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 statements (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2024, 12/22/2024 and 02/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 35 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not included in a dedicated Abstract sheet but rather included in the cover sheet of the internation application with other text. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “silicone” (a polymer material) is used where “silicon” (the semiconductor material) is clearly intended, consistent with all other references to silicon throughout the specification (e.g., [0066]).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 44 recites illumination light comprising “a wavelength of between 400 micrometers and 2000 micrometers.” The specification at [0048] recites “light having a wavelength of between 400 micrometers and 2000 micrometers.” However, the specification also discusses visible and NIR light (e.g., [0131] refers to “NIR LEDs that produce light having wavelengths of ~1000 nm to 1700 nm” and [0074] discusses Si diodes responsive to 400–950 nm and InGaAs diodes responsive to 1300–1500 nm). The use of “micrometers” where “nanometers” is clearly intended is a significant error — 400 micrometers to 2000 micrometers is the far-infrared range, inconsistent with the disclosed photodiode technology. The specification paragraph [0048] appears to contain the same error. Applicant is required to clarify and correct this inconsistency. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 objected to because of the following informalities: "a. providing a reflecting surface comprising…" should mirror independent claim 49 and specification [0011] use of "microwave and/or MMW reflecting surface" in the format of "microwave/MMW reflecting surface". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 53 objected to because of the following informalities: "The reflector of claim 47, wherein…" incorrectly depends from claim 47 and should rather depend from claim 49. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 55 objected to because of the following informalities: “of. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 objected to because of the following informalities: “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 47 objected to because of the following informalities: “a. 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 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As noted in objections above, Claim 44 recites illumination light “having a wavelength of between 400 micrometers and 2000 micrometers.” If this is taken literally (far-infrared, terahertz range), the specification provides no enabling disclosure for illuminating the disclosed PN/PIN diodes, photoresistors, phototransistors, PPDs, CCDs, or Schottky Barrier Photodiodes with far-infrared radiation in the range of 400–2000 micrometers. The specification’s technical disclosure ([0073], [0074], [0131]) consistently relates to visible and near-infrared wavelengths (400–1550 nm). The claim as written, if intended to recite 400–2000 micrometers, is not enabled by the specification. Claim 44 is rejected under 112(a) as failing to satisfy the enablement requirement for the asserted wavelength range. See MPEP 2164.01.
Claim 55 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 41-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffner et al. (US 2016/0013549 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 10,734,732 B1).
Regarding Claims 41 and 49, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches:
A method for reflecting microwaves and/or millimeter waves (MMWs) in a desired direction
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: a reconfigurable electromagnetic surface operating at microwave frequencies with beam steering capability. ([0025]: “An individual tile 10 or an array of tiles can be reconfigured for a multitude of electromagnetic functions, such as frequency tuned transmit or receive arrays, beam steering.”; [0045]: “tunable from 2 GHz (S-band) to 12 GHz (X-band).”)
Schaffner (‘549) does not explicitly teach, but Feng (‘732) further teaches: a tunable microwave/MMW reflectarray. (Col. 1, lines 26–32: “Reflectarrays are known to (t)hose skilled in the art of antenna designs as useful for reflecting an electromagnetic wave at various angles by electrically controlling the phase of the elements that make up the array.” - The combination teaches a tunable microwave/MMW reflector.) comprising:
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this preamble. Schaffner discloses a reconfigurable electromagnetic surface of pixelated metal patches capable of beam steering and operation at microwave frequencies. ([0025]: “An individual tile 10 or an array of tiles can be reconfigured for a multitude of electromagnetic functions, such as frequency tuned transmit or receive arrays, beam steering, tuned frequency selective surfaces, and transmission line circuits for routing, filtering, and impedance matching.”; [0028]: “Sub-wavelength pixels allow frequency reconfigurability and beam scanning.”; [0045]: “a reconfigurable surface tile with a glass substrate 24 with an array of 25×25 pixels…could be used to create patch antennas tunable from 2 GHz (S-band) to 12 GHz (X-band).”) Schaffner thus teaches reflecting electromagnetic waves including microwaves in a desired direction.
providing a reflecting surface comprising a plurality of conductive patches on a surface of a dielectric substrate,
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element. ([0025]: “The present disclosure describes an electromagnetic (EM) tile 10, as shown in FIG. 1A, whose top surface consists of a two dimensional periodic array of metal patches 32 separated by small gaps such that the period is much smaller than a wavelength at any frequency of interest.”; [0039]: “The pixelated surface tile 30 is the layer that consists of an arrangement of metal patches 32 and switches 34. The metal patches 32 may be various shapes including square, rectangular or octagonal, of dimension much less than a wavelength. The pixelated surface tile 30 has a substrate with the metal patches 32 and switch 34 on the substrate.”)
each said conductive patch in wired electrical connection with at least one light-sensitive electronic component having an electrical property that is dependent on a property of light illuminating said light-sensitive component,
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: that each switch 34 is disposed in a gap between and in direct physical and electrical contact with a first respective metal patch and a second respective metal patch, and that each switch is optically coupled to at least one respective laser. ([0009]: “a pixelated surface comprising a plurality of metal patches and a plurality of switches, wherein each respective switch of the plurality of switches is in a gap between a first respective metal patch and a second respective metal patch; wherein each respective switch is optically coupled to at least one respective laser of the plurality of lasers.”; [0052]: “The PCM material 34 is fabricated to lie within the gaps of the metallic patches 32 such that when actuated into the on state, the switch 34 would provide a low resistance bridge between two patches, thus effectively connecting them electrically.”) Schaffner further acknowledges that prior art optically actuated photoconductive switches between small metallic patches were known in the field. ([0005]: “a reconfigurable antenna with optical actuation of photoconductive switches between small metallic patches forming a pixelated surface.”) Schaffner’s PCM switch 34, however, is bi-stable — its electrical resistance does not continuously vary as a function of the property of light illuminating it, but rather latches into either a conducting or non-conducting state upon application of a threshold light pulse. ([0025]: “The optically actuated switches 34 are preferably fabricated from Phase Change Material (PCM), because PCM is bi-stable and can be set into either a conductive or a non-conductive state.”)
Schaffner does not explicitly teach a light-sensitive electronic component whose electrical property is continuously and variably dependent on a property of the illuminating light as required by the claim.
Feng (‘732) teaches: a photo-capacitive switch element — a light-sensitive material whose electrical property, specifically capacitance, varies continuously as a direct function of the intensity and frequency of light illuminating it. (Col. 1, lines 59–63: “Photo-capacitors respond to variation in light intensity primarily, but also to variation in light frequency, by changing their capacitance.”; Col. 5, lines 7–17: “the dominant direction of reflected beam can be fully controlled by the phased elements by optically tuning the capacitance of each meta-atom 150.”) Feng expressly teaches that photosensitive materials function as switch elements positioned in the gaps between metallic patch elements. (Col. 4, lines 29–35: “Exemplary embodiments are predicated on the realization that photosensitive materials such as photo-capacitor materials function as phase-tuning elements when positioned between and overlapping meta-material elements.”) Feng also expressly teaches a p-i-n diode as a light-sensitive alternative component. (Col. 4, lines 22–27: “Alternatively, one could use a microstrip semiconductor p-i-n diode phase shifter (with the high-level injection diode denoting positive-region, intrinsic-charge-carrying-type, negative-region).”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Schaffner’s PCM switch 34 with a continuously variable light-sensitive electronic component as taught by Feng, in wired electrical connection with each metal patch of Schaffner’s pixelated surface. One would have been motivated to do so for the following reasons grounded entirely in the references themselves: Schaffner expressly acknowledges that optically actuated photoconductive switches between small metallic patches of a pixelated electromagnetic surface constitute a known class of switches ([0005]), establishing that photosensitive components positioned between metallic patches and activated by light were a recognized design alternative within this field. Feng teaches that a photosensitive element — specifically a photo-capacitive material — positioned in the gap between metallic patches eliminates the need for electrical wire bias networks and mitigates electromagnetic interference, advantages Schaffner itself identifies as design objectives. (Feng, Col. 4, lines 29–42: “The advantage of the exemplary process and instruments, compared to conventional electric control arrangements, include low cost, elimination of electrical wires, and mitigation of electromagnetic interference (EMI) effects, which can be devastating for device operations.”; Schaffner, [0030]: “Laser bias lines are below the wideband multilayer ground plane 22, which shields the patches 32 from any radio frequency (RF) interference from the potentially thousands of control lines for the lasers.”) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Feng’s photosensitive element, like Schaffner’s PCM switch, is an optically actuated component situated between metallic patches for reconfiguring an electromagnetic surface, and is squarely within the class of optically actuated patch switches that Schaffner itself recognizes. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Schaffner itself confirms that optically actuated switches between small metallic patches are operative and well-known ([0005]), and Feng demonstrates successful experimental implementation of a photosensitive switch element in the gaps between metallic patch elements of an electromagnetic reflecting surface.
where the values of said electrical property of said light-sensitive components collectively determine a phase-shift that said reflecting surface induces in an incident microwave/MMW beam which induced phase-shift determines the direction in which an incident beam is reflected; and
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: that the collective state of the switches across the array determines the electromagnetic behavior of the surface including beam steering direction. ([0025]: “By selecting specific switches 34, electromagnetic structures can be configured, and then by changing states of the switches 34, reconfigured to another electromagnetic structure.”; [0028]: “Sub-wavelength pixels allow frequency reconfigurability and beam scanning.”)
Schaffner (‘549) does not explicitly teach, but Feng (‘732) teaches the precise mechanism by which the collectively tuned electrical property values of photosensitive elements between patches determine the phase-shift of the reflected beam and thereby its direction. (Col. 4, lines 37–42: “By varying the optical power, the capacitance of the photo-capacitive material, for example, can be changed, which, in turn, modifies the reflection phase of the electromagnetic wave incident on the meta-atoms.”; Col. 5, lines 23–28: “when tuning the optical power the changing of the capacitance imparts a linear phase shift on the wavefront of the electromagnetic field incident upon the metamaterial elements 150 resulting in a tilted wavefront. This deflects the beam into a new direction.”) In the combination, the electrical property values of the light-sensitive components across the pixelated surface collectively determine the progressive phase shift induced in the incident microwave/MMW beam, directing reflection to a desired direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the phase-shift beam-steering mechanism of Feng into the optically reconfigurable patch surface of Schaffner, because both references are directed to optically controlled metallic patch arrays for manipulating microwave/RF signals, and a skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the known photo-capacitive phase-shift mechanism of Feng to the reconfigurable surface of Schaffner is a straightforward combination of familiar elements using known methods, yielding no more than predictable results. Namely, precise directional control of a reflected microwave beam. In the combination, the electrical property values of the light-sensitive components across the pixelated surface collectively determine the progressive phase shift induced in the incident microwave/MMW beam, directing reflection to a desired direction.
illuminating each said light-sensitive component with a selected value of the property of light so as to set said electrical property to a desired value,
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: individually addressing each laser to deliver a selected optical power to each corresponding switch. ([0035]: “There are one or more lasers 14 for each pixel 32. Each VCSEL 14 has control electronics…to allow each laser 14 to independently operate at up to two different maximum power levels and have control of the shut-off waveform.”; [0057]: “In the present disclosure there is an array of lasers 14 such that each PCM switch 34 is in a one-to-one correspondence with a laser.”)
Schaffner (‘549) does not explicitly teach, but Feng (‘732) further teaches that the selected optical power level illuminating each photosensitive component sets its capacitance to a desired value for per-element phase control. (Col. 5, lines 7–17: “the dominant direction of reflected beam can be fully controlled by the phased elements by optically tuning the capacitance of each meta-atom 150.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the per-element optical tuning mechanism of Feng into the individually addressable laser array of Schaffner, because both references are directed to optically controlled patch arrays operating in the microwave/RF frequency range, and a skilled artisan would have recognized that applying Feng’s known technique of setting each element’s electrical property to a desired value via a selected illumination level is a predictable extension of Schaffner’s existing per-laser independent control architecture, yielding predictable per-element phase setting for directional beam control.
so that a phase-shift is induced in an incident microwave/MMW beam to reflect said beam in a desired direction.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: beam steering via reconfiguration of the pixelated surface. ([0028]: “Sub-wavelength pixels allow frequency reconfigurability and beam scanning.”)
Schaffner (‘549) does not explicitly teach, but Feng (‘732) teaches the specific mechanism by which optically induced changes in the electrical property of photosensitive elements between patches create a phase-shift in the reflected microwave/MMW beam to steer it in a desired direction. (Col. 5, ll. 23–29: “when tuning the optical power the changing of the capacitance imparts a linear phase shift on the wavefront of the electromagnetic field incident upon the metamaterial elements 150 resulting in a tilted wavefront. This deflects the beam into a new direction.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the phase-shift beam deflection mechanism of Feng into the reconfigurable pixelated surface of Schaffner, because both references are directed to optically controlled metallic patch arrays for microwave/RF beam manipulation, and a skill person would have recognized that Feng’s well-understood phase-shift steering mechanism provides the explicit physical basis for the beam scanning capability that Schaffner identifies but does not fully characterize, such that the combination involves nothing more than applying a known technique to a known system to achieve predictable results by steering a reflected microwave/MMW beam to a desired direction via an optically induced phase-shift.
Regarding Claims 42 and 50, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 41.
Schaffner does not explicitly teach wherein a said electrical property that is dependent on the property of light illuminating said light-sensitive component is selected from the group consisting of capacitance, phase, permittivity, inductance and combinations thereof.
The claim presents a Markush group with an “or” statement; the art need only teach one listed member.
Feng (‘732) teaches: that capacitance is the electrical property of the photosensitive component that varies continuously with the property of the illuminating light, and capacitance is expressly recited as one member of the Markush group. (Col. 1, lines 59–63: “Photo-capacitors respond to variation in light intensity primarily, but also to variation in light frequency, by changing their capacitance.”; Col. 5, lines 7–17: “the dominant direction of reflected beam can be fully controlled by the phased elements by optically tuning the capacitance of each meta-atom 150.”) The motivation and expectation of success are as discussed in the rejection of Claim 41.
Regarding Claims 43 and 51, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 41.
Schaffner does not explicitly teach wherein said light-sensitive components are selected from the group consisting of a PN diode, a PIN diode, a PPD, a CCD, a photoresistor, a phototransistor and a Schottky Barrier Photodiode.
The claim presents a Markush group with an “or” statement; the art need only teach one listed member.
Feng (‘732) teaches: a PIN diode as a light-sensitive component alternative for controlling the phase of each reflector element. (Col. 4, lines 22–27: “Alternatively, one could use a microstrip semiconductor p-i-n diode phase shifter (with the high-level injection diode denoting positive-region, intrinsic-charge-carrying-type, negative-region).”) A PIN diode is expressly recited in the Markush group of Claim 43. The motivation and expectation of success are as discussed in the rejection of Claim 41.
Regarding Claim 44, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 41.
wherein said illumination light comprises light having a wavelength of between 400 [micrometer] nanometers and 2000 [micrometer] nanometers. (Examiner notes the filed claim language uses micrometers instead of nanometers. As noted in the objections, the Examiner assumes that the use of micrometer was an error in drafting.)
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: illumination light within the claimed wavelength range. Schaffner discloses that optical actuation of PCM material in related applications uses pulsed red laser diodes operating at 650 to 660 nm and UV-blue laser diodes operating at 400 to 450 nm. ([0056]: “In these applications, pulsed red (650 to 660 nm) and UV-blue (400 to 450 nm) laser diodes with focused diffraction-limited spots (0.4 to 0.6 µm) are used to actuate the PCM material in DVD and Blue-Ray disks.”) Schaffner further teaches that its VCSELs operate at wavelengths of 950 to 980 nm. ([0061]: “light emitted in the wavelength range of 950 to 980 nm is within the absorption band of the GeTe PCM material.”) All of these wavelengths — 400–450 nm, 650–660 nm, and 950–980 nm — fall squarely within the claimed range of 400 to 2000 nm.
Feng (‘732) further confirms that the selection of photo-capacitive materials, and correspondingly the illumination wavelength, depends on the wavelength regime of the intended application. (Col. 5, ll. 28–32: “The principle for the exemplary embodiments can be applied for any wavelength regime. The geometry of meta-atoms, the selection of photo-capacitive materials, and the level of optical power depend on the wavelength regime of the intended application.”) In the combination, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to illuminate the light-sensitive components with light at a wavelength within the 400 to 2000 nm range, as this range encompasses the illumination wavelengths expressly taught by Schaffner for optically actuating switch elements between metallic patches, and as Feng teaches that the illumination wavelength is determined by the choice of photo-capacitive material for the intended application. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Schaffner demonstrates operative optical actuation of switch elements at multiple wavelengths within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 45, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 41.
wherein said light-sensitive components are arranged on a surface and said illuminating comprises projecting an image on said surface so that each said light-sensitive component is illuminated with a corresponding selected value of the property of light.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: that the switches 34 are arranged on the surface of the pixelated tile 30, and that the VCSEL array 14 together with a precisely aligned microlens array delivers focused optical beams to each individual switch on that surface. ([0056]: “Optical actuation of the PCM switches 34 starts from a corresponding array of focused high power vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSEL) 14.”; [0062]: “In order to concentrate the output power of the multi-mode VCSEL array 14 onto the PCM switch array 34, a set of two custom-designed microlens arrays is placed in between the VCSELs 14 and the reconfigurable pixelated surface tile 30…focuses the collimated light beams emanating from the first set of microlenses 20 onto the corresponding PCM switches 34 in between the metallic patches 32.”) This VCSEL-plus-microlens system delivers a spatially patterned distribution of optical intensities to the surface of switches — each switch receiving its corresponding selected optical power — which constitutes projecting an image of light onto the surface such that each light-sensitive component is illuminated with a corresponding selected value of the property of light.
Regarding Claim 46, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 41.
wherein said plurality of patches are arranged on said surface of said dielectric substrate in a two-dimensional array having n rows, each said row having m said patches, n and m being integers of at least 2.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element without requiring any modification. ([0025]: “whose top surface consists of a two dimensional periodic array of metal patches 32 separated by small gaps.”; [0045]: “a reconfigurable surface tile with a glass substrate 24 with an array of 25×25 pixels, with each patch or pixel 32 1.5 mm square.”) Schaffner’s 25×25 array constitutes a two-dimensional array having n=25 rows each having m=25 patches, with both n and m being integers of at least 2.
Regarding Claim 47, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 46.
wherein adjacent said patches in a same said row are in wired electrical connection through a said light-sensitive components and said patches are electrically isolated from patches in a different said row.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element. Schaffner explicitly teaches that each switch 34 is disposed in the gap between two adjacent metal patches and, when activated, provides a low-resistance wired bridge electrically connecting them. ([0009]: “each respective switch of the plurality of switches is in a gap between a first respective metal patch and a second respective metal patch.”; [0052]: “The PCM material 34 is fabricated to lie within the gaps of the metallic patches 32 such that when actuated into the on state, the switch 34 would provide a low resistance bridge between two patches, thus effectively connecting them electrically.”) Schaffner further teaches that the inter-pixel gap geometry is specifically engineered to control RF coupling and isolation between patches, including isolation between patches not intended to be electrically connected. ([0042]: “The shape and the inter-pixel gap dimension for the pixels are important design parameters for the RF coupling and/or isolation between pixels 32.”; [0043]: “The octagonal patches 32 allow narrow inter-pixel gaps between the patches 32 with an aspect ratio of 40:1, which reduces the capacitive RF coupling between pixels or patches 32.”) The electrical isolation between patches in different rows is an inherent result of Schaffner’s architecture, in which switches are placed only between intended adjacent patches and the gap geometry ensures isolation between non-connected patches in different rows.
Regarding Claim 48, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the method of claim 41.
wherein each said light-sensitive component is in wired electrical connection with a single said patch and with a conductive ground component.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: that non-reconfigurable RF ground lines are fabricated from the RF ground plane 22 to individual patches 32 on the pixelated surface tile 30, and that the ground plane 22 is connected to an overall system ground. ([0040]: “non-reconfigurable RF ground lines 25 may be fabricated from the RF ground plane 22 to a patch on the reconfigurable pixelated surface tile 30. These ground lines could serve as an RF ground for reconfigurable transmission line elements on the reconfigurable pixelated surface tile 30.”; [0037]: “The ground plane 22 may also be connected to an overall system ground.”) In the combination, with a light-sensitive component in wired electrical connection with a patch 32, and that patch connected via a ground line to the conductive ground plane 22, each light-sensitive component is effectively in wired electrical connection with both a single patch and a conductive ground component.
Regarding Claim 49, the claim is substantially the same as claim 41 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding claim 41 is applied.
Regarding Claim 50, the claim is substantially the same as claim 42 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding claim 42 is applied.
Regarding Claim 51, the claim is substantially the same as claim 43 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding claim 43 is applied.
Regarding Claim 52, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 49.
wherein said dielectric substrate is a board having a first planar surface that is said upper dielectric surface and a second planar surface that is a planar lower surface of said board.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element. Schaffner discloses a substrate 24 of glass or other material forming the pixelated surface tile 30, which has a first planar upper surface on which the metal patches 32 and switches 34 are arranged and a second planar lower surface. ([0038]: “A substrate 24 may be between the ground plane 22 and the micro lens layer 26. The substrate should be optically transparent to allow the optical switch actuation signals to be transmitted through the substrate with minimum attenuation.”; [0045]: “a reconfigurable surface tile with a glass substrate 24 with an array of 25×25 pixels.”)
Regarding Claim 53, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 47.
wherein said dielectric substrate is a chip of semiconductor material.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element. Schaffner explicitly discloses that GaAs may be used as the optically transparent substrate in the tile assembly. ([0038]: “The substrate 24 may be glass, fused silica, quartz, air, or other optically transparent plastics. Also, for VCSELs 14 that operate in the infrared spectrum, other substrates, such as GaAs could be used.”) GaAs is a semiconductor material, and a substrate of GaAs constitutes a chip of semiconductor material within the meaning of the claim.
Regarding Claim 54, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 49.
further comprising a second dielectric surface on which said light-sensitive components are arranged.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: a layered architecture in which the pixelated surface tile 30 carrying the metal patches 32 and switches 34 is a physically distinct layer separated from a substrate layer 24 and the ground plane layer 22, such that the surface of the pixelated tile 30 constitutes a second dielectric surface distinct from the primary substrate 24 on which the light-sensitive components are arranged. ([0033]: “The following describes each layer in FIG. 1A, starting from the bottom.”; [0038]: “A substrate 24 may be between the ground plane 22 and the micro lens layer 26.”; [0039]: “The pixelated surface tile 30 is the layer that consists of an arrangement of metal patches 32 and switches 34.”)
Regarding Claim 55, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 49.
wherein said patches each covers a surface area of not less than 0.025 mm² (0.5 mm×0.5 mm) and not more than 100 mm² (10 mm×10 mm) of said upper dielectric surface.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element without requiring any modification. ([0045]: “a reconfigurable surface tile with a glass substrate 24 with an array of 25×25 pixels, with each patch or pixel 32 1.5 mm square.”) A patch measuring 1.5 mm × 1.5 mm has a surface area of 2.25 mm², which falls squarely within the claimed range of not less than 0.25 mm² and not more than 100 mm².
Regarding Claim 56, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 49.
wherein at least 50% of said patches are in wired electrical connection with two said light-sensitive components.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: this element. Schaffner’s architecture places a switch 34 in every gap between every pair of adjacent metal patches 32 across the entire two-dimensional array, meaning that every interior patch 32 in the array has a switch 34 on each of its multiple sides interfacing with each neighboring patch. ([0009]: “each respective switch of the plurality of switches is in a gap between a first respective metal patch and a second respective metal patch.”; [0025]: “Within each gap between metal tiles 32 is a switch 34.”) Since switches are present in all gaps between all adjacent patches, every interior patch is bordered by switches on multiple sides and is therefore in wired electrical connection with at least two switch components with one on each side. Interior patches constitute well over 50% of the total patches in Schaffner’s 25×25 array, satisfying the limitation that at least 50% of said patches are in wired electrical connection with two said light-sensitive components in the combination.
Regarding Claim 57, Feng (‘732) in view of Schaffner (‘549) teaches the reflector of claim 49.
Schaffner does not explicitly teach wherein each one of said patches is in wired electrical connection with a single said light-sensitive component.
Feng (‘732) teaches: Feng’s unit cell architecture explicitly provides that each individual patch element (patch element 160 or patch element 170) is joined by a single switch element 180 — a photosensitive light-sensitive component — to its neighboring patch within the unit cell. (Col. 3, lines 27–35: “The film 140 includes disposed thereon a meta-material element 150 (or meta-atom) that comprises first and second (i.e., right-and-left) patch elements 160 and 170 joined together by a switch element 180.”) In Feng’s configuration, each patch element is in wired electrical connection with exactly one switch element 180, which is the photosensitive component whose electrical property (capacitance) is dependent on the illuminating light. Schaffner’s pixelated surface architecture of metal patches 32 on a dielectric substrate, with switches in gaps between patches, provides the broader patch array structural context, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 49. In the combination, Feng teaches the specific topology of each patch being in wired electrical connection with a single light-sensitive component, while Schaffner supplies the pixelated array architecture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Feng’s one to one patch to light sensitive component topology within Schaffner’s broader pixelated patch array architecture, because both references employ optically controlled elements disposed between metallic patches on a dielectric substrate for microwave/RF surface reconfiguration, and a skilled artisan would have recognized that Feng’s explicit on to one connection topology is a natural and straightforward implementation choice within Schaffner’s array framework which would yield predictable results from applying known unit cell connectivity arrangement to a known patch array architecture.
Regarding Claim 58, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 49.
further comprising an illumination module configured to illuminate said light-sensitive components with said illumination light.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: an illumination module comprising the VCSEL array 14 together with the microlens arrays 20 and 26, which collectively form a system configured to illuminate each switch component with focused optical energy. ([0026]: “The RF switches 34 can be optically actuated and reset using a VCSEL array 14.”; [0056]: “Optical actuation of the PCM switches 34 starts from a corresponding array of focused high power vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSEL) 14.”; [0062]: “In order to concentrate the output power of the multi-mode VCSEL array 14 onto the PCM switch array 34, a set of two custom-designed microlens arrays is placed in between the VCSELs 14 and the reconfigurable pixelated surface tile 30.”)
Regarding Claim 59, Schaffner (‘549) in view of Feng (‘732) teaches the reflector of claim 58.
said illumination module configured to illuminate at least one group of said light, each group comprising at least one light-sensitive component with a chosen one of at least two different said illumination lights, allowing setting said electrical property to at least two different said values.
The element “each group comprising at least one light-sensitive component” is a contingent element conditioned on the illumination module addressing groups of components. Per MPEP guidance, where the contingency is satisfied by the art, the limitation is addressed substantively, as it is here.
Schaffner (‘549) teaches: that individual VCSELs 14 are independently controllable and can be operated at least at two different power levels, and that groups of VCSELs can be addressed in parallel with independent laser driver control, enabling different groups of switch components to receive different illumination. ([0035]: “Each VCSEL 14 has control electronics…to allow each laser 14 to independently operate at up to two different maximum power levels and have control of the shut-off waveform.”; [0064]: “Each unit will require: a laser driver 70 with on/off control, pulse width control, and current level control.”)
Schaffner does not explicitly teach, but Feng (‘732) teaches: that delivering different selected optical power levels to different light-sensitive elements sets the electrical property (capacitance) of each to a correspondingly different value for per-element phase control. (Col. 5, lines 7–17: “the dominant direction of reflected beam can be fully controlled by the phased elements by optically tuning the capacitance of each meta-atom 150.”) In the combination, the illumination module of Schaffner extended by Feng’s teaching of continuously variable per-element optical power control is configured to illuminate groups of light-sensitive components with chosen illumination light at at least two different values, allowing setting the electrical property of each group to at least two different values for precise phase-shift control across the reflector surface. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to apply Feng’s teaching of continuously variable optical power levels to Schaffner’s independently controllable VCSEL array, because Schaffner already discloses the capability to operate each laser at two different maximum power levels and to address groups of lasers with independent driver control, and Feng establishes that varying optical power levels produces correspondingly different capacitance values in the light sensitive components, such that combining these teaches involves nothing more than applying Feng’s known continuously variable optical tuning principle to Schaffner’s existing multi-level, group addressable illumination architecture to achieve the predictable result of setting the electrical property of different groups of light sensitive components to different desired values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zoughi et al. (US 2009/0237092 A1) discloses a microwave antenna or sensor system relevant as prior art for near-field and far-field microwave/millimeter-wave beam control and detection techniques.
Ginzburg et al. (US 2021/0083377 A1) discloses an antenna array system using light-activated devices and waveguides to tune resonance frequencies of antenna elements, providing an optically controlled non-optical radiation approach closely related to the light-driven reflectarray concept.
Hemmady et al. (US 8,482,465) discloses a chaotic cavity antenna or electromagnetic structure relevant as prior art for controlling microwave radiation characteristics through structural or material reconfiguration.
Werner et al. (US 2004/0263420 A1) discloses a reconfigurable frequency selective surface using switchable conducting patches on a dielectric to tune resonance frequency, establishing prior art for pixelated, switch-based reconfigurable patch surfaces.
Neyeri et al. (Reflectarray Antennas: Theory, Designs and Applicants) provides a comprehensive textbook overview and details of reflectarray antenna design principles, phase distribution analysis, and element phasing techniques foundational to the claimed invention’s technical context.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights