DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102, Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see page 9, paragraph 5, that the substrate S of Liu’032 differs from the film including a plurality of micro-resonators as claimed by Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not claim such films exclusively. Note that the transitional term “comprising” renders the claim open to include other components not claimed in the claim.
Applicant further argues, see page 9, paragraph 6, that Liu’877 is not obvious to combine with Liu’032 because Liu’877 does not teach a stress relieving member.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 of this title, 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, 17, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0229032 A1) in view of McBain (WO 2021/206846 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a metamaterial, comprising:
a plurality of films (Fig. 22, 11, [0178] a multi-layer structure by multiple lamellae; Fig. 46) arranged with main surfaces thereof facing each other ([0206] a reflection layer 2, an artificial structure layer) and configured to transmit a target electromagnetic wave that is an electromagnetic wave having a wavelength within a target wavelength range (Abstract, beam modulation on an incident electromagnetic wave and reflect an electromagnetic wave);
a plurality of micro-resonators ([0206] one or more artificial structure units M) each made of an electrically conductive material ([0032] the artificial structure unit is a structure that has a geometrical pattern and is constituted by a conductive material), included in the plurality of films (Figs. 22, 46), and configured to resonate with the target electromagnetic wave ([0221] generate an electromagnetic response to an incident electromagnetic wave); and
a stress relieving member disposed between two mutually-adjacent films of the plurality of films (Fig. 46, YL, [0206] stress buffer layer YL), configured to transmit the target electromagnetic wave (Fig. 46, placed between reflection layer 2 and artificial structure layer, thus transmit the incident/reflecting electromagnetic wave), and having a lower elastic modulus than the plurality of films ([0207] tensile strength less than substrate/artificial structure).
Liu does not explicitly teach the plurality of micro-resonators are included in each of the plurality of the films.
McBain teaches a metamaterial, comprising a plurality of films including a plurality of micro-resonators (Fig. 19, 1952, [0119] FSS elements 1952, electrically-conductive material, EMI absorbing material, and/or metamaterial) in each of the plurality of the films (Fig. 19, 1948 Multilayer FSS structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the micro-resonator structure of McBain to the teachings of Liu in order for absorbing noise and/or for reflecting signals thereby inhibiting passage or transmission of the signals through the composition (McBain, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Liu in view of McBain.
Liu further teaches the metamaterial wherein the stress relieving member is in contact with each of the two mutually-adjacent films sandwiching the stress relieving member therebetween ([0065] at least one stress buffer layer is disposed between the substrate and the artificial structure layer and/or between the substrate and the reflection layer).
Regarding claim 27, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Liu in view of McBain.
Liu further teaches the metamaterial wherein the stress relieving member is made of a member adherent or pressure-sensitively adherent to the plurality of films ([0071] adhesive).
Regarding claim 28, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Liu in view of McBain.
Liu further teaches the metamaterial further comprising: an attachment material to cause the stress relieving member to adhere or pressure- sensitively adhere to the plurality of films. ([0071] adhesive).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0229032 A1) in view of McBain (WO 2021/206846 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu877 (US 2015/0255877 A1).
Regarding claim 29, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Liu in view of McBain.
Liu in view of McBain does not explicitly teach an antenna comprising: a plurality of antenna elements to transmit or receive an electromagnetic wave; a radome covering radiation surfaces of the plurality of antenna elements; and the metamaterial being disposed on the radome.
Liu877 teaches an antenna comprising: a plurality of antenna elements to transmit and receive an receive an electromagnetic wave ([205]); a radome covering radiation surfaces of the plurality of antenna elements; and the metamaterial being disposed on the radome ([0204]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu in view of McBain to the teachings of Liu877 in order to take advantage of a low processing cost and a simple craft precision in making radome for antenna applications (Liu877, Abstract).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2015/0229032 A1) in view of McBain (WO 2021/206846 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong (US 11,011,282 B1)
Regarding claim 30, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Liu in view of McBain.
Liu in view of McBain does not explicitly teach the metamaterial wherein each of the micro-resonators includes a split-ring resonator having a partially circular shape.
Dong teaches a metamaterial wherein a micro-resonator includes a split-ring resonator having a partially circular shape (Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the split-ring resonator of Dong to the teachings of Liu in view of McBain since such structure is one of the popular building blocks of many metamaterial based resonant devices (Dong, col. 5, lines 4-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 13-16, and 18-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a metamaterial, wherein the convex surfaces of at least two films of the plurality of films have a same curvature, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a metamaterial, wherein the concave surfaces of at least two films of the plurality of films have a same curvature, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 13, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25, the claims 13, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25 are objected to due to their dependencies to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a metamaterial, wherein the stress relieving member has different thicknesses at different positions of the stress relieving member in a sandwiching direction between the plurality of films, in a state in which the stress relieving member is not deformed by receiving force from the plurality of films in contact with the stress relieving member, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 16, 21, the claims 16, 21 are objected to due to their dependencies to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 19, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a metamaterial, wherein a plurality of the stress relieving members are disposed between the two mutually- adjacent films, and the metamaterial further comprises a spacer disposed between the plurality of stress relieving members, configured to transmit the target electromagnetic wave, and having a higher elastic modulus than the plurality of stress relieving members, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 22, 24, 26, the claims 22, 24, 26 are objected to due to their dependencies to claim 19 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights