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 .
Response to Amendment & Arguments
The amendment filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are currently pending.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 103 rejections of 1-11 and 13-14 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the pre-programming occurs between reception and transmission” but the spec does not support this limitation. It is not clear the pre-programming occurs between reception and transmission of what. It is not clear if the reception and transmission of the mechanical strain recited in claim 1 or if the reception and transmission of electromagnetic signals of the antenna. Moreover, the spec mentioned “The piezoelectric layer 104 may be arranged to be set to the defined condition prior to a receiving and/or transmitting operation of the antenna being performed. In such way, the antenna 100 may be pre-programmed or pre-set to the defined condition” in page 8, lines 25-28.
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.
Claim 4 is ejected 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 4 recites the limitation "wherein the pre-programming occurs between reception and transmission " in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear the pre-programming occurs between reception and transmission of what. It is not clear if the reception and transmission of the mechanical strain recited in claim 1 or if the reception and transmission of electromagnetic signals of the antenna. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “voltage source and/or a charge source electrically connected to the piezoelectric layer and configured to apply a voltage or a charge to the piezoelectric layer to pre-program the memristive material to at least one condition corresponding to a target signal pattern of the antenna”.
Regarding claim 13, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “pre-programming at least one condition of the memristive material corresponding to a target signal pattern of the antenna”.
Regarding claim 15, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “voltage source and/or a charge source electrically connected to the piezoelectric layer and configured to apply a voltage or charge to the piezoelectric layer to pre-programmed the memristive material to at least one condition corresponding to a target signal pattern of the antenna, the method comprising:
pre-programming the memristive material using a first condition;
receiving, in the magnetostrictive layer, a magnetic field of a detected electromagnetic wave;
converting, in the magnetostrictive layer, the magnetic field of the detected electromagnetic wave into mechanical strain;
transmitting the mechanical strain from the magnetostrictive layer to the piezoelectric layer; and
producing, in the piezoelectric layer, an output voltage based on the mechanical strain and the first condition”.
Sepulveda et al (US-20210242606-A1), Yang et al (CN-106796984-A), Miller et al (US-8803751-B1), Sun et al (US-20220038074-A1), Huang et al (CN-113964492-A) are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna comprisinga magnetostrictive layer, a piezoelectric layer comprises a memristive material, the magnetostrictive layer and the piezoelectric layer are arranged to transmit mechanical strain to one another.
However, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 14 and 16-21 are considered allowable due to their respective dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights