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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2026, 06/23/2025 and 03/19/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “redirect the redirected wireless radio frequency signal” should read “redirect the redirected wireless radio frequency signals ”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 13, 15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 15 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/775,984. 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 provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/775,993
18/775,984
Claim 1
Claim 1
A device, comprising:
a passive metasurface comprising respective unit cells, the passive metasurface configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals, received at the metasurface from a transmitter, as redirected wireless radio frequency signals to a receiver,
A metasurface, comprising:
respective unit cells configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals, received at the metasurface from a transmitter, as redirected wireless radio frequency signals to a receiver,
wherein the respective unit cells are configured with at least one distinct physical characteristic to redirect the redirected wireless radio frequency signal with a distinct physical radiation pattern relative to other physical radiation patterns of other metasurfaces for identification of the metasurface relative to the other metasurfaces.
wherein the respective unit cells are configured with respective distinct physical characteristics to redirect the redirected wireless radio frequency signal with respective distinct physical radiation pattern relative to other physical radiation patterns of other metasurfaces, and
wherein the distinct physical radiation pattern facilitates taking action with respect to the metasurface.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “for identification of the metasurface relative to the other metasurfaces” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case both applications have the same structures, therefore are construed as at least possessing such ability.
18/775,993
18/775,984
Claim 13
Claim 12
A system, comprising:
a receiver;
A metasurface, comprising:
respective unit cells configured to reflect a transmitted wireless signal as a reflected wireless signal to a receiver,
a metasurface of respective unit cells configured to reflect a transmitted wireless signal as a reflected wireless signal to the receiver,
wherein the reflected wireless signal is altered, relative to the transmitted wireless signal, by the respective unit cells based on respective physical characteristic data of the respective unit cells, into a distinct radiation pattern signature by which the metasurface is identifiable from at least one other metasurface.
wherein the reflected wireless signal is altered, relative to the transmitted wireless signal, by the respective unit cells based on at respective physical characteristic data of the respective unit cells, into a distinct radiation pattern signature; and a device that obtains the distinct radiation pattern signature from the receiver, and manages the metasurface associated with the distinct radiation pattern signature.
Claim 15
Claim 15
The metasurface of claim 13, wherein the distinct radiation pattern signature corresponds to at least one of: distinct phase profile data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam length data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam width data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam splitting data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct gain data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, or distinct directivity data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal.
The system of claim 12, wherein the distinct radiation pattern signature is based on at least one of: distinct phase profile data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam length data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam width data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam splitting data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct gain data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, or distinct directivity data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “by which the metasurface is identifiable from at least one other metasurface” of claim 13 perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case both applications have the same structures, therefore are construed as at least possessing such ability.
18/775,993
18/775,984
Claim 17
Claim 18
A method, comprising:
determining, by a system comprising at least one processor, a distinct identifier associated with a metasurface, the determining comprising:
A method, comprising:
determining, by a system comprising at least one processor, a distinct signature associated with a metasurface, the determining comprising:
receiving a wireless radio frequency signal at a receiver, wherein the wireless radio frequency signal is redirected by the metasurface to the receiver, and
receiving a wireless radio frequency signal at a receiver, wherein the wireless radio frequency signal is redirected by the metasurface to the receiver, and
extracting a signature from the wireless radio frequency signal based on a distinct radiation pattern of the wireless radio frequency signal; and accessing a data store that associates the signature with the distinct identifier associated with the metasurface.
extracting the signature from the wireless radio frequency signal based on a distinct radiation pattern of the wireless radio frequency signal; and managing, by the system, the metasurface associated with the signature.
Although the claims are not identical, “accessing a data store” and “managing, by the system” are both functions of the system to associate the signature with the metasurface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 and 19-20 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 recites the limitation " received at the metasurface from a transmitter, as redirected wireless radio frequency signals to a receiver, wherein the respective unit cells are configured with at least one distinct physical characteristic to redirect the redirected wireless radio frequency signal with a distinct physical radiation pattern relative to other physical radiation patterns of other metasurfaces for identification of the metasurface relative to the other metasurfaces" in lines 2-9 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the metasurface in the claim. It is not clear if Applicant means the passive metasurface or something different. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-12 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Similar rejections would be applied to claims 10-12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " The method of claim 17, further comprising taking action, by the system, based on the identifier of the metasurface." in lines 2-9 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the identifier in the claim. It is not clear if Applicant means the distinct identifier recited in claim 17 or something different. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 20 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 19 and is subsequently rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elian et al, US-20240393433-A1 (hereinafter Elian).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Elian discloses the following:
a device, comprising:
a passive metasurface (104, fig. 1C) comprising respective unit cells (300, fig. 3A), the passive metasurface configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals (206, para [0030]-[0031]), received at the metasurface from a transmitter (202), as redirected wireless radio frequency signals (208) to a receiver (202),
wherein the respective unit cells are configured with at least one distinct physical characteristic (para [0040]: shape, geometry, size, alignment and arrangement of the structural elements/unit cells gives the metamaterials their special properties) to redirect the redirected wireless radio frequency signal with a distinct physical radiation pattern relative to other physical radiation patterns of other metasurfaces (para [0030], [0031]) for identification of the metasurface relative to the other metasurfaces (para [0049]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to redirect transmitted wireless radio frequency signals” and “for identification of the metasurface relative to the other metasurfaces” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 2, Elian discloses wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic comprises respective shapes of the respective unit cells (para [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Elian discloses wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic comprises respective sizes of the respective unit cells (para [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Elian discloses wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to a distinct phase profile of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Elian discloses wherein the metasurface is part of a service tag (104, fig. 1C) associated with an electronic device (200).
Regarding claim 13, Elian discloses the following:
a metasurface, comprising:
respective unit cells (300, fig. 3A) configured to reflect a transmitted wireless signal (206, fig. 1C, para [0030]) as a reflected wireless signal (208) to a receiver (202),
wherein the reflected wireless signal is altered (para [0031]), relative to the transmitted wireless signal (206), by the respective unit cells based on respective physical characteristic data of the respective unit cells (para [0040], [0049]), into a distinct radiation pattern signature [para [0031]) by which the metasurface is identifiable from at least one other metasurface (para [0049]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to reflect” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 14, Elian discloses wherein the respective physical characteristic data of the respective unit cells comprises at least one of: respective shape data of the respective unit cells (para [0040]), respective size data of the respective unit cells, respective rotation angle data of the respective unit cells, or respective spacing distance data between the respective unit cells.
Regarding claim 15, Elian discloses wherein the distinct radiation pattern signature corresponds to at least one of: distinct phase profile data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal (para [0031]), distinct beam length data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam width data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam splitting data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct gain data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, or distinct directivity data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal.
Regarding claim 16, Elian discloses wherein the metasurface is part of a service tag (104, fig. 1C) associated with an electronic device (200), is part of a human-wearable device, or is attachable to a movable device.
Regarding claim 17, Elian discloses the following:
a method, comprising:
determining, by a system comprising at least one processor (“data processing unit”, para [0036]), a distinct identifier (“predetermined second comparison information”, para [0034], [0035]) associated with a metasurface (104, fig. 1C), the determining comprising:
receiving a wireless radio frequency signal (208) at a receiver (202), wherein the wireless radio frequency signal is redirected by the metasurface to the receiver (para [0030], fig. 1C), and
extracting a signature (“first comparison information”, para [0032]) from the wireless radio frequency signal (208) based on a distinct radiation pattern of the wireless radio frequency signal (para [0031], [0032]); and
accessing a data store (“memory”, para [0035]) that associates the signature (“first comparison information”) with the distinct identifier associated with the metasurface (“predetermined second comparison information”).
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of … – “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
Regarding claim 18, Elian discloses wherein the extracting of the signature from the wireless radio frequency signal comprises recognizing at least one of: distinct phase profile data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal (para [0031]), distinct beam length data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct beam width data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, or distinct beam splitting data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, distinct gain data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, or distinct directivity data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Elian discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising taking action, by the system, based on the identifier of the metasurface (para [0036]: the data processing unit can compare the first information obtained from the captured characteristics with second comparison information. With corresponding algorithms, a decision can be made as to whether the first comparison information matches or approximately matches the second comparison information and para [0037]: The result of the decision can be displayed visually on the screen).
Regarding claim 20, Elian discloses wherein the taking of the action comprises linking the metasurface to an account (para [0036]) , or unlocking an electronic device associated with the metasurface.
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 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elian as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, although Elian does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic comprises respective rotation angles of the respective unit cells, Elian discloses one distinct physical characteristic is the alignment and arrangement of the respective unit cells (para [0040]) which rotation angles of the respective unit cells is one of the characteristics of alignment and arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotation angles of the respective unit cells to the distinct physical characteristic taught in Elian as claimed for the purpose of providing the metasurface a unique characteristic in order to modify the transmit signal and give a unique radiation signal to the metasurface (para [0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, although Elian does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic comprises respective spacing distances between the respective unit cells, Elian discloses one distinct physical characteristic is the arrangement of the respective unit cells (para [0040]) and spacing distances between the respective unit cells is one of the characteristics of arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide respective spacing distances between the respective unit cells to the distinct physical characteristic taught in Elian as claimed for the purpose of providing the metasurface a unique characteristic in order to modify the transmit signal and give a unique radiation signal to the metasurface (para [0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, although Elian does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to distinct beam length data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, Elian discloses one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to beam direction (para [0031]) and a radiating beam in a direction would have its own characteristics, such as beam length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide beam length data to the distinct physical characteristic taught in Elian as claimed for the purpose of providing the metasurface a unique characteristic in order to modify the transmit signal and give a unique radiation signal to the metasurface (para [0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, although Elian does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to distinct beam width data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, Elian discloses one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to beam direction (para [0031]) and a radiating beam in a direction would have its own characteristics, such as beam width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide beam width data to the distinct physical characteristic taught in Elian as claimed for the purpose of providing the metasurface a unique characteristic in order to modify the transmit signal and give a unique radiation signal to the metasurface (para [0031], [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, although Elian does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to distinct beam splitting data of the redirected wireless radio frequency signal, Elian discloses one distinct physical characteristic corresponds to beam direction (para [0031]) and a radiating beam in a direction would have its own characteristics, such as beam pattern (splitting, wide or narrow and so forth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide beam splitting data to the distinct physical characteristic taught in Elian as claimed for the purpose of providing the metasurface a unique characteristic in order to modify the transmit signal and give a unique radiation signal to the metasurface (para [0031], [0040]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elian as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Cendon Martin et al, CN-117044035-A.
Regarding claim 11, Elian does not disclose wherein the metasurface is part of a wearable device.
Cendon Martin discloses wherein the metasurface (fig. 3, page 7, para 4: conductive material 310 (1) to 310 (n) may include metamaterial, i.e. metasurface) is part of a wearable device (fig. 2, page 7, para 2-3: smart glasses, smart watch and so forth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the metasurface taught in Elian to be part of a wearable device as taught in Cendon Martin as claimed for the purpose of obtaining the characteristics of the metamaterials in order to manipulate the electromagnetic signals depending on the requirements of the application (Cendon Martin, page 7, para 4).
Regarding claim 12, Elian does not disclose wherein the metasurface is coupled to a movable device.
Cendon Martin discloses wherein the metasurface (fig. 3, page 7, para 4: conductive material 310 (1) to 310 (n) may include metamaterial, i.e. metasurface) is coupled to a movable device (fig. 2, page 7, para 2-3: smart glasses, smart watch and so forth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the metasurface taught in Elian to be coupled to a movable device as taught in Cendon Martin as claimed for the purpose of obtaining the characteristics of the metamaterials in order to manipulate the electromagnetic signals depending on the requirements of the application (Cendon Martin, page 7, para 4).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Kalbermatten, EP-2495621-A1 – metasurface is part of a wearable device
Zorgui et al, US-20240214967-A1 – using metasurface to reflect transmitted signals
Elshafie et al, US-20250309943-A1 – using metasurface to reflect transmitted signals
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845