DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s claim amendment filed on 12/22/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/22/2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of Claims 9-10 and 19-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/22/2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sari et al. (US 2017/0126463 A1) in view of Colombo (US 2020/0045537 A1) and Lipworth et al. (US 9,967,011 B1).
Consider claims 1 and 11:
Sari discloses a method for controlling an antenna having a plurality of radio-frequency (RF) radiating antenna elements (see paragraph 0007, where Sari describes a method of concurrently transmit data using a plurality of N antennas), the method comprising:
selecting modulations for the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements using Euclidean modulation (see paragraph 0007, where Sari describes that the method comprises selecting first and second modulation schemes for the N antennas, the first and second modulation schemes are selected to maintain minimum Euclidean distance between signal vectors); and
tuning the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements based on the Euclidean modulation (see paragraph 0024, where Sari describes that the selected first modulation scheme comprises 16QAM; see paragraph 0038, where Sari describes varying numbers of transmit antennas based on the 16QAM).
As discussed above, Sari discloses using a number of transmit antennas. However, Sari does not specifically disclose: (1), using a number of transmit antennas to produce arbitrary radiation patterns, and (2), metamaterial antenna elements.
Regarding (1), Colombo teaches: using a number of transmit antennas to produce arbitrary radiation patterns (see paragraph 0079, where Colombo describes that the number of radiating elements in an antenna array allow obtaining antennas with arbitrary radiation patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: using a number of transmit antennas to produce arbitrary radiation patterns, as taught by Colombo to modify the method of Sari in order to usefully suppress the lateral lobes, as discussed by Colombo (see paragraph 0079).
Regarding (2), Lipworth teaches: metamaterial antenna elements (see col. 3, lines 7-15, where Lipworth describes an antenna system with an array of tunable metamaterial antenna elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: metamaterial antenna elements, as taught by Lipworth to modify the method of Sari in order to solve various electromagnetic field-based issues, as discussed by Lipworth (see col. 2, lines 35-40).
Consider claims 3 and 13:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 1 and 11 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: mapping desired modulations to achievable modulation states; mapping achievable modulation states to voltages applied to the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements.
Lipworth teaches: mapping desired modulations to achievable modulation states (see Fig. 4 and col. 9, lines 47-60, where Lipworth describes a control circuitry 416 which includes a calibration system 402; see col. 11, lines 1-7, where Lipworth describes that the calibration system includes a port impedance vector generator 541 that generates port impedance vectors, and each impedance vector maps out a desired modulation; see col. 12, lines 5-21, where Lipworth describes that the port impedance vectors may specify modulation states); mapping achievable modulation states to voltages applied to the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements (see col. 5, lines 30-43, where Lipworth describes that a DC voltage is utilized to variably control the port impedance of the antennas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: mapping desired modulations to achievable modulation states; mapping achievable modulation states to voltages applied to the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements, as taught by Lipworth to modify the method of Sari in order to attain wide variety of customizable radiation patterns, as discussed by Lipworth (see col. 2, lines 30-45).
Consider claims 6 and 16:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 3 and 13 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: obtaining one or more of the desired modulations based on: location of at least a subset of the RF radiating antenna elements.
Lipworth teaches: obtaining one or more of desired modulations based on: location of at least a subset of RF radiating antenna elements (see col. 11, lines 1-7, where Lipworth describes that each impedance vector maps out a desired modulation, and each impedance vector comprises values for each tunable impedance element; see col. 6, lines 48-52, where Lipworth describes that the tunable impedance elements are associated with the sub-wavelength antenna elements; see col. 8, lines 27-38, where Lipworth describes that the sub-wavelength antenna elements are located on the surface of the body).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: obtaining one or more of the desired modulations based on: location of at least a subset of the RF radiating antenna elements, as taught by Lipworth to modify the method of Sari in order to attain wide variety of customizable radiation patterns, as discussed by Lipworth (see col. 2, lines 30-45).
Consider claims 7 and 17:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 1 and 11 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: the RF radiating antenna elements are part of a metasurface.
Lipworth teaches: RF radiating antenna elements are part of a metasurface (see col. 5, lines 16-29, where Lipworth describes antenna elements that are on a two-dimensional metasurface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the RF radiating antenna elements are part of a metasurface, as taught by Lipworth to modify the method of Sari in order to attain wide variety of customizable radiation patterns, as discussed by Lipworth (see col. 2, lines 30-45).
Consider claims 10 and 20:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 1 and 11 above. Sari discloses: the distances are Euclidean distances (see paragraph 0007, where Sari describes maintaining minimum Euclidean distance between signal vectors).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sari et al. (US 2017/0126463 A1) in view of Colombo (US 2020/0045537 A1) and Lipworth et al. (US 9,967,011 B1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2017/0084989 A1).
Consider claims 2 and 12:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 1 and 11 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: identifying a resonance frequency for each RF radiating antenna element in the plurality of antenna elements.
Shi teaches: identifying a resonance frequency for each RF radiating antenna element in the plurality of antenna elements (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0039, where Shi describes an antenna 602 which includes multiple antenna branches, each antenna branch is operating at a different pre-determined resonance frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: identifying a resonance frequency for each RF radiating antenna element in the plurality of antenna elements, as taught by Shi to modify the method of Sari in order to tune each antenna branch, as discussed by Shi (see paragraph 0039).
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sari et al. (US 2017/0126463 A1) in view of Colombo (US 2020/0045537 A1) and Lipworth et al. (US 9,967,011 B1), as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Sibecas et al. (US 2007/0047678 A1).
Consider claims 4 and 14:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 3 and 13 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: mapping the desired modulations to achievable modulation states is performed by approximating a set of required polarizabilities.
Sibecas teaches: mapping a desired modulations to achievable modulation states is performed by approximating a set of required polarizabilities (see paragraph 0110, where Sibecas describes that a minimum distance metric is used to determine a most likely polarization state of modulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: mapping the desired modulations to achievable modulation states is performed by approximating a set of required polarizabilities, as taught by Sibecas to modify the method of Sari in order to improve data throughout, as discussed by Sibecas (see paragraph 0005).
Consider claims 5 and 15:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 3 and 13 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: selecting points out of achievable polarizabilities that approximate required polarizabilities of the desired modulation.
Sibecas teaches: selecting points out of achievable polarizabilities that approximate required polarizabilities of a desired modulation (see paragraph 0110, where Sibecas describes a polarization constellation which includes all possible desired polarization states of a modulation, a minimum distance metric is used to determine a most likely polarization state of the modulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: selecting points out of achievable polarizabilities that approximate required polarizabilities of the desired modulation, as taught by Sibecas to modify the method of Sari in order to improve data throughout, as discussed by Sibecas (see paragraph 0005).
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sari et al. (US 2017/0126463 A1) in view of Colombo (US 2020/0045537 A1) and Lipworth et al. (US 9,967,011 B1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2016/0204515 A1).
Consider claims 8 and 18:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 1 and 11 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: selecting available polarizabilities for the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements based distances from a first set of polarizabilities.
Smith teaches: selecting available polarizabilities for a plurality of RF radiating antenna elements based distances from a first set of polarizabilities (see paragraph 0277, where Smith describes a method of selecting a plurality of polarizabilities from a set of polarizabilities for a plurality of scattered antenna elements on a metasurface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: selecting available polarizabilities for the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements based distances from a first set of polarizabilities, as taught by Smith to modify the method of Sari in order to optimize a desired cost function, as discussed by Smith (see paragraph 0277).
Consider claims 9 and 19:
Sari in view of Colombo and Lipworth discloses the invention of claims 1 and 11 above. Sari does not specifically disclose: the first set of polarizabilities comprise ideal polarizabilities for the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements.
Smith teaches: the first set of polarizabilities comprise ideal polarizabilities for the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements (see paragraph 0278, where Smith describes that the set of polarizabilities includes optimal polarizabilities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the first set of polarizabilities comprise ideal polarizabilities for the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements, as taught by Smith to modify the method of Sari in order to optimize a desired cost function, as discussed by Smith (see paragraph 0277).
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 LIHONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-5147. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm EST Monday-Friday.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571)272-9018. 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.
/LIHONG YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631