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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/28/2025.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. (US 8320727, hereby referred as Jacobsen).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobsen teaches the following:
a radio frequency (RF) device (column 10, lines 10-33), comprising:
a first network structure comprising a first composite, the first composite including a first RF tunable material (column 10, lines 4-9; column 14, line 53 – column 15, line 21; the first material); and
a second network structure interpenetrating the first network structure, the second network structure comprising a second composite including a second RF tunable material (column 10, lines 4-9; column 14, line 53 – column 15, line 21; the second or third material);
wherein the first and second network structures are sized and positioned to control an RF tuning ability (column 10, lines 34-66; column 14, lines 53 – 59).
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first RF tunable material is the same as the second RF tunable material (column 15, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 3, Jacobsen as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first network structure and the second network structure are equally sized and shaped (column 5, line 61 – column 6, line 20; column 15, lines 20-21; as shown in figures 1-2, 8-9).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobsen as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first and second RF tunable materials comprise one or more of: one or more performance materials; one or more additional additives; and one or more spacing materials (column 14, line 60 – column 15, line 19).
Regarding claim 7, Jacobsen as referred in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the one or more performance materials comprise one or more of a ferroelectric additive, a ferromagnetic additive, a liquid crystal additive, a phase change additive, an elastic additive, a semiconductor material, and a semiconductor component (column 14, line 60 – column 15, line 19).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobsen as referred in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the one or more additional additives comprise one or more of titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, oxides, nitrates, and nitrides (column 14, line 60 – column 15, line 19).
Regarding claim 13, Jacobsen as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a spacing between the first network structure and the second network structure is provided by an actuator (this claim is a product-by-process claim and "[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). Since the product is the same and there is a spacing between the two network structures, this limitation would be taught by Jacobson).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US 8320727, hereby referred as Jacobsen) in view of Boyce et al. (US 2021/0316501, hereby referred as Boyce).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobsen as referred in claim 1 teaches the RF device with the exception for the following:
wherein the first network structure and the second network structure each comprise gyroids.
Boyce suggests the teachings of an interpenetrating network structure that comprises double gyroids (paragraph [0005]). It is also well known in the polymer science that gyroids arise naturally that can provide a high modulus and superior conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first network structure and the second network structure of Jacobsen to comprise gyroids, specifically double gyroids, as suggested by the teachings of Boyce and as known in the polymer science which can provide a high modulus and superior conductivity.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jacobsen and Boyce as referred in claim 4 teaches the following:
wherein the first and second structures form a double gyroid lattice (Boyce, paragraph [0005], as explained in claim 4).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US 8320727, hereby referred as Jacobsen) in view of Locke et al. (US 2014/0316073, hereby referred as Locke).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobsen as referred in claim 7 teaches the RF device with the exception for the following:
wherein the one or more performance materials comprise one or more of barium strontium titanite (BST), yttrium iron garnet, gallium antimony tellurium (Ga-Sb-Te), and vanadium dioxide.
However, Jacobsen does teach various materials could be used (column 14, line 60 – column 15, line 19).
Locke suggests the teachings of an interpenetrating network structure (paragraph [0013]) wherein the one or more performance materials comprise one or more of barium strontium titanite (BST), yttrium iron garnet, gallium antimony tellurium (Ga-Sb-Te), and vanadium dioxide (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the one or more performance materials of Jacobsen to comprise one or more of barium strontium titanite (BST), yttrium iron garnet, gallium antimony tellurium (Ga-Sb-Te), and vanadium dioxide as suggested by the teachings of Locke in order to get the desired composite structure the radio frequency (RF) filter (Jacobsen, column 10, lines 10-33)(Locke, paragraph [0018]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US 8320727, hereby referred as Jacobsen).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobsen as referred in claim 9 teaches the RF device with the exception for the following:
wherein the one or more additional additives are sized between about 1 nanometer (nm) and 20 micrometers (µm).
However, Jacobsen does teach that the material may include nanoparticles (column 14, lines 10-11) which are generally in the range from 1 to 100 nanometers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the one or more additional additives of Jacobsen to be sized between about 1 nanometer (nm) and 20 micrometers (µm) as suggested by the teachings of Jacobsen and knowledge in the art to get the desired composite structure, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US 8320727, hereby referred as Jacobsen) in view of Vella et al. (US 2023/0122929, hereby referred as Vella).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobsen as referred in claim 6 teaches the RF device with the exception for the following:
wherein the one or more spacing materials comprise one of a magnetostrictive material and a piezoelectric material.
Vella suggests the teachings of wherein the one or more spacing materials comprise one of a magnetostrictive material and a piezoelectric material (paragraphs [0045] and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Jacobsen include one or more spacing materials comprising of one of a magnetostrictive material and a piezoelectric material as suggested by the teachings of Vella which can be used to fill up the pore space between the two interpenetrating composite structures (paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0045], and [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Jacobsen as referred in claim 6 teaches the RF device with the exception for the following:
wherein the spacing material is positioned to modify a geometric shape of the RF device.
Vella suggests the teachings of wherein the spacing material is positioned to modify a geometric shape of the RF device (paragraphs [0045] and [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Jacobsen include spacing material that is positioned to modify a geometric shape of the RF device as suggested by the teachings of Vella which can be used to fill up the pore space between the two interpenetrating composite structures (paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0045], and [0055]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845