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 .
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 1-10 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,
An RF signal absorption module mounted on a radar panel that simultaneously transmits a plurality of RF signals to absorb interference signals generated as the plurality of RF signals are transmitted simultaneously
Based on the construction of the above limitation, it is unclear whether the applicant intends to claim an RF signal module that transmits RF signals to absorb interference signals or an absorption module that absorbs interference signals and is mounted on a radar panel that transmits RF signals, which the RF signal absorption module absorbs interfering portions of.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend upon indefinite claim 1. They are further rejected because each claim recites, in its respective preamble, “The RF signal absorption of claim…” There is a lack of antecedent basis for “The RF signal absorption,” because claim 1 refers to an RF signal absorption module, not an RF signal absorption.
Claims 3, 6, and 9 are further rejected because they recite the limitation, “each of the (four, eight, sixteen) first conductor patterns is formed at an angle (θ1, θ2, θ3) of (65o to 85o, 32.5o-42.5o, 16.25o to 21.25o)…” The examiner notes that the limitations in parentheses refer to the specific numerical limitations recited, respectively, in claims 3, 6, and 9. For the above limitations, the metes and bounds of “formed at an angle” are unclear because the angle is not described as being relative to anything. The above limitations could refer to the arc angle encompassed by the first conductor patterns or to the particular location on the circuit board at which each conductor pattern is located in polar coordinates. For the purposes of examination, and based on figs. 1-3 of the applicant’s specification, the former interpretation is being used.
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 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (Nguyen, T.T., Lim, S. Design of Metamaterial Absorber using Eight-Resistive-Arm Cell for Simultaneous Broadband and Wide-Incidence-Angle Absorption. Sci Rep 8, 6633 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25074-8), hereinafter Nguyen, in view of Vollbracht et al. (US 20220352638 A1), hereinafter Vollbracht.
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen teaches (note: what Nguyen does not teach is struck through),
An RF signal absorption module (abs., “In this paper, a broadband metamaterial (MM) absorber is presented for X-band applications. )
first conductor patterns formed on a circuit board in a shape of a rim within a unit cell of a square shape, in which the rim shape is divided into a plurality of segments and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 6, reproduced below and labeled. See also, “The symmetric geometry of ERA”);
second conductor patterns connected to the plurality of segmented first conductor patterns to be formed in a shape of a spoke, in which the spoke shape is disposed to be segmented in the middle (fig. 6, reproduced below and labeled); and
resistors disposed to be connected between the second conductor patterns segmented in the middle (fig. 6, reproduced below and labeled).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vollbracht teaches,
An RF signal absorption module mounted on a radar panel that simultaneously transmits a plurality of RF signals to absorb interference signals generated as the plurality of RF signals are transmitted simultaneously (para. 0263, “The pattern of absorption slots 1305 in the surface 123 of the absorption channel 1304 allow unwanted EM reflections to be absorbed by an absorber material 140 of the absorption channel 1304, rather than interfere with a radar signal of the radiation channel 1302.” The examiner notes that, per para. 0071, “The absorption element, such as each absorption element, may be configured as a meta-material structure.”)…
Nguyen and Vollbracht are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor; namely, RF signal absorbers. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the RF signal absorption module unit cell structure of Nguyen as an interference absorption module for an RF transmitter, as taught by Vollbracht. Although the unit cell structure of Nguyen is taught as being for a metamaterial for stealth applications, Nguyen also notes that sensing is a common use of EM wave absorbers (see Introduction, para. 1). Vollbracht teaches a metamaterial absorption element for absorbing unwanted EM reflections for sensing. Thus, it would be obvious to use the metamaterial of Nguyen in a sensing application because it would predictably result in a polarization-independent broadband absorption unit to reduce extraneous reflections in an RF sensing module.
Regarding claim 5, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 1. Nguyen further teaches,
…wherein the first conductor patterns are segmented into eight pieces and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 6, first conductor pattern is segmented into eight sections), the second conductor patterns are symmetrically connected to each of the eight first conductor patterns (fig. 6, second conductor patterns are disposed symmetrically connected to the first conductor patterns), and the resistors are disposed to be connected to each of the eight second conductor patterns (fig. 6, resistors are connected in the center of each of the eight second conductor patterns).
Regarding claim 6, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 5. Nguyen further teaches,
…wherein each of the eight first conductor patterns is formed at an angle θ2 of 32.5° to 42.5° and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 6, see screenshot below with angle measurement).
PNG
media_image2.png
852
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 6. Nguyen further teaches,
…wherein resistance of the resistors disposed to be connected to each of the eight second conductor patterns is 80 to 120Ω (“The fabricated structure consisting of 14 × 14 unit cells and 1568 100-Ω chip resistors with 1% tolerance was soldered using surface-mounting technology.” The examiner notes that the resistor of fig. 6 is labeled as being one of these chip resistors).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Vollbracht as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Mishra et al. (Mishra, R.K., Gupta, R.D. & Datar, S. Metamaterial Microwave Absorber (MMA) for Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Shielding in X-Band. Plasmonics 16, 2061–2071 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11468-021-01465-y), hereinafter Mishra.
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 1. Nguyen further teaches (note: what Nguyen does not teach is struck through).
…wherein the first conductor patterns are segmented into (fig. 6, reproduced above with respect to claim 1), the second conductor patterns are symmetrically connected to each of the (fig. 6, reproduced above with respect to claim 1), and the resistors are disposed to be connected to each of the four second conductor patterns (fig. 6, reproduced above with respect to claim 1).
Vollbracht does not teach,
…wherein the first conductor patterns are segmented into four pieces and disposed at equal intervals, the second conductor patterns are symmetrically connected to each of the four first conductor patterns, and the resistors are disposed to be connected to each of the four second conductor patterns.
Mishra teaches,
…wherein the first conductor patterns are segmented into four pieces and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 1, reproduced below), the second conductor patterns are symmetrically connected to each of the four first conductor patterns (fig. 1, reproduced below)…
PNG
media_image3.png
587
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mishra is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, namely, RF absorption modules. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RF absorption module of Nguyen in view of Vollbracht using the teachings of Mishra. Both the RF absorption module of Nguyen and the RF absorption module of Mishra are effective for absorbing X-band frequencies, both are polarization-independent, and both maintain high absorption for both normal and wide-angle radiation. Thus, using four pieces instead of eight is no more than a design choice as to which central absorption peak(s) are desired for a given application. The modification of the eight-arm structure of Nguyen with the four-arm structure of Mishra thus gives the predictable result of an RF-frequency absorber with a different central absorption frequency.
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht and further in view of Mishra teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 2. Nguyen in view of Vollbracht does not teach,
…wherein each of the four first conductor patterns is formed at an angle θ1 of 65° to 85° and disposed at equal intervals
Mishra teaches,
…wherein each of the four first conductor patterns is formed at an angle θ1 of 65° to 85° and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 1, see screenshot below with angle measurement superimposed).
PNG
media_image4.png
857
854
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nguyen in view of Vollbracht with the arc angles of Mishra. As noted above with respect to claim 2, using a first conductor separated into four pieces (as Mishra teaches) instead of eight (as Nguyen teaches) is no more than a design choice as to which central absorption peak(s) are desired for a given application. For a segmented conductor with four pieces rather than eight to be evenly split around the rim of a circle, naturally a larger arc angle than that of Nguyen would be needed, and the arc angle of Mishra is an appropriate one for maintaining separation between each first conductor segment. The modification of the eight-arm structure of Nguyen with the four-arm structure of Mishra thus gives the predictable result of an RF-frequency absorber with a different central absorption frequency.
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht and further in view of Mishra teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 3. Nguyen further teaches,
…wherein resistance of the resistors disposed to be connected to each of the four second conductor patterns is 80 to 120Ω (“The fabricated structure consisting of 14 × 14 unit cells and 1568 100-Ω chip resistors with 1% tolerance was soldered using surface-mounting technology.” The examiner notes that the resistor of fig. 6 is labeled as being one of these chip resistors).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Vollbracht as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Huang et al. (Xiutao Huang, Conghui Lu, Cancan Rong, and Minghai Liu, "Wide-angle perfect metamaterial absorbers based on cave-rings and the complementary patterns," Opt. Mater. Express 8, 2520-2531 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1364/OME.8.002520.), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 8, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 1. Nguyen further teaches (note: what Nguyen does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the first conductor patterns are segmented into (fig. 6, reproduced above with respect to claim 1), the second conductor patterns are symmetrically connected to each of the (fig. 6, reproduced above with respect to claim 1), and the resistors are disposed to be connected to each of the sixteen second conductor patterns (fig. 6, reproduced above with respect to claim 1).
Huang teaches,
…wherein the first conductor patterns are segmented into sixteen pieces and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 1, reproduced below with respect to claim 9)…
PNG
media_image5.png
136
144
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Huang is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, namely, RF absorption modules. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RF absorption module of Nguyen in view of Vollbracht using the teachings of Huang. Both the RF absorption module of Nguyen and the RF absorption module of Huang are effective for absorbing RF frequencies, both are polarization-independent, and both maintain high absorption for both normal and wide-angle radiation. Thus, using sixteen pieces instead of eight is no more than a design choice as to which central absorption peak(s) are desired for a given application. The modification of the eight-section structure of Nguyen with the sixteen-section structure of Huang has the predictable result of an RF-frequency absorber with a different central absorption frequency.
Regarding claim 9, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht and further in view of Huang teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 8. Nguyen in view of Vollbracht does not teach,
…wherein each of the sixteen first conductor patterns is formed at an angle θ3 of 16.25° to 21.25° and disposed at equal intervals
Huang teaches,
…wherein each of the sixteen first conductor patterns is formed at an angle θ3 of 16.25° to 21.25° and disposed at equal intervals (fig. 1, reproduced below with angles marked).
PNG
media_image6.png
867
873
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nguyen in view of Vollbracht with the arc angles of Huang. As noted above with respect to claim 8, using a first conductor separated into sixteen pieces (as Huang teaches) instead of eight (as Nguyen teaches) is no more than a design choice as to which central absorption peak(s) are desired for a given application. For a segmented conductor with sixteen pieces rather than eight to be evenly split around the rim of a circle, naturally a smaller arc angle than that of Nguyen would be needed, and the arc angle of Huang is an appropriate one for maintaining separation between each first conductor segment. The modification of the eight-section structure of Nguyen with the sixteen-section structure of Huang thus gives the predictable result of an RF-frequency absorber with a different central absorption frequency.
Regarding claim 10, Nguyen in view of Vollbracht and further in view of Huang teaches the RF signal absorption according to claim 9. Nguyen further teaches,
…wherein resistance of the resistors disposed to be connected to each of the sixteen second conductor patterns is 80 to 120Ω (“The fabricated structure consisting of 14 × 14 unit cells and 1568 100-Ω chip resistors with 1% tolerance was soldered using surface-mounting technology.” The examiner notes that the resistor of fig. 6 is labeled as being one of these chip resistors).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights