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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment submitted on July 28, 2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 9-10 are cancelled;
Claims 11-12 are newly added; and thus,
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are now pending in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, in line 7, “a first and second type” should be changed to --a first type and a second type--
Claim 12, in line 5, “the” should be deleted
Claim 12, in line 6, “a first and second type” should be changed to --a first type and a second type--
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 11-12 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.
As claim 11, the recitation of “the processor to perform operation comprising: providing a substrate; providing a metasurface … arranging the unit cells” renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the processor is able to provide a substrate, a metasuface or arrange the unit cells thereof such that these operation steps need to be perform by a method of maufcaturing the antenna device thereof.
As claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under 112 second paragraph as the same reasons as claim 11 thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US 2024/0310561 of record).
With respect to claim 1, Allen discloses in figure 1 a multi-beam antenna comprising: a substrate (S, 108, e.g., a substrate); a metasurface (102, 106, e.g., metasurfaces) on the substrate (see figure 1), which is formed as a matrix with rows (R1-R2, e.g., rows) and columns (C1-C4, e.g., columns) of unit cells (A-B, e.g., unit cells) of a first and second type (figure 1 shows the cell A being different type with the cell B thereof), wherein the multi-beam antenna is adapted to radiate phase-adjusted signals in multiple directions simultaneously (paragraph 0066, e.g., “these unit cell are then subdivided in half … that the reflection of the mode is 180 degrees out of phase at the angles and frequencies of interest”), based on a periodic arrangement (figure 1 shows a periodic arrangement of the cells A and the cells B thereof) of the unit cells of the first and second types on the substrate (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Allen discloses that wherein the multi-beam antenna is adapted to be planar (figure 1 shows a planar or a layer of the antenna device), and the metasurface or the unit cells consists of a metal layer (110, e.g., a ground plane or a metal layer thereof) and is printed on the substrate (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 4, Allen discloses that wherein the multi-beam antenna has a metal surface (having a metal surface of the ground plane 110 thereof) on the opposite side of the metasurface on the substrate and the metal surface forms a mass (see figure 1, e.g., having a forming feature thereof).
With respect to claim 5, Allen discloses that wherein the unit cells of the first type are arranged column-wise (C1-C3, e.g. having the first type A in column C1 and C3 thereof) and/or row-wise alternating with the unit cells of the second type (figure 1 shows the alternating the unit cells of the second type B in rows thereof); and/or adjacent unit cells in a row direction of the matrix are of different types, and adjacent unit cells in a column direction of the matrix are of a same type (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, Allen discloses that where part or all of the multi-beam antenna is printed on the same substrate (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, Allen discloses that a method for manufacturing a multi-beam antenna (see figure 1), the method comprising: providing a substrate (S, 108, e.g., a substrate); providing a metasurface (102, 106, e.g., metasurfaces) by forming a matrix (123, e.g., a diagram or matrix) comprising rows (R1-R2, e.g., rows) and columns (C1-C4, e.g., columns) of unit cells (A-B, e.g., unit cells) of a first and second type (figure 1 shows the cell A being different type with the cell B thereof) on the substrate (see figure 1); and periodically arranging the unit cells of the first type and the second type on the substrate (figure 1 shows a periodic arrangement of the cells A and the cells B thereof) to enable the multi-beam antenna to radiate phase-adjusted signals in multiple directions simultaneously (paragraph 0066, e.g., “these unit cell are then subdivided in half … that the reflection of the mode is 180 degrees out of phase at the angles and frequencies of interest”).
With respect to claim 12, Allen discloses in figure 1 a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program instructions, the computer program instructions when executed by a processor (paragraph 0028, e.g., “the system further includes a controller configured to interrogate the apparatus”) cause the processor to perform operations comprising: providing a substrate (S, 108, e.g., a substrate); providing a metasurface (102, 106, e.g., metasurfaces) by forming a matrix comprising rows (R1-R2, e.g., rows) and columns (C1-C4, e.g., columns) of unit cells (A-B, e.g., unit cells) of a first and second type (figure 1 shows the cell A being different type with the cell B thereof) on the substrate (see figure 1); and periodically arranging the unit cells of the first type and the second type on the substrate to enable the multi-beam antenna to radiate phase-adjusted signals in multiple directions simultaneously (paragraph 0066, e.g., “these unit cell are then subdivided in half … that the reflection of the mode is 180 degrees out of phase at the angles and frequencies of interest”).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2024/0310561 of record) in view of Chakravarty et al. (US 2023/0291119).
With respect to claim 11, Allen discloses in figure 1 an apparatus comprising: a processor (paragraph 0028, e.g., “the system further includes a controller configured to interrogate the apparatus”), the computer program instructions when executed on the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: providing a substrate (S, 108, e.g., a substrate); providing a metasurface (102, 106, e.g., metasurfaces) by forming a matrix comprising rows (R1-R2, e.g., rows) and columns (C1-C4, e.g., columns) of unit cells (A-B, e.g., unit cells) of a first and second type (figure 1 shows the cell A being different type with the cell B thereof) on the substrate (see figure 1); and periodically arranging the unit cells of the first type and the second type on the substrate to enable the multi-beam antenna to radiate phase-adjusted signals in multiple directions simultaneously (paragraph 0066, e.g., “these unit cell are then subdivided in half … that the reflection of the mode is 180 degrees out of phase at the angles and frequencies of interest”).
Allen does not explicitly disclose that a memory to store computer program instructions.
Chakravarty discloses in figure 2D an apparatus comprising a substrate (Substrate), a metalsurface (paragraph 0033, e.g., a metasurface) and a memory to store computer program instruction (paragraph 0013, e.g. “a memory coupled to the processor is capable of executing programmed instructions stored in the processor in the memory”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Allen with a memory as taught by Chakravarty for the purpose of storing operation data or instructions to operating the antenna device thereof since this configuration for the stated purpose would have been deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the reference of Allen does not disclose the limitation of “the multi-beam antenna is adapted to radiate phase-adjusted signals in multiple directions simultaneously”.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees as following reasons: (1) figure 1 shows the antenna having the antenna patches/cells A-B for radiating or generating multiple directions simultaneously thereof; and (2) paragraph 0055 is also described that “by selecting different values in adjacent unit cells, progressive phase shift similar to phased array …” such that the antenna having phase shift signals would be the same as phase adjusted signals as by controlled by the controller thereof (see more in paragraph 0031 about phase shift signals as well).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art Chazelas et al. – US 2023/0268633
Prior art Huang et al. – US 2023/0231315
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUNG X LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/TUNG X LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 October 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights