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 21 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 21 recites the limitation “a substrate between the first and second metal layers”. It is unclear if this substrate is the same or a different substrate from “the at least one substrate layer coupled a first side of the first metal layer”. In order to expedite prosecution, this claim has taken to read that the substrate between the first and second metal layers is one of the at least one substrate layers coupled to a first side of the first metal layer.
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.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjbarnikkhah et al. (US20240313412; hereinafter Ranjbarnikkhah).
Regarding claim 12, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “An antenna comprising: a metasurface structure having a plurality of RF radiating antenna elements, where each of the RF antenna elements includes at least one tunable iris (slot in 1111) formed in a first metal layer (1111), at least one substrate layer (1101) coupled a first side of the first metal layer, a superstrate (1170) coupled to a second side of the first metal layer”.
Fig. 11 of Ranjbarnikkhah does not disclose “a tuning element coupled to the first metal layer through the superstrate”.
However, Fig. 8A of Ranjbarnikkhah teaches “a tuning element (803) coupled to the first metal layer”. Fig. 8A does not disclose that the tuning element is coupled through the superstrate, however, fig. 11 shows using vias (1163) to connect components from the microstrip line to the metal layer through the superstrate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would make the simple substitution of the microstrip line of fig. 8A for the microstrip line of fig. 11 and keep the same connecting structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of fig. 8A and make Ranjbarnikkhah’s antenna of fig. 11 with a tuning element coupled to the first metal layer through the superstrate, in order to tune the iris element.
Regarding claim 13, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 12 wherein the at least one tunable iris is part of a double layer iris (fig. 11A) with the first metal layer (1111) having a first iris (slot in 1111) and a second metal layer (1110) having a second iris (1106) in which first and second irises form a vertical stack in which the first iris is over the second iris”.
Regarding claim 14, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 12 wherein the tuning element is coupled to the first metal layer and second metal layer using vias (1160/1161)”.
Regarding claim 15, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 12 wherein the at least one tunable iris comprises a resonator (803/1103 is a resonator)”.
Regarding claim 16, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 12 wherein the tuning element comprises a varactor (803/1103 is a varactor)”.
Regarding claim 17, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 12 further comprising at least one via on each of opposite sides of the first iris and second iris extending between and coupling the first and second metal layers (fig. 11A)”.
Regarding claim 18, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 17 wherein the at least one via on each of opposite sides of the first iris to reduce leakage of electromagnetic energy between RF radiating antenna elements (¶[0093]; Via cage 861 is designed or configured to reduce, and potentially avoid, radiation from coupler 800 interfering with patch antenna 802)”.
Regarding claim 19, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 17 wherein the at least one via comprises a plurality of vias located along a portion of each of two elongated sides of the first and second irises (fig. 11A)”.
Regarding claim 20, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 19 wherein the plurality of vias form a via wall (via cages)”.
Regarding claim 21, Ranjbarnikkhah discloses “The antenna of claim 12 further comprising a substrate (1101) between the first and second metal layers”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights