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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P. 7-8, filed 5/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied references and previously cited reference on the PTO-892 mailed on 03/26/2026. Applicant’s invitation to an interview is acknowledged, and can be scheduled if needed after Applicant has reviewed the Office Action or if any clarification of any matter in this case.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0388924 and Lier US Patent 8,493,273 (cited by applicant), and further in view of Khattak et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0261387.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee et al. teaches an antenna structure (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12, 14), comprising:
a plurality of radiators arranged with space between one another (PA1-PA4 Fig. 12, 14 Par. 0070 / 11_2, 11_3 Fig. 3 Par. 0042);
a reflector disposed beneath the plurality of radiators (12 seen in Fig. 3 Par. 0042 / 625 Fig. 7 Par. 0060); and
a metasurface structure disposed above the plurality of radiators (13 Fig. 3 Par. 0042 / 63 Fig. 7 Par. 0060).
Lee et al. is silent on wherein a distance between adjacent radiators of at least some of the plurality of radiators is greater than one wavelength of a highest frequency of an operating band of the antenna structure, wherein the metasurface structure does not contact with the reflector.
However, Lier teaches a distance between adjacent radiators of at least some of the plurality of radiators is greater than one wavelength of a highest frequency of an operating band of the antenna structure (“limited scanning arrays may allow two to three wavelength element spacing to keep grating lobes outside of the FOV” Col. 5 L 26-29, “In one aspect, aperture distribution 14 can dramatically improve the performance of a limited scan array with antenna element 4 spacing in the order of 2 to 5 wavelengths or more, depending on the scan requirement (e.g., typically 2.5-3.0 wavelengths for GEO antennas)” Col. 6 L 46-51).
Additionally, Khattak et al. teaches wherein the metasurface structure (“metasurface superstrate (MSS) structure 108” Fig. 1 Par. 0039) does not contact with the reflector (“reflector plate 110” Fig. 1 Par. 0039).
In this particular case, setting a distance between adjacent radiators to be greater than one wavelength of a highest frequency of an operating band of the antenna structure is common and well known in the art as evident by Lier to keep grating lobes outside of the field of view and improve performance. Furthermore, providing the metasurface structure to not contact the reflector is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Khattak et al. to achieve higher directivity and gain (Par. 0002).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set a distance between adjacent radiators of Lee et al. to be greater than one wavelength of a highest frequency of an operating band of the antenna structure, and to provide the metasurface structure to not contact the reflector based on the teachings of Lier and Khattak et al. as a result effect in order to keep grating lobes outside of the field of view and improve performance, and in order to achieve higher directivity and gain.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the plurality of radiators comprise radiators sequentially arranged in a first direction (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12, 14), and wherein the metasurface structure comprises a plurality of sections arranged in the first direction (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12, 14), each of the plurality of sections having a respective value of impedance (Par. 0008, 0081, 0082).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the plurality of sections define a repeating pattern of impedance values (Par. 0008, 0081, 0082).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al. as modified teaches the antenna structure of claim 3 as shown in the rejection above.
Lee et al. is silent on wherein the repeating pattern repeats with a period that is the same as the distance between adjacent radiators, or the repeating pattern repeats with a period that is an integer multiple of the distance between adjacent radiators.
However, Lee et al. teaches the spacing between the plates to be determined according to the required impedance of the antenna (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050).
In this particular case, setting the repeating pattern to repeat with a period that is the same as the distance between adjacent radiators, or with a period that is an integer multiple of the distance between adjacent radiators is common and well known in the art as evident by Lee et al. to be determined according to the required impedance of the antenna (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the repeating pattern to repeat with a period that is the same as the distance between adjacent radiators, or with a period that is an integer multiple of the distance between adjacent radiators based on the teachings of Lee et al. as a result effect based on the required impedance of the antenna.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the metasurface structure comprises a plurality of layers (plurality of layers of 13 better seen in Figs. 3, 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the plurality of layers has a respective value of impedance (Par. 0008, 0081, 0082).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the plurality of layers is arranged with space between one another (spacing of layers of 13 better seen in Figs. 3, 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee et al. as modified teaches the antenna structure of claim 2 as shown in the rejection above.
Lee et al. is silent on wherein an impedance of at least one of the sections varies in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
However, Lee et al. teaches setting dimensions of the plates according to the required impedance of the antenna (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050).
In this particular case, varying an impedance of at least one of the sections in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is common and well known in the art as evident by Lee et al. according to the required impedance of the antenna.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary an impedance of at least one of the sections in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction based on the teachings of Lee et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the required impedance of the antenna.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the metasurface structure comprises a substrate with a conductive pattern disposed on the substrate (“small metal patterns periodically arranged on a dielectric substrate” Par. 0035).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the metasurface structure further comprises a layer disposed over the conductive pattern and the substrate (stacked layers of 13 better seen in Figs. 3, 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the plurality of radiators is a dual polarization radiator (dual-polarization Par. 0038).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee et al. as modified teaches further comprising a second plurality of radiators (EA Figs. 12, 14 Par. 0071).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0388924 and Khattak et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0261387.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee et al. teaches a metasurface structure (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12, 14) for modifying a phase of electric fields (Par. 0072) of radiating elements of an antenna structure (PA1-PA4 Fig. 12, 14 Par. 0070 / 11_2, 11_3 Fig. 3 Par. 0042), the metasurface structure comprising:
a plurality of sections that define a repeating pattern (13 Fig. 3 Par. 0042 / 63 Fig. 7 Par. 0060) of impedance values (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050, 0081, 0082), the repeating pattern comprising a plurality of sections (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12, 14), and each of the plurality of sections having a respective value of impedance (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050, 0081, 0082), wherein the metasurface structure is disposed above a plurality of radiators (13 above radiators seen in Figs. 3, 7) of the antenna structure (PA1-PA4 Fig. 12, 14 Par. 0070 / 11_2, 11_3 Fig. 3 Par. 0042), the antenna structure comprises a reflector disposed beneath the plurality of radiators (12 seen in Fig. 3 Par. 0042 / 625 Fig. 7 Par. 0060).
Lee et al. is silent on the metasurface structure does not contact with the reflector.
However, Khattak et al. teaches the metasurface structure (“metasurface superstrate (MSS) structure 108” Fig. 1 Par. 0039) does not contact with the reflector (“reflector plate 110” Fig. 1 Par. 0039).
In this particular case, providing the metasurface structure to not contact the reflector is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Khattak et al. to achieve higher directivity and gain (Par. 0002).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the metasurface structure of Lee et al. to not contact the reflector based on the teachings of Khattak et al. as a result effect in order to achieve higher directivity and gain.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee et al. as modified teaches the metasurface structure of claim 13 as shown in the rejection above.
Lee et al. is silent on wherein the repeating pattern repeats with a period that is the same as a distance between adjacent radiators of the antenna structure, or the repeating pattern repeats with a period that is an integer multiple of a distance between adjacent radiators.
However, Lee et al. teaches the spacing between the plates to be determined according to the required impedance of the antenna (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050).
In this particular case, setting the repeating pattern to repeat with a period that is the same as a distance between adjacent radiators, or with a period that is an integer multiple of a distance between adjacent radiators is common and well known in the art as evident by Lee et al. to be determined according to the required impedance of the antenna (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the repeating pattern to repeat with a period that is the same as a distance between adjacent radiators, or with a period that is an integer multiple of a distance between adjacent radiators based on the teachings of Lee et al. as a result effect based on the required impedance of the antenna.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the plurality of sections extend along a first direction (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12, 14).
Lee et al. is silent on wherein the respective value of impedance of a section varies along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.
However, Lee et al. teaches setting dimensions of the plates according to the required impedance of the antenna (Par. 0008, 0036, 0050).
In this particular case, varying the respective value of impedance of a section along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is common and well known in the art as evident by Lee et al. according to the required impedance of the antenna.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the respective value of impedance of a section along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction based on the teachings of Lee et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the required impedance of the antenna.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee et al. as modified teaches the metasurface structure of claim 13 as shown in the rejection above.
Lee et al. is silent on wherein a magnitude of an imaginary part of an impedance of the metasurface structure is lower in an operating band compared to outside the operating band.
However, Lee et al. teaches “The EBG structure 13 may improve impedance matching in a target frequency band by increasing the ground potential and may improve the impedance in a multi-band by adjusting a pitch between the plurality of pillars and the size of the plates. In addition, if the EBG structure 13 is included in an antenna array in which a plurality of patch antennas are arranged, characteristics of the antenna array may be improved by removing surface waves that may occur in a microstrip antenna” (Par. 0036).
In this particular case, a person having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the magnitude of an imaginary part of an impedance of the metasurface structure is the reactance and that it can be configured to optimize the radiation performance at the operating frequency band.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a magnitude of an imaginary part of an impedance of the metasurface structure to be lower in an operating band compared to outside the operating band based on the teachings of Lee et al. as a result effect in order to improve the characteristics of the antenna array.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the metasurface structure comprises a plurality of layers (plurality of layers of 13 better seen in Figs. 3, 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the plurality of layers has a respective value of impedance (Par. 0008, 0081, 0082).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of layers is arranged with space between one another (spacing of layers of 13 better seen in Figs. 3, 7).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee et al. as modified teaches wherein the metasurface structure comprises a substrate with a conductive pattern disposed on the substrate (“small metal patterns periodically arranged on a dielectric substrate” Par. 0035).
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 MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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 (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights