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 .
This is in response to the election filed 8/7/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 8/7/2026 is acknowledged. The grounds of traversal were not further explained. This is not found persuasive because there were no points of response.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/7/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/19/2025, 6/23/2025, 1/21/2026, 4/15/2026, 6/4/2026, and 8/5/2026 have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 18/775,968. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the rationale detailed below.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented, yet. Though an issue fee has been paid on the soon to be patent for application 18/775,968.
18/775,993
18/775,968
Claim 1
Claim 1
A device, comprising:
a passive, wearable metasurface comprising respective unit cells, the passive, wearable metasurface configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals from the respective unit cells, received at the passive, wearable metasurface from a transmitter, as redirected wireless radio frequency signals to a receiver,
A device, comprising:
a wearable metasurface comprising passive unit cells, the passive metasurface configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals, received at the wearable passive metasurface from a transmitter, as redirected wireless radio frequency signals to a receiver,
wherein the respective unit cells comprise respective phase delay elements that alter a phase profile of the redirected wireless radio frequency signals relative to the transmitted wireless radio frequency signals, to facilitate detection of proximity of the passive, wearable metasurface to the receiver.
wherein the respective unit cells comprise metallic patches and delay elements that alter at least one property of the redirected wireless radio frequency signals relative to the transmitted wireless radio frequency signals to facilitate proximity detection, by a computing device coupled to the receiver, associated with an authenticated user wearing the wearable metasurface,
wherein the computing device performs operations to facilitate the proximity detection, wherein the operations comprise:
in response to the proximity detection ceasing for a defined time period, locking the computing device.
Examiner note: The bolded elements may or may not be exact duplicates and convey similar language. The claims of the instant application serve as a generally broader scope to the already granted limitations of 18/775,968 application with the slight variant of the specifics of the delay elements.
Claim 2 of the instant application is similar to Claim 1 and 2 of the allowed application
Claim 3 of the instant application is similar to Claim 1 and 2 of the allowed application
Claim 4 of the instant application is similar to Claim 2 of the allowed application
Claim 5 of the instant application is similar to Claim 2 of the allowed application
Claim 6 of the instant application is similar to Claim 3 of the allowed application.
Claim 7 of the instant application is similar to Claim 4 of the allowed application.
Claim 8 of the instant application is similar to claim 5 of the allowed application.
Claim 9 of the instant application is similar to claim 6 of the allowed application.
Claim 10 of the instant application is similar to claim 7 of the allowed application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Elian et al., US PGPub 2024/0393433 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Elian et al., shows a device, comprising: a passive, wearable metasurface (104, Fig. 1C; [0027] highlights a variety of items that metasurface markings could be added to such as shoes and clothing) comprising respective unit cells (300, fig. 3A), the passive, wearable metasurface configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals (206, para [0030]-[0031]) from the respective unit cells, received at the passive, wearable metasurface from a transmitter, as redirected wireless radio frequency signals to a receiver; wherein the respective unit cells comprise respective phase delay elements that alter a phase profile of the redirected wireless radio frequency signals relative to the transmitted wireless radio frequency signals([0029]-[0034]), to facilitate detection of proximity of the passive, wearable metasurface to the receiver (Fig. 2; [0029]-[0030] and [0049]).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
794
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
306
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b. Regarding claim 9, Elian shows the device of claim 1, wherein the redirected wireless radio frequency signals are within a defined millimeter wave frequency band ([0005]-[0006] and [0041]).
c. Regarding claim 10, Elian shows the device of claim 1, wherein the redirected wireless radio frequency signals are within a defined sub-terahertz wave frequency band ([0005]-[0006] and [0041]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carrigan et al., US Patent 12,615,491 B2 shows intradevice communications and interfaces via multiple rf technologies Column 9, lines 8-51).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAHVOSH J NIKMANESH whose telephone number is (571)270-5549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/Seahvosh Nikmanesh/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
