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
The amendments filed on July 16th 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 16th 2026.
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’ 381 et al. (IDS Reference CN 107394318 A ) in view of Han et al. (US 20210151898 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang’ 318 et al. discloses a reflecting device (Liquid crystal reflective unit as seen in figure 1-2 of Yang’ 318 et al.) comprising:
a plurality of first patch electrodes (Array can comprise multiple dipole patch electrodes 2 wherein we have a plurality of first patch electrodes and a plurality of second patch electrodes 2-1; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.);
a plurality of second patch electrodes having a size different from a size of the first patch electrodes (Patch electrodes 2-1 may have different sizes from each other with one having a length Lx1 and another having a length Lx2; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.
a ground electrode opposing the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes and separated from the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes (Ground electrode 6 is placed below and separated from the first and second patch electrodes 2-1; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.); and
a liquid crystal layer between the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes and the ground electrode (Liquide crystal layer 4 is placed between the ground electrode 6 and the first/second patch electrodes 2-1; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.),
wherein the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged on a same plane and alternately in a first direction (First and second patch electrodes are arranged alternatively in a first direction like the y-direction as seen in figure 2 and 6 of Yang’ 318 et al.),
at least one of the first patch electrodes is adjacent to a respective one of the plurality of second patch electrodes in the first direction or the second direction (Each of the first patch electrodes is adjacent to a second patch electrode in the first direction as seen in figure 2 and 6 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
along the first direction, one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes (As seen in the array of figure 4, one of the first patch electrodes would be between two of the second patch electrodes in a first direction like the y-direction; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Yang’ 318 et al. fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged on a same plane and alternately in a second direction intersecting the first direction and along the second direction, one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes.
However Han et al. does disclose the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged on a same plane and alternately in a second direction intersecting the first direction and along the second direction , one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes (A plurality of upper coupling structures 137 may serve as first patch electrodes that are arranged alternatively with another plurality of coupling structures 115 serving as second patch electrodes wherein these first and second patches are alternatively arranged in the x and y direction such that a first patch 137 would be located between two patches 115; Pg. 83-123 and figure 1-3 of Han et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. to have the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged on a same plane and alternately in a second direction intersecting the first direction and along the second direction, one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes as taught by Han et al. since the size of the patches would affect their resonant frequency and their arrangement would affect the radiation pattern/coupling (Pg. 87 and 128 of Han et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
591
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1101
920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yang’ 318 et al. further discloses wherein a shape of each first patch electrode and a shape of each second patch electrode are rotationally symmetric (First and second path electrodes 2-1 comprise a rectangular shape that is symmetrically when rotated by 180 or 360 degrees; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang’ 318 et al. further discloses wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 70% or more and 93% or less of a size of each second patch electrode (First patch electrode has a length Lx1 of 420μm and a width ly1 of 38μm such that its size would be 7828 μm2 and the second patch electrode has a length Lx2 of 226μm and a width of 38μm such that its size would be 8588 μm2 wherein the size of the first patch electrode is roughly 91% the size of the second patch electrode; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang’ 318 et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged so that an entire region of the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes is rotationally symmetric about a center of a region where the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged in the first direction and the second direction (First and second patch electrodes 2-1 are disposed upon a layer 3 wherein they are arranged symmetrically to each other and the layer such that they are rotationally symmetric about a center of layer 3 while first and second patches alternatively in the first direction as seen in figure 4 of Yang’ 318 et al.; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang’ 318 et al. discloses a reflecting device (Liquid crystal reflective unit as seen in figure 1-2 of Yang’ 318 et al.) comprising:
a plurality of first patch electrodes (Array can comprise multiple dipole patch electrodes 2 wherein we have a plurality of first patch electrodes and a plurality of second patch electrodes 2-1; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.);
a plurality of second patch electrodes having a size different from a size of the first patch electrodes (Patch electrodes 2-1 may have different sizes from each other with one having a length Lx1 and another having a length Lx2; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.
a ground electrode opposing the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes and separated from the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes (Ground electrode 6 is placed below and separated from the first and second patch electrodes 2-1; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.); and
a liquid crystal layer between the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes and the ground electrode (Liquide crystal layer 4 is placed between the ground electrode 6 and the first/second patch electrodes 2-1; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.),
wherein the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes are arranged on a same plane on a same plane in a first direction or a second direction intersecting the first direction (First and second patch electrodes are arranged alternatively in a first direction like the y-direction as seen in figure 2 and 6 of Yang’ 318 et al.),
at least one of the first patch electrodes is adjacent to a respective one of the plurality of second patch electrodes in the first direction or the second direction (Each of the first patch electrodes is adjacent to a second patch electrode in the first direction as seen in figure 2 and 6 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
along the first direction, one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes (As seen in the array of figure 4, one of the first patch electrodes would be between two of the second patch electrodes in a first direction like the y-direction; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Yang’ 318 et al. fails to explicitly disclose along the second direction, one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes.
However Han et al. does disclose along the second direction , one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes (A plurality of upper coupling structures 137 may serve as first patch electrodes that are arranged alternatively with another plurality of coupling structures 115 serving as second patch electrodes wherein these first and second patches are alternatively arranged in the x and y direction such that a first patch 137 would be located between two patches 115; Pg. 83-123 and figure 1-3 of Han et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. to have along the second direction, one of the plurality of first patch electrodes is between two of the plurality of second patch electrodes as taught by Han et al. since the size of the patches would affect their resonant frequency and their arrangement would affect the radiation pattern/coupling (Pg. 87 and 128 of Han et al.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’ 381 et al. (IDS Reference CN 107394318 A ) in view of Han et al. (US 20210151898 A1) and Chang et al. (US 20220384961 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. fail to disclose wherein a shape of each first patch electrode and a shape of each second patch electrode are square, diamond, square with chamfered corners, square with rounded corners, or circular.
However, Chang et al. and Han et al. does disclose wherein a shape of each first patch electrode and a shape of each second patch electrode are square, diamond, square with chamfered corners, square with rounded corners, or circular (Antenna electrodes 110a comprise at least 2 groups of antenna electrodes with different sizes wherein each of a first group of patch electrodes of size w1 and a second group of patch electrodes of size w3 have a square shape; Paragraphs 46-65 and figure 6 of Chang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. to have a shape of each first patch electrode and a shape of each second patch electrode are square, diamond, square with chamfered corners, square with rounded corners, or circular as taught by Chang et al. to allow the electromagnetic wave to have different characteristics when reflected by the antenna structure (Paragraph 57 of Chang et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
535
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’ 381 et al. (IDS Reference CN 107394318 A ) in view of Han et al. (US 20210151898 A1) and Deng et al. (CN 109066021 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 107% or more and 140% or less of a size of each second patch electrode.
However, Deng et al. does disclose wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 107% or more and 140% or less of a size of each second patch electrode (A first patch electrode may have a length Ly3 = 215μm and a width Lx3 = 36μm such that is size would be 7740 μm2 and a second patch electrode with a length Ly2 = 200μm and a width Lx3 = 36μm such that its size would be 7000μm2 wherein the size of the first patch would 110% the size of the second patch; Pg. 3-4 and figure 3 of Deng et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. to have a size of each first patch electrode be 107% or more and 140% or less of a size of each second patch electrode as taught by Deng et al. since it has been held that 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 (CCPA 1955) and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would stem from the fact that the size of the patch electrodes would impact its resonant frequency and said antenna can operate in millimeter wave (Abstract of Yang’ 318 et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
529
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 7.0 mm2 or more and 9.3 mm2 or less, and a size of each second patch electrode is 5.5 mm2 or more and 7.0 mm2 or less.
Although Deng et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 7.0 mm2 or more and 9.3 mm2 or less, and a size of each second patch electrode is 5.5 mm2 or more and 7.0 mm2 or less. Deng et al. does disclose a size of each first patch electrode and a size of each second patch electrode (First patch electrode would have a size of 7740 μm2 or .007740mm2 and the second patch electrode has a size of 7000 μm2 or .007mm2; Pg. 3-4 and figure 3 of Deng et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. to have wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 7.0 mm2 or more and 9.3 mm2 or less, and a size of each second patch electrode is 5.5 mm2 or more and 7.0 mm2 or less since it has been held that 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 (CCPA 1955) and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would stem from the fact that the size of the patch electrodes would impact its resonant frequency and said antenna can operate in millimeter wave (Abstract of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Although Yang’ 318 et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a size of each first patch electrode is 5.5 mm2 or more and 7.0 mm2 or less, and a size of each second patch electrode is 7.0 mm2 or more and 9.3 mm2 or less. Yang’ 318 et al. does disclose a size of each first patch electrode and a size of each second patch electrode (First patch electrode would have a size of 7828 μm2 or .007828mm2 and the second patch electrode has a size of 8588 μm2 or .008588mm2; Pg. 3-4 and figures 1-4 of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. to have a size of each first patch electrode is 5.5 mm2 or more and 7.0 mm2 or less, and a size of each second patch electrode is 7.0 mm2 or more and 9.3 mm2 or less since it has been held that 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 (CCPA 1955) and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would stem from the fact that the size of the patch electrodes would impact its resonant frequency and said antenna can operate in millimeter wave (Abstract of Yang’ 318 et al.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’ 381 et al. (IDS Reference CN 107394318 A ) in view of Han et al. (US 20210151898 A1) and Yang’ 647 et al. (CN 114122647 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a frequency of radio waves incident on the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes is 28 GHz.
Although, Yang’ 647 et al. et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a frequency of radio waves incident on the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes is 28 GHz. Yang’ 647 et al. does disclose a frequency of radio waves incident on the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes (Plurality of first patch electrodes and second patch electrodes can reflect incident waves in a frequency band of 101ghz to 104ghz; Pg 6 and figure 7 of Yang’ 647 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. with the teachings of Yang’ 647 et al. to have a frequency of radio waves incident on the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes is 28 GHz since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the fact that liquid crystal can used to enable beamforming in millimeter wave frequency bands and other bands (Pg. 2 of Yang’ 647 et al.).
PNG
media_image6.png
450
516
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang’ 381 et al. (IDS Reference CN 107394318 A ) in view of Han et al. (US 20210151898 A1) and Kao et al. (US 20200381824 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang’ 318 et al., and Han et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes is connected to each of a plurality of switching elements.
However, Kao et al. does disclose wherein each of the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes is connected to each of a plurality of switching elements (Plurality of first patch electrodes in a first row and a plurality of second patch electrodes in a second row may be connected to a plurality of switching units 31; Paragraph 13-28 and figure 2-4 of Kao et al. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Yang’ 318 et al. and Han et al. to have each of the plurality of first patch electrodes and the plurality of second patch electrodes be connected to each of a plurality of switching elements as taught by Kao et al. to turn on or turn off the patch electrode elements of the reflecting antenna to adjust beam direction (Paragraph 28 of Kao et al.).
PNG
media_image7.png
420
516
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20240291166 A1 (SATO; Yosuke) discloses an antenna structure comprising multiple patches of different sizes connected to a plurality of switching elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights