency subrange and a second EM wave with a frequency f2 within a second frequency sub-range, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom configuration (jointly configuring layers) to reproduce at least two different values of the EM characteristic at two different frequencies (f1,f2) within the claimed range (6 GHz to 300 GHz). This would create an improved phantom that accurately simulates the frequency-dependent behavior (dispersion) of biological tissues over a wider band, or to simulate a specific resonant phenomena (tumors) as taught by Tan, where the phantom would exhibit distinct reflection coefficients at different frequencies (resonances) to serve as a valid test subject for the broadband or multi-frequency diagnostic systems described by Tan, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 8 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A]), and simultaneously being at least equal to the penetration depth of the second EM wave with the frequency f2 ([Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. 1], [Pg. 3, Sec. III-A], [Pg. 4, Sec. III-A] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-B]: teaches operating at a higher frequency f2 (e.g., 60 GHz) where the penetration depth is very small, and the layer thickness is selected to be at least equal to this depth, at f2 (60 GHz), the thickness (1.3 mm) is at least equal to (greater than) the penetration depth (0.5 mm)).
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
wherein the thickness of the first dielectric layer is smaller than the penetration depth of the first EM wave with the frequency f1,
However, Tan, further teaches:
wherein the thickness of the first dielectric layer is smaller than the penetration depth of the first EM wave with the frequency f1 ([Pg. 18, ll. 5-12] & [Pg. 21, ll. 6-11]: teaches operating at a frequency f1 (e.g., 1-10 GHz) where the layer thickness (2mm) is smaller than the penetrating depth (‘few centimeters”), allowing the wave to penetrate),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thickness of the first dielectric layer is smaller than the penetration depth of the first EM wave with the frequency f1, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom device to function across a broader frequency range or dual bands by selecting the first dielectric layer’s thickness to be intermediate, thinner than the penetration depth at a lower frequency f1 to allow transmission/penetration as taught by Tan, but thicker than or equal to the penetration depth at a higher frequency f2, to simulate the reflection/shielding of skin as taught by Guraliuc. In order to improve the phantom device to accurately reproduce the frequency-dependent transmission and reflection characteristics of human skin, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 4 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]), being reflecting for a first incident electromagnetic wave at a first frequency f1 ([Abstract] & [Pg. 4, Sec. III-B]: teaches the backing is reflecting at the operating frequency f1) the frequency selective layer being embedded in the at least one first layer or attached to the bottom surface of the at least one first layer (Fig. 1B; [Pg. 2, Sec. II-C] & [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D]: teaches the backing layer is attached to the bottom surface, Fig. 1B illustrates the backing attached to the bottom/back of the composite).
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
further comprising a frequency selective layer and being transparent to a second incident electromagnetic wave at a second frequency f2,
However, Tan, further teaches:
further comprising a frequency selective layer ([Pg. 12, ll. 10-15]: teaches modifying conductive layers to be frequency/mode selective using slots) and being transparent to a second incident electromagnetic wave at a second frequency f2 ([Pg. 7, ll. 11-14], [Pg. 15, ll. 24-30], [Pg. 19, ll. 20-23]: teaches measuring transmission (S21) at different frequencies (f2), which requires transparency),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a frequency selective layer and being transparent to a second incident electromagnetic wave at a second frequency f2, of Tan to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom device by replacing the solid aluminum backing with a frequency selective layer (e.g., a slotted plate or grid, as suggested by Tan’s use of slots and frequency-dependent transmission measurements). In order to improve and create a phantom device that reflects at a first frequency f1, to simulate the skin’s reflection as taught by Guraliuc, while becoming transparent at a second frequency f2, to allow for the transmission/S21 measurements or telemetry described by Tan, enabling the multi-parameter characterization (S11 and S21) of the device under test without removing the phantom, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Iyama et al. (EP 1326070 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 07, 2003, hereinafter Iyama), and further in view of Bowers.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 1 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I], & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
comprising a plurality of unit structures for reproducing locally variable electromagnetic response of the reference object, each unit structure being configured to reproduce the at least one electromagnetic characteristic from a portion of the surface of the reference object.
However, Iyama, further teaches:
comprising a plurality of unit structures for reproducing locally variable electromagnetic response of the reference object (Fig. 28; [Col. 6, ll. 36-42], [0039] & [0051]: teaches a device comprising a plurality of unit structures (phantoms arranged in an array) to capture variable responses), each unit structure being configured to reproduce the at least one electromagnetic characteristic from a portion of the surface of the reference object ([0051]: teaches that each unit in the plurality corresponds to a different position/portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of unit structures for reproducing locally variable electromagnetic response of the reference object, each unit structure being configured to reproduce the at least one electromagnetic characteristic from a portion of the surface of the reference object, of Iyama to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s homogenous phantom device by segmenting it into, or constructing it from, a plurality of unit structures arranged in an array as taught by Iyama. To improve and enable simultaneous characterization of different portions of the reference object surface, as taught by Iyama’s use of arrays to speed up measurement or capture configuration contributions, and create a locally variable response capability where individual unit structures in the array can be configured (e.g., positioned or shaped) to reproduce the specific EM characteristics (e.g., curvature or reflection) of different portions of the reference object. Providing a more accurate simulation of a complex, non-uniform human body than a single homogenous slab, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 11 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
wherein the size, the shape and the composition of the layers forming each unit structure, and/or the distance between two adjacent unit structures are selected to obtain a continuous variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom device.
However, Iyama, further teaches:
wherein the size, the shape and the composition of the layers forming each unit structure (Fig. 13; [Col. 5, ll. 25-26] & [0026]-[0027]: teaches modifying the size (thickness) and shape of the layers (spacers) forming the structure), and/or the distance between two adjacent unit structures ([0039], [0042]-[0043] & [0051]: teaches selecting the distance (spacing) between adjacent unit structures (probes/phantoms) in an array) are selected to obtain a continuous variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom device (Fig. 13; [Col. 5, ll. 25-26], [0026]-[0027] & [0039]: teaches selecting these parameters (shape/size/distance) to enable the determination of a continuous response (via interpolation or variable geometry) along the surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the size, the shape and the composition of the layers forming each unit structure, and/or the distance between two adjacent unit structures are selected to obtain a continuous variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom system, of Iyama to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s homogenous phantom device by incorporating the variable layer shapes (e.g., wedges) or array spacing configurations taught by Iyama. In order to obtain a “continuous variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface” of the phantom device, simulating more complex, non-uniform body parts (e.g., tapering limbs or varying tissue depths) more accurately than Guraliuc’s uniform flat/cylindrical models, or to facilitate the maximum value evaluation or interpolation of EM characteristics as taught by Iyama, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 11 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
wherein the size, the shape and the composition of the layers forming each unit structure and/or the distance between two adjacent unit cells are selected to obtain a discrete variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom system.
However, Iyama, further teaches:
wherein the size, the shape and the composition of the layers forming each unit structure (Fig. 12; [Col. 5, ll. 18-24] & [0025]: teaches selecting the size (thickness) and shape of the layers (spacers) forming the structure to vary the response), and/or the distance between two adjacent unit cells (Figs. 22 & 28; [0039], [0043] & [0051]: teaches selecting the distance (spacing) between adjacent unit cells (phantoms or probes in an array)) are selected to obtain a discrete variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom system ([0025] & [0039]: teaches selecting these parameters to obtain a discrete variation (intervals/steps) rather than a continuous one, selection of the spacing (S1,S2) creates a discrete sampling of the electromagnetic response along the surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the size, the shape and the composition of the layers forming each unit structure and/or the distance between two adjacent unit cells are selected to obtain a discrete variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom system, of Iyama to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s phantom device by organizing it into an array of unit structures with selected distances/spacings. Or by using discrete layers/spacers, as taught by Iyama, in order to obtain a discrete variation of the electromagnetic response along a surface of the phantom system (e.g., a sample or stepped response profile) to allow for efficient data collection at specific intervals without the need for continuous scanning, or to simulate discrete changes in tissue geometry as opposed to continuous gradients, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Guraliuc, teaches:
The phantom device of claim 11 ([Abstract], [Pg. 1, Sec. I], [Pg. 2, Sec. I] & [Pg. 2, Sec. II-A]),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
wherein each unit structure comprises a microelectromechanical switch configured to change the total thickness of the unit structure and/or the curvature of the upper surface of the unit structure, or an effective complex permittivity of the first layer or of the second layer.
However, Iyama, further teaches:
wherein each unit structure comprises a microelectromechanical switch ([0026]-[0027]: teaches unit structures (phantoms/spacers) with mechanisms to change properties specifically “slidable” wedge spacer or “detachable” layers) configured to change the total thickness of the unit structure (Fig. 13; [Col. 5, ll. 25-26] & [0025]-[0027]:teaches changing the total thickness using the spacer mechanism) and/or the curvature of the upper surface of the unit structure ([0005] & [0025]-[0027]:teaches simulating different configurations and curvatures), or an effective complex permittivity of the first layer or of the second layer ([0023]: teaches changing the effective material properties by swapping or moving layers, which changes the effective complex permittivity or impedance seen by the prove/wave).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate each unit structure comprises a microelectromechanical switch configured to change the total thickness of the unit structure and/or the curvature of the upper surface of the unit structure, or an effective complex permittivity of the first layer or of the second layer, of Iyama to Guraliuc, according to known methods. In order to attain, by replacing Iyama’s manual “slidable” or “detachable” spacer mechanisms with microelectromechanical switches (MEMS switches) to automate the change in “total thickness” or “curvature” (geometry), or to switch between layers of different dielectric properties, that would allow for a precise, rapid, and automated reconfiguration of the phantom’s properties (thickness, curvature, permittivity) during testing without manual intervention. Thus, enhancing the efficiency of the “scan” and “measurement” processes described in both prior art references, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guraliuc, in view of Podhajsky et al. (US 2011/0299719 A1, Pub. Date Dec. 8, 2011, hereinafter Podhajsky), and further in view of Bowers.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Guraliuc, teaches:
The dosimetry system of claim 15 ([Title], [Abstract], [Pg. 2, Sec. II-D], [Pg. 3, Sec. II-D] & [Pg.4, Sec. IV-A]),
Guraliuc, is silent in regard to:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a thermal sensor.
However, Podhajsky, further teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a thermal sensor ([0008], [0067], & [0073]:teaches using a thermal sensor arrangement (thermally sensitive medium + imaging unit) to measure the dosimetry quantity (SAR)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the at least one sensor comprises a thermal sensor, of Podhajsky to Guraliuc, in order to attain, by modifying Guraliuc’s dosimetry system by incorporating the thermal sensor (thermal imaging/medium) taught by Podhajsky, in order improve and to allow the system to determine Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) directly from the temperature rise within the phantom, as taught by Podhajsky, which provides a direct measurement of the energy deposition and safety compliance (thermal effect) that electromagnetic field sensors (S-parameters) may not fully characterize, arriving at the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 April 20, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/28/2026
Prosecution Insights