DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on June 15, 2026. The Remarks of June 15, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specification are considered. The amendments to the Abstract and to the respective sections of the Specification are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Claims are considered and the respective amendments to claims 2-7 are accepted. The objections to these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 5 and 6 are considered and the respective amendments to these claims are accepted. The 112 rejections of these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 102 rejections of claims 1-2 and 5 are considered. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes these rejections. The 102 rejections of these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the Claims are considered. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 103 rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the original 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
Regarding the failure of the cited prior art references to teach or suggest the features/limitations of claim 1 as amended, specifically “the mesh structure is formed of a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat” (see Remarks, p. 3, second paragraph), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues on page 4 of the Remarks (first paragraph) that “the combination of Raeker and Chenyu also fail to teach or suggest the features of claim 1 as amended.” However, Chenyu teaches an antenna device comprising a mesh structure, the mesh structure being formed of a vanadium dioxide film (see Abstract in Chenyu-English translation). It is well-known in the art that vanadium dioxide is a heat-sensitive material with metal-insulator transition. Furthermore, Dupeyrat (col. 4, lines 49-61) teaches a plurality of materials configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely under the influence of heat (heat-sensitive materials with metal-insulator transition), including oxides of vanadium, for example VO2 or V2O3, and an oxide of nickel and of neodymium (NdNiO3).
The applicant’s amendment to claim 1 necessitates new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 2): “- an antenna” should be amended to “an antenna”;
Claim 1 (line 3): “- a mesh structure” should be amended to “a mesh structure”;
Claim 8: “The device according to” should be amended to “The antenna device according to”.
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of their dependence on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (line 7) recites “stitches of various patterns and sizes”. This feature introduces new matter which is not described in the Specification.
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 1-8 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 (line 7) recites “stitches of various patterns and sizes”. The meaning of this limitation as recited is not clear. Furthermore, the Specification does not disclose or define in any way “stitches of various patterns and sizes”. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (Fig. 3, p. 6, lines 30-31), this limitation is interpreted as: “assemblies of surfaces of various patterns and sizes”.
Claims 2-8 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
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- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raeker et al. (US 20170133754 A1, hereinafter Raeker) in view of Chenyu et al. (CN 107275789 A, hereinafter Chenyu) and Dupeyrat et al. (US 11060920 B2, hereinafter Dupeyrat).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Raeker (Figs. 1B, 4A) discloses an antenna device (the combination of 102b and 106b in Fig. 1B) comprising:
an antenna (102b in Fig. 1B; 402a in Fig. 4A)) having a uniform radiation pattern (404a in Fig. 4A);
a mesh structure (the mesh of metallic traces on 106b in Fig. 1B – see [0024], lines 5-8) covering the antenna, the mesh structure being configured to modify the radiation pattern of the antenna to generate and to orient at least one lobe and/or null in at least one direction of interest (see modified antenna radiation (408a) in Fig. 4A).
Furthermore, Raeker (Fig. 1B; [0024]) discloses stitches of various patterns and sizes ([0024] discloses: “the metamaterial included in an antenna casing … provides the ability to reshape the radiated pattern to be one of any desired shape. For example, near-field plates are capable of reshaping an electromagnetic plane wave into a desired focus by patterning a surface with metallic traces (equivalent to stitches) to realize a specific effective surface impedance value”; it is well-known to one skilled in the art that “patterning a surface with metallic traces to realize a specific effective surface impedance value” means various patterns and sizes).
Raeker does not teach the limitation wherein the mesh structure is formed of a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat.
Chenyu (Figs. 7a-b, 9b, and 9d in original document) teaches an antenna device comprising a mesh structure (the mesh structure at the base of the device in Figs. 7a-b), the mesh structure being configured to modify the radiation pattern of the antenna to generate and to orient at least one lobe and/or null in at least one direction of interest (see the change of location of the peak gain and the null of the radiation pattern in Figs. 9b and 9d), the mesh structure is formed of a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat (the material is vanadium dioxide having an insulating state and a conductive state – see Chenyu - IP.com English translation, p. 5, last paragraph; it is well-known in the art that vanadium dioxide is a heat-sensitive material with metal-insulator transition). Furthermore, Dupeyrat (col. 4, lines 49-61) teaches a plurality of materials configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely under the influence of heat, including oxides of vanadium, for example VO2 or V2O3.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raeker so that the mesh structure is formed of a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat as taught by Chenyu. This modification would provide an antenna device with tuning capabilities over a wide frequency range (see Chenyu-IP.com English translation, p. 2, The content of the invention Section, first paragraph).
The examiner notes that that the preamble reciting “an anti-jamming antenna device” is not taken into consideration since the structure of the antenna device, its features and its function of modifying the radiation pattern of the antenna to generate and to orient at least one lobe and/or gain notch in at least one direction of interest can be associated with antenna devices of various types, such as beam scanning devices for improved communication with other devices located at different directions or for real-time object (target) tracking, for example. Thus, the structural properties of the antenna device are independent of the preamble.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Raeker teaches the antenna device according to claim 1 as addressed above.
Raeker (Fig. 1B) further discloses a radome (106b) supporting the mesh structure (the mesh of metallic traces on 106b – see [0024], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Raeker teaches the antenna device according to claim 2 as addressed above.
The modified Raeker does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the mesh structure is printed on the radome.
However, Chenyu (Figs. 1-2 in original document) teaches a mesh structure (the mesh structure in Fig. 1 comprising the elements (3) in Fig. 2a) is printed on a substrate (4; see Chenyu - IP.com English translation, p. 3, Embodiment Section, first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raeker so that the mesh structure is printed on the radome as taught by Chenyu. This modification would provide means for fabricating the mesh structure of the antenna device in cases in which the radome has a more complex surface(s).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Raeker teaches the antenna device according to claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Raeker does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the material is neodymium-nickel oxide.
Dupeyrat (col. 4, lines 49-61) teaches a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat (heat-sensitive material with metal-insulator transition) which is neodymium-nickel oxide (NdNiO3). Dupeyrat also teaches: “These materials with metal-insulator transition, and others, are known to the person skilled in the art and widely documented in the available literature.” Furthermore, the current Specification (p. 5, lines 26-29) discloses: “Other materials are possible provided they have the property of switching from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely, or any other material allowing a change in insulating/conductive property as a function of a physical parameter or any other property.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vanadium dioxide material (taught by Chenyu) in the modified Raeker with neodymium-nickel oxide as taught by Dupeyrat. This modification would provide an antenna device with a mesh that transitions from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely at a different desired temperature than the material in the modified Raeker.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Raeker teaches the antenna device according to claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Raeker does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the mesh structure comprises a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell being adapted to a wavelength of a signal to be received by the antenna.
However, Chenyu (Figs. 1-2 in original document) teaches a mesh structure (the mesh structure in Fig. 1 comprising the elements (3) in Fig. 2a) comprises a plurality of unit cells (elements (2) and (3) in Figs. 2a, 2b), each unit cell being adapted to a wavelength of a signal to be received by the antenna (see Chenyu - IP.com English translation, p. 3, Embodiment section, first paragraph which discloses that the structure is frequency-tunable, and, thus, being adapted to a wavelength of a signal to be received by the antenna).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raeker so that the mesh structure comprises a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell being adapted to a wavelength of a signal to be received by the antenna as taught by Chenyu. This modification would provide an antenna device with tuning capabilities over a wide frequency range (see Chenyu - IP.com English translation, p. 2, The content of the invention Section, first paragraph).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Raeker as applied to claim 2 in view of Dupeyrat (cited above).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Raeker teaches the antenna device according to claim 2 as addressed above.
The modified Raeker does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the material is neodymium-nickel oxide.
Dupeyrat (col. 4, lines 49-61) teaches a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat (heat-sensitive material with metal-insulator transition) which is neodymium-nickel oxide (NdNiO3). Dupeyrat also teaches: “These materials with metal-insulator transition, and others, are known to the person skilled in the art and widely documented in the available literature.” Furthermore, the current Specification (p. 5, lines 26-29) discloses: “Other materials are possible provided they have the property of switching from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely, or any other material allowing a change in insulating/conductive property as a function of a physical parameter or any other property.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vanadium dioxide material (taught by Chenyu) in the modified Raeker with neodymium-nickel oxide as taught by Dupeyrat. This modification would provide an antenna device with a mesh that transitions from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely at a different desired temperature than the material in the modified Raeker.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Raeker as applied to claim 3 in view of Dupeyrat (cited above).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Raeker teaches the antenna device according to claim 3 as addressed above.
The modified Raeker does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the material is neodymium-nickel oxide.
Dupeyrat (col. 4, lines 49-61) teaches a material configured to switch from a conductive state to an insulating state, and conversely, under the influence of heat (heat-sensitive material with metal-insulator transition) which is neodymium-nickel oxide (NdNiO3). Dupeyrat also teaches: “These materials with metal-insulator transition, and others, are known to the person skilled in the art and widely documented in the available literature.” Furthermore, the current Specification (p. 5, lines 26-29) discloses: “Other materials are possible provided they have the property of switching from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely, or any other material allowing a change in insulating/conductive property as a function of a physical parameter or any other property.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vanadium dioxide material (taught by Chenyu) in the modified Raeker with neodymium-nickel oxide as taught by Dupeyrat. This modification would provide an antenna device with a mesh that transitions from a conductive state to an insulating state and conversely at a different desired temperature than the material in the modified Raeker.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wall et al. (US 11041936 B1, hereinafter Wall) in view of the modified Raeker as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Wall (Figs. 1, 1a, and 2-2) discloses a receiver (not shown – see col. 8, first paragraph) comprising an anti-jamming antenna device (210, 211 and 212 in Fig. 2-2, lower left corner), and further comprising a control unit (107), the control unit being configured to modify the pattern of the antenna (212; regarding the control unit being configured to modify the pattern of the antenna, see col. 7, lines 20-52).
Wall does not teach the anti-jamming antenna device according to claim 1.
However, the modified Raeker teaches the anti-jamming antenna device according to claim 1 as addressed above.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wall to substitute the anti-jamming antenna device with the anti-jamming antenna device of the modified Raeker. This modification would provide a receiver having an anti-jamming antenna device with tuning capabilities over a wide frequency range (see the motivation for modifying Raeker according to the teachings of Chenyu regarding claim 1 above).
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights