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 16 and 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.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, these claims depend from Claim 14, and recite first and second surface tiles of the metasurface; however, such features lack antecedent basis. Those features are introduced in Claim 15. It is unclear whether Claims 16 and 17 are intended to depend from Claim 15 (to provide proper antecedent basis), or whether those features should be introduced new into Claims 16 and 17 with the article “a” or “an” instead of “the”.
Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113595607 A (cited in Applicant’s October 2, 2024, IDS, a machine translation is provided with this Office action, citations are to the provided translation, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses (e.g., paragraphs [n0066]–[n0142] of the translation and Figs. 1, 3, and 6, though the whole document appears relevant) a system for controlling a metasurface having formed thereon subwavelength structures each encoded with holographic information (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [n0067]–[n0077] and [n0088], reconfigurable holographic metasurface antenna), the system comprising: one or more transmitters (e.g., feed source 1 that emits electromagnetic waves, paragraph [n0088]); and a controller (where Zhang teaches controlling a beam, but does not explicitly disclose a controller; however, a controller that effectuates the control would have been obvious, yielding expected results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature of using a controller to effectuate the control) configured to: control the one or more transmitters to generate one or more radiation patterns (paragraph [n0088], feed source 1 emits electromagnetic waves, which propagate in the form of surface waves to metamaterial radiating element array 3, where emission of individual elements is controlled), each radiation pattern comprising one or more radio-frequency (RF) beams directed towards the metasurface for interacting with one or more of the subwavelength structures (where Zhang broadly teaches “electromagnetic waves,” but selecting appropriate waves, such as RF, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on the desired frequency of the device, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality of the claim feature limiting the electromagnetic waves to RF) to thereby output, from the metasurface, electromagnetic waves for reconstructing at least some of the holographic information (e.g., paragraph [n0091]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein each transmitter of the one or more transmitters comprises an antenna array or a reconfigurable intelligent surface (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6, paragraph [n0088], reconfigurable holographic metasurface antenna).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the system is a user device and does not comprise the metasurface (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090], base station (transmitter) equipped with a reconfigurable holographic metasurface (RHS) antenna with L feed sources that wants to communicate with L users, where whether the metasurface is part of, or separate from, the system, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang would have rendered obvious the system of claim 1, further comprising the metasurface (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090], base station (transmitter) equipped with a reconfigurable holographic metasurface (RHS) antenna with L feed sources that wants to communicate with L users, where whether the metasurface is part of, or separate from, the system, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the system is a display unit comprising the metasurface (where applying the system taught by Zhang to known transmitting/receiving devices such as a display would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the metasurface comprises: an array of surface tiles, each surface tile having formed thereon one or more of the subwavelength structures (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang would have rendered obvious a first component configured to: receive electromagnetic waves output from the metasurface when the one or more RF beams interact with the one or more of the subwavelength structures; and a second component configured to: reconstruct the at least some of the holographic information based on the received electromagnetic waves (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090], base station (transmitter) equipped with a reconfigurable holographic metasurface (RHS) antenna with L feed sources that wants to communicate with L users).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the system is a user device comprising the first component and the second component (where applying the system taught by Zhang to an integrated user device would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features; MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein a size of an aperture of the one or more transmitters is not greater than √(Sλ/2), wherein S is a distance between the one or more transmitters and the metasurface, and lambda is a wavelength of the electromagnetic waves (where selecting appropriate size of the apertures would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unexpected results from the claim feature; MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein: the subwavelength structures comprise: a first subwavelength structure formed on a first surface tile of the metasurface and encoded with first holographic information; and a second subwavelength structure formed on a second surface tile of the metasurface and encoded with second holographic information (e.g., different metamaterial radiating elements of array 3, Fig. 3); and the controller is further configured to: control the one or more transmitters to direct the one or more RF beams towards the first and second surface tiles of the metasurface (paragraph [n0088], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the controller is further configured to: control the one or more transmitters to direct the one or more RF beams towards the first surface tile of the metasurface; and subsequently, control the one or more transmitters to direct the one or more RF beams towards the second surface tile of the metasurface (paragraph [n0088], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the controller is further configured to: control the one or more transmitters to simultaneously direct the one or more RF beams towards the first and second surface tiles of the metasurface (paragraph [n0088], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang would have rendered obvious the recited method of controlling a metasurface as outlined above with respect to Claim 1, where the claim recites a method that essentially tracks the same features as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang would have rendered obvious receiving the electromagnetic waves output from the metasurface; and reconstructing the at least some of the holographic information based on the received electromagnetic waves (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090], base station (transmitter) equipped with a reconfigurable holographic metasurface (RHS) antenna with L feed sources that wants to communicate with L users).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein: the one or more subwavelength structures comprise: a first subwavelength structure formed on a first surface tile of the metasurface and encoded with first holographic information; and a second subwavelength structure formed on a second surface tile of the metasurface and encoded with second holographic information (e.g., different metamaterial radiating elements of array 3, Fig. 3); and controlling the one or more transmitters comprises: controlling the one or more transmitters so as to direct the one or more RF beams towards the first and second surface tiles of the metasurface (paragraph [n0088], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein controlling the one or more transmitters comprises: controlling the one or more transmitters so as to direct the one or more RF beams towards the first surface tile of the metasurface; and subsequently, controlling the one or more transmitters so as to direct the one or more RF beams towards the second surface tile of the metasurface (paragraph [n0088], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein controlling the one or more transmitters comprises: controlling the one or more transmitters so as to direct the one or more RF beams simultaneously towards the first and second surface tiles of the metasurface (paragraph [n0088], Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein: the one or more RF beams comprise a first RF beam and a second RF beam; and controlling the one or more transmitters comprises: controlling the one or more transmitters so as to direct the first RF beam towards a first surface tile of the metasurface, the first surface tile having formed thereon a first subwavelength structure of the one or more subwavelength structures and encoded with first holographic information, wherein the first RF beam interacts with the first subwavelength structure so as to generate first electromagnetic waves (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090], base station (transmitter) equipped with a reconfigurable holographic metasurface (RHS) antenna with L feed sources that wants to communicate with L users); and controlling the one or more transmitters so as to direct the second RF beam towards a second surface tile of the metasurface, the second surface tile having formed thereon a second subwavelength structure of the one or more subwavelength structures and encoded with second holographic information, wherein the second RF beam interacts with the second subwavelength structure so as to generate second electromagnetic waves (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090], base station (transmitter) equipped with a reconfigurable holographic metasurface (RHS) antenna with L feed sources that wants to communicate with L users).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang would have rendered obvious prior to controlling the one or more transmitters: receiving one or more signals having encoded therein information based on the holographic information, and wherein controlling the one or more transmitters comprises controlling the one or more transmitters so as to generate one or more radiation patterns based on the information encoded in the one or more signals (e.g., Figs. 1–2; also example starting in paragraph [n0090]).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein: receiving the one or more signals comprises receiving the one or more signals at a user device; controlling the one or more transmitters comprises controlling the one or more transmitters using the user device; and the method further comprises: receiving, at the user device, the electromagnetic waves output from the metasurface; and reconstructing the at least some of the holographic information based on the received electromagnetic waves (e.g., example starting in paragraph [n0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights