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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered. The amendments made overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the amendments made to the claim are still replete with indefinite language. Hence, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in light of the amendment are made hereinafter.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 6/30/26 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the marked copy provided, which is required as per 37 CFR 1.125(c) is not using proper cross-out and underlining. A non-limiting example is Paragraph [0028], where a line appears across the word “complex”, appearing to cross it out, and it appears to cross out the bolded equation and keep the faded equation. The term “for the condition if 124” appears to be crossed out and underlined. Although the clean copy submitted appears to be what the applicant intends the specification to be, it also shows a few amendments, for example in paragraph [0034], the word “modelled” shows an amendment. The marked copy needs to clearly show all the amendments made to the original specification filed on 1/22/25. Thus, the substitute specification filed 6/30/26 is not entered. Objections set forth in the previous office action still stand, but are not repeated hereinafter.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 is replete with inconsistent terminology, grammatical and idiomatic errors, it appears to be a translation from a foreign language. The claim does not follow standard US practice for claim language. For example, in lines 2 and 3, “each unit cell of the surface” is used with no context as to what unit cells are being referenced, the surface lacks antecedent basis. Lines 1 and 2 introduce the term “an intelligent reflecting surface (IRS)” and this phrase is repeated in lines 8 and 9, it is unclear from the claim language if the same IRS is being referenced. It is further unclear which IRS is being referenced throughout the claim. Further, once an acronym is introduced, it should be used to reference back to the first introduction. However, the claim repeatedly introduces the term “intelligent reflecting surface (IRS)”, rather than just stating “the IRS”. Line 9 introduces the term “a plurality of reflecting unit cells”, however, throughout the claim, references are not made back to this term. The claim uses “the reflecting unit cells”, “a plurality of the unit cells”, “the plurality of unit cells”, “corresponding unit cell”, “the unit cells”. Terminology needs to be consistent. These are non-limiting examples of the inconsistencies found within the claim. Clarification and required.
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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights