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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024 and 09/03/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-4 should read “…phase gradient is between…” to maintain consistency with claim 1 above.
In addition, claim 2 recites “…a phase difference Δφ of the transmissive phase gradient, grad φ,…”, instead of “…a phase difference, Δφ, of the transmissive phase gradient, grad φ… .”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 5-7 and 16-17 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.
Claims 2 recites “the metallic meta-atoms are arranged in at least first, second and third groups,”, however, it is not clear if these groups are part of the “at least two groups” in claim 1. Similarly, claims 3 and 4 recite “…within a group…”, however, it is not clear if these groups are part of the “at least two groups” in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the first meta-surface is open…” and “the second meta-surface is open”, however, it is unclear if these meta-surfaces claimed is part of the dual polarized meta surfaces of claim 1 or a different meta-surface.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a side length, of square segments are between λ/200 and λ/20…”, however, it is not clear the square segment of what exactly is this limitation is claiming.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first meta-surface….and…the second meta-surface…“, however, there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 6 recites “wherein Δ is the wavelength of the incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna.” However, this limitation was not described in the specification. Δ has been described as the periodicity and not the wavelength.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20080129626) in view of Diaz et al. (US 20170179596) and Legay et al. (US 20100085272).
Regarding claim 1:
Wu et al. disclose a radome (120) for a planar array antenna (111), wherein said radome (120) comprises at least an electromagnetic wave active area (130); wherein said electromagnetic wave active area (130) consists of a dielectric substrate (121) and meta-surfaces (defined as area containing 212-218 and 222-228) disposed on both sides of the dielectric substrate (121); wherein said meta-surfaces (defined as area containing 212-218 and 222-228) are made of plurality of periodically arranged metallic meta-atoms (212-218 and 222-228), each metallic meta-atom (212-218 and 222-228) consisting of a metallic cell with open (in the “S” shape), rotational symmetric, and non-continuous geometrical patterns (See Figs. 2A and 2B); wherein said metallic meta-atoms (212-218 and 222-228) overlap to form a complete and closed pattern when the patterns are superimposed in a plane parallel to the two sides (131 and 133) of the dielectric substrate (121; See Figs. 1, 2A and 2B); wherein said metallic meta-atoms (212-218 and 222-228) are periodically arranged into at least two groups covering all or part of the angular radiation pattern of the planar array antenna (111; See Fig. 1); wherein the dielectric substrate (121) is a woven fabric, preferably an inorganic/organic mixed woven fabric (Para. 0015, Lines 2-4).
Wu et al. are silent on that the meta-surfaces are two dual-polarized; wherein geometric dimensions of the metallic meta-atoms vary within each group so that to form an electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient within that group, wherein said electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient is different from one group; wherein a periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms is between, λ/10 and λ; wherein λ is the wavelength of an incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna.
Diaz et al. disclose the meta-surfaces (14-16 and 18-20) are dual-polarized (See Abstract; Para. 0027, Lines 1-3); wherein geometric dimensions of the metallic meta-atoms vary within each group so that to form an electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient within that group, wherein said electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient is different from one group (Para. 0077, Lines 9-15; Para. 078, Lines 19-23).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the meta-surfaces are dual-polarized; wherein geometric dimensions of the metallic meta-atoms vary within each group so that to form an electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient within that group, wherein said electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient is different from one group, wherein said electromagnetic transmissive phase gradient is different from one group as taught by Diaz et al. into the device of Wu et al. for the benefit of independently optimizing the bandwidth of the staked patches (Para. 0011, Lines 19-21).
Wu as modified are silent on that a periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms is between, λ/10 and λ; wherein λ is the wavelength of an incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna.
Legay et al. disclose a periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms is between, λ/10 and λ; wherein λ is the wavelength of an incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna (Para. 0004, Lines 2-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention on that a periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms is between, λ/10 and λ; wherein λ is the wavelength of an incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna as taught by Legay et al. into the modified device of Wu for the benefit of improving the efficiency of the device (Para. 0004, Lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 2:
Wu et al. are silent on that the metallic meta-atoms are arranged in at least first, second and third groups, wherein a phase difference Δφ of the transmissive phase gradient, grad φ, is between 0° and 30° for the first group, between 30° and 40° for the second group and between 40° and 50° for the third group, and wherein the first, second and third group are located along said radome so that an incident angle of a planar array antenna is respectively between 0° and 15°, 15° and 30° and 30° and 45° for the first, second and third group.
Diaz et al. disclose the maximum range of phase variation achieved with single layer printed elements of variable size is usually lower than 330° (Para. 0008, Lines 1-2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognized the range of the transmissive phase gradient based on arrangement of the metallic meta-atoms as taught by Diaz et al. into the device of Wu et al. for the benefit of adjusting an improving the working bandwidth (Para. 0008, Lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 3:
Wu et al. are silent on that the transmissive phase gradient, grad φ, within a group is positive, negative, or alternating over said group.
Diaz et al. disclose a group arrangement of the metallic meta-atoms (5-7 and 9-11) in the to achieve the positive or the negative transmissive phase gradient (See Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the transmissive phase gradient, grad φ, within a group may be is positive, negative, or alternating over said group as taught by Diaz et al. into the device of Wu et al. for the benefit of optimizing the phase at several frequencies in the working frequency bands (Para. 0120, Lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 4:
Wu as modified are silent on that a number of metallic meta-atoms within a group is a ratio between 2π and a phase difference, Δφ, in radians of the transmissive phase gradient, grad φ.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to recognize that in the design of gradient metasurfaces, the number of meta-atoms (N) in a group (or a single period) is the ratio of a full phase cycle (2π) to the phase difference (ΔΦ) between adjacent meta-atoms, especially since this relationship would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the design consideration
Regarding claim 5:
Wu et al. disclose the pattern of the metallic meta-atoms of the first meta-surface (212-218) is open sided square and the pattern of the metallic meta-atoms of the second meta-surface (222-228) is open angle square (See Figs. 1, 2A and 2B).
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
Wu as modified are silent on that a side length, of square segments are between λ/200 and λ/20, wherein Δ is the wavelength of the incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna as required by claim 6; and a length of the segments of the open angle square is between λ/5 and λ/1.4, wherein λ is the wavelength of the incident electromagnetic wave from the planar array antenna as required by claim 7.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement the side length and the length of the segments as some ranges based on the antenna frequency of operation since 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.
Regarding claim 8:
Wu et al. disclose a thickness of the dielectric substrate is at least 1 mm (Para. 0044, Lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 9:
Wu et al. are silent on that an operating frequency of said radome is in the Ku-band or Ka-band.
Diaz et al. disclose an operating frequency of said radome is in the Ku-band (Para. 0011, Lines 32-35; Para. 0114, Lines 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement operating frequency of said radome is in the Ku-band as taught by Diaz et al. into the device of Wu et al. for the benefit of operating the device at satellite broadcast or telecommunication space (Para. 0139, Lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 10:
Wu et al. disclose an amplitude loss of the active area is between 0 and 3 dB (Para. 0008, Lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 11:
Wu et al. are silent on that the metallic meta-atoms are made of copper or alloyed copper.
Diaz et al. disclose the metallic meta-atoms are made of copper (Para, 0116, Lines 9-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the metallic meta-atoms are made of copper or alloyed copper as taught by Diaz et al. into the device of Wu et al. for the benefit of achieving reduction in volume, mass and costs in the satellite pay-load (Para. 0003, Lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 12:
Wu et al. disclose (in Fig. 1) said metallic meta-atoms (212-218 and 222-228) are periodically arranged into at least three groups (defined by the arrangements 212 and 222; 214-224; 216 and 226 and 218 and 228) covering all or part of the angular radiation pattern of the planar array antenna (111).
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
Wu as modified are silent on that the periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms is between λ/4 and λ/1.3 as required by claim 13; and the periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms is between λ/2.8 and λ/1.6 as required by claim 14.
Legay et al. disclose the periodicity of the metallic meta-atoms are between λ/4 and λ/1.3, and λ/2.8 and λ/1.6 (Para. 0004, Lines 2-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention on that the metallic meta-atoms are between λ/4 and λ/1.3 and λ/2.8, and λ/1.6 as taught by Legay et al. into the modified device of Wu for the benefit of improving the efficiency of the device (Para. 0004, Lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 15:
Wu et al. disclose the woven fabric is an inorganic/organic mixed woven fabric (Para. 0015, Lines 2-4; Para. 0039, Lines 3-4).
Regarding claims 16 and 17:
Wu as modified are silent on that the side length of the square segments are between λ/100 and λ/40 as required by claim 16; and the length of the segments of the open angle square is between λ/4.7 and λ/1.8 as required by claim 17.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement the side length and the length of the segments as some ranges based on the antenna frequency of operation since 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.
Regarding claim 18:
Wu et al. disclose the thickness of the dielectric substrate (120) is at least 3 mm (Para. 0044, Lines 4-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights