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 and Amendments
The arguments and amendments filed July 10, 2026 have been considered. Each of the rejections from the previous Action are discussed below in light of Applicant’s response.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) are withdrawn in light of the cancellation of all of the claims. However, new objections are presented based on the amendments to the drawings.
35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Action are withdrawn in light of the cancellation of all of the claims. However, new rejections are presented based on the new claims.
35 USC § 112 - Scope of Enablement
The scope of enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in light of the cancellation of all of the claims. However, new rejections are presented based on the new claims.
35 USC § 112 - Written Description
The written description rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in light of the cancellation of all of the claims. However, new rejections are presented based on the new claims.
Specification
Lengthy Specification.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Substitute Specification - Not Entered.
The substitute specification filed July 10, 2026, has not been entered because the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing. Rule 1.125(b) states:
Subject to § 1.312, a substitute specification, excluding the claims, may be filed at any point up to payment of the issue fee if it is accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding the substitute specification are on page 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
146
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In particular, Applicant references 37 CFR 1.125(d) but does not reference 1.125(b) and does not make a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter.
Substitute Specification - New Matter.
As mentioned above, the substitute specification is not entered. However, in the interests of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that the following added material in [0036] does not appear to be supported by the original disclosure:
“The QTA-SMART MODULE 780 dimensions are 1" X 1.5" X 0.05" and weighs less than 2 grams, fitting into the helmet of a fireman”
In particular, the claimed dimensions for the QTA-SMART MODULE do not appear to be in the original disclosure, a weight of “less than 2 grams” for the QTA-SMART MODULE does not appear to be in the original disclosure, neither “helmet” nor “fireman” appear to be in the original disclosure, and the particular combination recited in the claim does not appear in the original disclosure. Due to the length of the written description and the large number of changes, the Examiner cannot search for support for every change, so the above examples of new matter are not a complete list.
If Applicant maintains/resubmits this or another substitute specification, Applicant should carefully review the changes, cancel all new matter, and specifically identify support in the original disclosure for every change. See, for example, MPEP 2136.06 I, last paragraph:
When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not “new matter” is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.
Providing identification of support in the reply will reduce the likelihood of additional objections/rejections and facilitate compact prosecution.
Drawing Amendments – Marked-Up Copy Required.
On page 3 of the Remarks filed July 10, 2026, Applicant states the FIGS. 1-13C have been amended, and copies of the figures have been submitted. Applicant did not specify how the figures were changed, and Applicant did not include marked-up copies showing changes. In order to understand what was changed, the Examiner requires a marked-up copy with annotations indicating the changes for all new or amended drawings. See MPEP 608.02(p) and 37 CFR 1.121(d):
(d) Drawings. One or more application drawings shall be amended in the following manner: Any changes to an application drawing must be in compliance with § 1.84 or, for a nonprovisional international design application, in compliance with §§ 1.84(c) and 1.1026 and must be submitted on a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document and, in the top margin, labeled "Replacement Sheet." Any replacement sheet of drawings shall include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Any new sheet of drawings containing an additional figure must be labeled in the top margin as "New Sheet." All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper.
(1) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be included. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
(2) A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, must be provided when required by the examiner.
Furthermore, as with changes to the written description, Applicant should identify support in the original disclosure for every change.
Claim Amendments.
All of the claims that were examined in the last Action have been deleted and new claims have been added. Applicant has not shown support for the new claims in the original disclosure. See, for example, MPEP 2163 II A, second paragraph.
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 (“If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). The inquiry into whether the description requirement is met is a question of fact that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1297, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Whether a patent claim is supported by an adequate written description is a question of fact."); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (“Precisely how close [to the claimed invention] the description must come to comply with Sec. 112 must be left to case-by-case development.”); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96 (inquiry is primarily factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure).
In other words, Applicant should show support in the original disclosure for any new or amended claims. At the top of page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
By this Amendment, claims 1-30 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer and new claims 31-60 have been added. Accordingly, claims 31-60 are pending, of which claims 31, 41, and 51 are independent. No new matter has been introduced by the addition of claims 31-60, which are supported by the disclosure of the application, including the substitute specification submitted herewith.
In other words, Applicant says the new claims are supported by “the disclosure of the application, including the substitute specification”. In other words, Applicant appears to be relying on the substitute specification to support the new claims.
In Applicant’s next response, Applicant should show support only in the original disclosure for the all elements of claims 31-60, and for any new claims that are added, and for any amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Written Description
Claims 31-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has cancelled all of the claims examined in the last Action and added all new claims. Applicant has not shown support for the new claims in the original disclosure. Furthermore, at the top of page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
By this Amendment, claims 1-30 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer and new claims 31-60 have been added. Accordingly, claims 31-60 are pending, of which claims 31, 41, and 51 are independent. No new matter has been introduced by the addition of claims 31-60, which are supported by the disclosure of the application, including the substitute specification submitted herewith.
In particular, Applicant appears to be stating that support for the new claims is not limited to the original disclosure. Therefore, in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims are rejected under 112(a), written description, until/unless Applicant shows support in the original disclosure for the new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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 31-60 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.
Claim 31, lines 2-3 recites:
a Quantum Transceiver Antenna (QTA) comprising a layered matrix of antenna pixels configured to generate electromagnetic (EM) toroidal geometries;
It is not clear how the QTA recited in the claim is “configured” to perform the recited functionality. In particular, it seems that the claim intends to recite structure that performs desired results, but the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the claim. As a result, it is not clear what structure or configuration is within the scope of the claim. The Examiner notes that, in the interests of compact prosecution, this language is rejected under both 112(b) and under 112(a) (see below).
Claims 32-40 are rejected because they depend from one or more of the claims rejected above and because they fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejections.
Claim 41, lines 2-3 recites:
a Quantum Transceiver Antenna (QTA) comprising a layered matrix of antenna pixels configured to generate electromagnetic (EM) toroidal geometries;
This claim is rejected for the reasons discussed in claim 31.
Claims 42-50 are rejected because they depend from claim 41 and because they fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejections.
Claim 51, lines 2-3 recites:
a Quantum Transceiver Antenna (QTA) comprising a layered matrix of antenna pixels configured to generate electromagnetic (EM) toroidal geometries;
This claim is rejected for the reasons discussed in claim 31.
Claim 51, last line recites:
to the QTA and TDC.
Unlike the other independent claims, the term “TDC” is not defined in this claim. It is not clear if this was a typographical error, or if something different was intended. Also, the lack of an article immediately preceding TDC makes it unclear how to interpret this term. For example, it is not clear if this is the introduction of a new element (i.e., “a TDC”), in which case the term TDC should be recited more clearly, as in claims 31 and 41. On the other hand, it may be that language including “Transceiver Discriminator Chip (TDC)” has been inadvertently omitted from the claim and “TDC” is a reference to that omitted language (and read as “the TDC”), in which case there is insufficient antecedent basis. In any event, it is not clear how to interpret this claim.
Claims 52-60 are rejected because they depend from claim 51 and because they fail to further limit the scope in a manner to overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Teachings of the Application.
Because the substitute specification has not been entered, and because the new/amended drawings may be inconsistent with the original written description, and because Applicant has not shown support for the changes to the written description and the drawings, the Examiner will discuss the teachings of the application with reference to the PG Publication. In particular, the PG Publication represents the original disclosure and is an appropriate document for determining the teachings of the application as filed. This will be true even if the substitute specification and the new/amended figures are subsequently found to not include new matter.
The application teaches to use a QTA to order and concentrate EM signals using a matrix of uniformly sized and shaped pixels 50, voids/nulls 110, and apertures 60 (see FIGS. 1 and 3A) to form coherent toroidal geometries functioning as tunable electromagnetic lenses. See:
[0032] In accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, a quantum transceiver antenna
includes: a scalable, thin-film, bi-synchronous, frequency-dynamic antenna structure composed of a layered matrix of uniformly sized and shaped antenna pixels disposed with patterned voids and nulls. The antenna pixels are configured to generate electromagnetic signals that form coherent toroidal geometries functioning as tunable electromagnetic lenses. The antenna is operable to transceive both particle and wave components of electromagnetic and radio frequency signals using quantum principles, including quantum tunneling. The antenna supports non-line-of-sight communication, imaging, detection, power transfer, and electromagnetic holography with
immunity to multipath interference and ground plane effects. The quantum transceiver antenna is
configured to replace multiple conventional antennas within electronic devices and is operable
with both terrestrial and space-based communication platforms. The quantum transceiver antenna
is configured to operate at including at least one of: low impedance and low power while providing magnified signal gain, wireless plug-and-play integration, and interoperability with mesh networks, edge computing systems, Internet of Things (loT), artificial intelligence, or emergency response networks.
This particular arrangement is used to generate the desired EM toroidal geometries. FIG. 1 illustrates a QTA including pixels 50, apertures 60, and voids/nulls 110.
PNG
media_image2.png
744
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This structure includes an offset second layer of pixels that creates the toroidal geometries by causing orthogonal rotation, spinning the quanta and creating inertia which gains natural coherence in a Torus. See:
[0054] As illustrated by FIG. 1, QTA can send and receive a broad spectrum of frequencies with high efficiency and gain, from the same thin surface or membrane, embodying a singular quantum structure. The plurality of pixels, illustrated in FIGS. 4A-D effectively orders and concentrates, any EM signals present, upon receiving an electrical signal through the structure. The offset second layer, (FIGS. 4A-C and 4D) causes orthogonal rotation, spinning the quanta, creating inertia which gains natural coherence in a Torus (FIGS. 3A-D). The toroid structure acts as a tunable lens with the voids in the structure creating the boundary layer. When a discriminator is attached to the QTA, seeking a particular frequency, or frequencies, the EM lens tunes to the instructed signal(s) (FIG. 3A).
This teaches that the toroid structure acts as a tunable lens, and the voids in the structure create the boundary layer. FIG. 1 (reproduced above) illustrates a particular embodiment of a QTA with multiple pixels 50, voids/nulls 110, and apertures 60 in a particular structure. See also:
[0061] The QTA is comprised of individual Antenna Pixel 50 as shown in FIG. 1. The
antenna pixel 50 reduces mass by as much as 90% or more and introduces voids/nulls 110. The
voids/nulls 110 are located where the Antenna Pixels 50 are purposed to create overlapping
Antenna Pixel Interactions 100 and electromagnetic field effects 65 as electromagnetic lenses 65. In doing so the Quantum Transceiver Antenna has the following benefits over existing solutions: 1) the electrical impedance of the QTA is less, 2) the dispersion of signal loss, for the QTA, of either the input and/or the output is less; 3) the QTA enables simultaneous reception and/or transmission; 4) the signal loss by resistance and heat due to this loss, for the QTA, is reduced because there is less mass, 5) through empirical measurements and tests, the increase of electrical efficiencies and correspondingly the "noise" is significantly reduced, and 6) the QTA provides increased signal sensitivities.
See also FIGS 3A and 4A-B (reproduced and discussed in more detail below) which illustrate the matrix of pixels and voids/nulls to generate the desired EM toroidal geometries. FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate a particular embodiment of the pixels and apertures.
PNG
media_image3.png
520
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
548
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0119] In FIG. 2B an Antenna Pixel 50 and Antenna Pixel Aperture 60 is illustrated in two
dimensions including a side and side askance view. FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate reference Isotropic Radiation Patterns with a suggested wavelength. The Isotropic Radiation Pattern is overlaid on Antenna Pixel Aperture 60. The Antenna Pixel 50 and Antenna Pixel Aperture 60 are an ideal Isotropic Radiation Pattern Generator which may form an EM Field Effects Torus (pattern), Hopf Fibration (pattern), or one to a near limitless Torus Electromagnetic Lenses 65 (pattern), as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3A-C (now used interchangeably) being available through Antenna Pixel Field Effects Torus 95 as illustrated in FIG. 1.
FIG. 3A illustrates an embodiment of the pixel matrix structure including pixels 50, apertures 60, and voids/nulls 110 according to the teachings of the invention.
PNG
media_image5.png
418
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0042] FIGS. 3A-3E are detailed views of antenna pixel matrix structures, field effects,
toroidal geometries, and Hopf Fibrations enabling electromagnetic lensing, in accordance with
aspects of the present disclosure;
[0120] In FIG. 3A a preferred embodiment illustrates a cross-sectional top view of Antenna Pixel 50 interactions. Specifically, FIG. 3A illustrates interactions between the Antenna Pixels 50 and the Antenna Pixel Aperture 60, as well as various interactions between a plurality of Antenna Pixel 50 and voids and nulls 110 on Quantum Antenna Pixel Matrix 150. However, any means or materials may be used or substituted that best encourages pattern generation and interactions of Field Effects. Field Effects form electromagnetic lenses creating a gateway to particle nature transceiver interoperability, frequency dynamic functions and other benefits of dual wave and particle nature EM and RF connectivity. The exemplary embodiment in FIG. 3A illustrates a simplified representation of the Antenna Pixel Matrix Array 150 within the QTA, highlighting the arrangement of individual Antenna Pixel 50. Each Antenna Pixel 50, together with their corresponding Antenna Pixel Aperture 60 and associated one to near limitless electromagnetic lenses 65, operates through Antenna Pixcl Field Effects Torus 95. These components collectively form the fundamental building blocks that enable the QTA's ability to simultaneously transmit and receive RF signals as both particles and waves.
FIGS. 4A-D illustrates particular embodiments of a plurality of pixels and apertures.
PNG
media_image6.png
300
614
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
208
606
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See:
[0118] In another aspect, FIGS. 4A- 4C illustrate further interactions of Antenna Pixel Field
Effects Torus 95 by and between individual and groups of Antenna Pixels 100 because of the
Antenna Pixel Aperture 60 are possible on QTA Antenna Pixel Matrix 150. This configuration
yields various pluralities of resonances, and QTA Antenna Pixel Matrix 150, leads to one to near
limitless electromagnetic lenses 65 being available through Antenna Pixel Field Effects Torus 95
in Antenna Pixel 50. Antenna Aperture 60 interacting with one to a plurality of Antenna Pixel 100 of Antenna Pixel Field Effects Torus 95 as well as other Antenna Pixel Field Effects Torus 95
interactions through voids and nulls 110.
FIG. 4C illustrates the toroidal field effects of pixels.
PNG
media_image8.png
454
370
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0136] Matrix: FIGS. 4A-4E provide a step-by-step example of how a preferred embodiment QTA Antenna Pixel Matrix Array may be formed. FIG. 4A illustrates an initial base layer of the antenna matrix comprising a planar substrate configured to support a uniform geometric arrangement of individual Antenna Pixels 50. The positioning of the pixels within this array is
designed to establish controlled spatial relationships, including engineered voids and nulls 110,
which serve to optimize electromagnetic field interactions, increase signal gain, discrimination and data throughput and facilitate the coherent propagation of radio frequency (RF) energy. FIG. 4B depicts the integration of Antenna Pixel Apertures 60 aligned with each Antenna Pixel 50. These apertures are configured to open electromagnetic field pathways through which signal interactions may occur. In conjunction with the apertures, electromagnetic lenses 65 are incorporated to focus, refract, or modulate incident and outgoing EM fields. These lenses function as tunable components capable of real-time adjustment to enhance signal coherence, beam shaping, and frequency specific gain. FIG. 4C demonstrates the activation and formation of Antenna Pixel Field Effects Tori 95, which emerge around each pixel through the energization of the matrix structure. These toroidal field effects are fundamental to the QTA's ability to manipulate electromagnetic signals using both wave and particle characteristics. The toroidal formations enable resonant field containment, dynamic signal tuning, and localized control of transmission and reception characteristics. FIG. 4D introduces a vertical expansion-commonly referred to as the Zdimension-within the matrix configuration. This Z-axis extension may include structural or field based enhancements such as vertical layering or magnetic axis tuning. This configuration increases the effective virtual RF aperture of the antenna, thereby enabling enhanced signal performance in complex environments, including those requiring non-line-of-sight (NLOS) transmission through barriers such as concrete walls, glass, metalized films, or between structural floors. FIG. 4E shows the completed QTA Antenna Pixel Matrix Array 150 as a fully functional, multi dimensional transceiver platform. In this final configuration, the QTA supports simultaneous multi-frequency operation, polarization control, adaptive gain management, and dynamic beam steering. The system is operable in both serial and parallel communication modes and may be reconfigured onthe-fly in response to changes in the RF environment, user position, or application-specific requirements.
This also teaches that the toroidal field effects are “fundamental” to the operation of the QTA and the toroidal formations enable containment, tuning, and control.
FIGS. 7 and 8 illustrate how to use the pixels of the QTA.
PNG
media_image9.png
393
740
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
418
746
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
578
842
media_image11.png
Greyscale
See:
[0139] FIGS. 7A-7D and FIG. 8 provide an exemplary aspect of how to configure and use
Antenna Pixels 50 to create desirable phased array antennas that are dual particle and wave
oriented. FIGS. 7A-7D illustrate independent control of Antenna Pixel 50, Pixel Aperture(s) 60
and Phased Array Configurations possible on Antenna Pixel Matrix 150
The application teaches the use of a Transceiver Decimator Chip. See:
[0163] In another aspect of the present embodiment, the Transceiver Discrimination Chip
"TDC", is also referred to as the "Smart Module". In an exemplary embodiment, a radio transceiver may function as the discriminator and the QTA operates optimally. However, it may be advantages to collocate a controller in the form of a TDC or to form the Antenna Pixel Matrix to be a TDC. In this embodiment, wireless monitoring of any QTA may be accomplished and adjustments may be made on-the-fly, including Software Defined Radio. Software radios have significant utility especially for first responders, the military and cell phone services. Any circumstance or situation that serve a wide variety of changing radio protocols in real time. The Quantum Transceiver Antenna (QTA) serves as a configurable transceiver, making it a foundational enabler of cognitive radio (CR) systems. As illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 12, the QTA operates as a reconfigurable antenna system capable of supporting software-defined radio (SDR) architectures. Unlike traditional antennas constrained by fixed frequencies or narrowband centerline ratios, the QTA is dynamically programmable and can adapt its operating parameters in real time. In cognitive radio applications, the QTA can intelligently monitor its electromagnetic environment, detect available frequency channels, and autonomously adjust its transceiving behavior to optimize communication performance. This includes mitigating interference, avoiding congestion, and enabling simultaneous multi-user access to the spectrum. Such dynamic spectrum management allows for significantly more efficient use of available bandwidth. Because of its broadband capability, high gain, and compact form factor, the QTA is ideally suited for integration into mobile and portable devices, providing flexible, high-performance connectivity without the limitations of conventional, single-tuned antennas. As such, QTA represents a critical advancement in the implementation of adaptive, intelligent wireless communication systems.
In other words, the application teaches the invention in the context of a particular kind of QTA in order to achieve the desired result. In particular, a QTA with multiple layers of pixels, voids, and apertures that are uniformly sized and shaped, and with a second layer that is offset to create the toroidal geometries generated by the invention.
Scope of the Claims.
Claim 31, lines 2-3 recites:
... a Quantum Transceiver Antenna (QTA) comprising a layered matrix of antenna pixels configured to generate electromagnetic (EM) toroidal geometries;
This recites a QTA comprising “a layered matrix of antenna pixels configured to generate” EM “toroidal geometries”. This is broad and is not commensurate with the teachings of the application. For example, the claim does not require voids, the claim does not require apertures, the claim does not require the pixels, voids, and apertures to be uniformly sized and shaped, and the claim does not require the second layer to be offset. While the application appears to teach how to make a QTA to generate EM toroidal geometries, the teachings require a particular structures, while the claim has a much broader in scope. Contrast the scope of the claim with the teachings of the application discussed above.
Claims 41 and 51 recite language similar to claim 31 and have a similar scope.
The dependent claims add additional functionality with terms such as “configured” and “enables” and “includes instructions” without corresponding structure or steps for the recited functionality, resulting in a broad scope that seems to include any and all additional structures, steps, or configurations that achieve the desired results. Of particular note is claim 56 which recites “a stack of layers for any and all types of devices, networks, and systems ...”. This language is particularly broad and the Examiner can find no teachings in the disclosure to support this broad scope.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of an apparatus/method with the broad scope recited in the claims. For example, compare and contrast the structure taught in the application with the particular structure recited in the claims.
If a general case (i.e., one requiring no more than the particular structure recited in the claims) were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims, such as claims 31, 41, and 51. This is particularly true because, as discussed above, the embodiments that are disclosed in the application require relatively complex and particular structures which would be unnecessary if a general case had been known by the inventors. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The nature of the invention is optical transmission and reception apparatuses. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as quantum antennas, processors, FPGAs, and ASICs, and would be able to use them in known ways.
In contrast, as discussed in more detail above, the invention is taught using a matrix of uniformly sized and shaped pixels, voids, and nulls (e.g., see FIG. 1), with the voids in the matrix structure creating the boundary layer (e.g., see [0054]), and to include a second layer of pixels that is offset from the first layer to create toroidal EM geometries by causing orthogonal rotation, spinning the quanta and creating inertia which gains natural coherence in a Torus (e.g., see [0054]), and to overlay apertures on the pixels (e.g., see FIGS. 2 and 3 and [0119]). This is a complex and particular structure to achieve certain particular functionality/results.
One or ordinary skill would know how to make and use the disclosed embodiments of the invention from the teachings of the application. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that some elements may be modified or replaced with other elements known to have the same or similar functionality, and to make some modifications to the particular structures disclosed.
Similarly, one of ordinary skill would also know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing and coupling the electrical and optical components together in a way that limits losses to a commercially acceptable level (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference because commercial systems routinely operate in the RF spectrum and would generate interference to electrical components within the system and outside of the system (although this is not explicitly taught). Although this is not an exhaustive list, the obvious modifications based on the disclosure and the knowledge of one or ordinary skill are nonetheless of a limited scope.
However, these obvious modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application, particularly with regard to the QTA.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and Opportunity to Amend.
During prosecution, Applicant has an opportunity to amend the claims to the desired scope. See MPEP 2111, 4th paragraph:
Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) … See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court held that the PTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the “PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.”).
Therefore, if Applicant intends the claims to have a scope that is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims should be amended during prosecution to more clearly provide the intended scope.
Conclusion.
The claims have a broad scope, while the direction and examples provided by the inventor(s) are enabling for a limited scope. Although many of the elements used to make the invention were known, the particular way in which they are arranged is complex and the number of possible arrangements of the elements is practically unlimited. While one of ordinary skill would know how to make some modifications, this has a limited scope that is far less than the full scope of the claims. The Examiner is not aware of any knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art that would bridge the gap between the broad scope of the claims and the much more limited teachings of particular structures using particular elements as disclosed in the application.
After careful consideration of the factors, the Examiner has concluded that the claims are not commensurate with the teachings in the application, and undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
If Applicant does not want to recite particular structure for the claimed device, then the Examiner suggests writing the claims in means-plus-function form (i.e., 35 USC 112(f)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0275312 (Mahamat) at FIG. 2 illustrates a quantum antenna.
PNG
media_image12.png
372
358
media_image12.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0045] FIG. 2 illustrates the first quantum antenna 102, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The first quantum antenna 102 is parabolic and has a silver (carat) semi-reflecting mirror rings 202 on its surface. In addition to the mirror rings 202, the first quantum antenna 102 has four 5 cm diameter laser eyelets 204 located at the four corners of the dish's periphery. The laser eyelets 204 is connected to a small high guiding antenna 206 to enhance tracking and capture. According to embodiments of the present invention, the guiding antenna 206 is 15 to 20 centimeters (cm) in height. The laser eyelets 204 and the small guiding antenna 206 is connected to a 17 cm diameter sensor 208 placed in the center of the dish at the bottom of the concave.
FIG. 3 illustrates another embodiment of a quantum antenna.
PNG
media_image13.png
380
242
media_image13.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0048] FIG. 3 illustrates the second quantum antenna 104, according to embodiments of the present invention. The second quantum antenna 104 is a rectangular-shaped antenna. The dish 302 of the second quantum antenna 104 is 8 to 10 meters long. The dish 302 of the second quantum antenna 104 is 5 meters wide. Further, similar to the first quantum antenna 102 the second quantum antenna 104 has its orientation from South to North.
US 2021/0250101 (Gordon) at FIG. 1 illustrates a quantum antenna.
PNG
media_image14.png
746
476
media_image14.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0021] Quantum atomic receiving antenna 200 provides detection of radiofrequency radiation 203 and determination of a strength, direction, and polarization of radiofrequency radiation 203. In an embodiment, with reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, and FIG. 5, quantum atomic receiving antenna 200 includes: probe laser 206 that produces probe light 207 that includes probe frequency that is resonant with probe electronic transition 223 of gaseous Rydberg antenna atom 204; coupling laser 208 that produces coupling light 209 that includes coupling frequency that is resonant with Rydberg electronic transition 226 of gaseous Rydberg antenna atom 204; a spherical atomic vapor cell 201 that includes: a spherically-shaped atomic vapor space 216 that receives a plurality of gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204; and atomic vapor cell wall 217 including a spherically symmetric interior that physically bounds atomic vapor space 216 to contain gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 in atomic vapor space 216, such that atomic vapor cell 201: receives probe light 207 from probe laser 206, coupling light 209 from coupling laser 208, radiofrequency radiation 203 from external radiofrequency source 235; and subjects gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 to probe light 207, and gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 undergo probe electronic transition 223 from first electronic state 224 to intermediate excited electronic state 225 in response to receiving probe light 207; subjects gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 to coupling light 209, and gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 in intermediate excited electronic state 225 undergo Rydberg electronic transition 226 from intermediate excited electronic state 225 to Rydberg electronic state 227 in response to receiving coupling light 209; subjects gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 to radiofrequency radiation 203, and gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 in Rydberg electronic state 227 undergo Radiofrequency Rydberg transition 228 from Rydberg electronic state 227 to final Rydberg electronic state 229 in response to receiving radiofrequency radiation 203; and produces quantum antenna light 211 from probe light 207 in response to gaseous Rydberg antenna atom 204 being subjected to probe light 207, coupling light 209, or radiofrequency radiation 203, such that an intensity of quantum antenna light 211 depends on an amount of radiofrequency radiation 203 received by gaseous Rydberg antenna atoms 204 in Rydberg electronic state 227, quantum antenna light 211 including a strength, direction, and polarization of radiofrequency radiation 203; and quantum antenna light detector 212 in optical communication with atomic vapor cell 201 and that receives quantum antenna light 211 from atomic vapor cell 201 and produces quantum antenna electronic signal 213 from quantum antenna light 211, such that quantum antenna electronic signal 213 includes strength, direction, and polarization of radiofrequency radiation 203, wherein an RF field distribution of radiofrequency radiation 203 inside atomic vapor cell 201 does not depend on a direction of propagation of radiofrequency radiation 203 with respect to receipt of radiofrequency radiation 203 by atomic vapor cell 201.
US 2006/0145694 (Oppenlander) at FIG. 2a illustrates a quantum antenna.
PNG
media_image15.png
360
478
media_image15.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0138] A typical characteristic of a superconducting quantum interference filter (SQIF) is illustrated in FIG. 1. If the SQIF is supplied with an electric current of suitable strength, a voltage dependent on the magnetic field that permeates the SQIF drops across the SQIF. By contrast with the known, conventional SQUIDs, the characteristic is not periodic, but has an unambiguous minimum in the vanishing magnetic field B=0. Since the characteristic is not sinusoidal, as with the conventional SQUIDs or SQUID arrays, the linearity of its edge 1 or 1* is very high. By setting a suitable operating point 2, something which can be performed, for example, by applying a constant magnetic field (control field), the SQIF can be operated with high linearity as an amplifier or as a current-to-voltage converter.
[0139] A typical antenna circuit is illustrated in FIG. 2a. The SQIF 3 is coupled inductively to a primary antenna 4. Upon incidence of an electromagnetic wave, an antenna current flows through the primary antenna 4. Since the antenna is guided spatially in a specific region tightly along the SQIF, this antenna current generates a magnetic field at the location of the SQIF loops. If the SQIF is operated at a suitable operating point 2, a voltage whose direction depends on the direction of the antenna current drops across the SQIF. In this way, the SQIF generates a voltage oscillation that corresponds to the oscillation of the antenna current. By suitable selection of the number of the SQIF loops 3, it is possible in principle to adjust the range of the voltage dropping across the SQIF as desired, and thus to select any desired dynamic range of the current-to-voltage converter. The magnetic field required for controlling the SQIF can result from a field coil or from a control line 5 loaded with a suitable current. This line can also be used to stabilize the operating point or to feed back into the SQIF the voltage signal generated by the SQIF, for example, with the aid of an electric resistor. The electrodes 3a and 3b are fitted on the SQIF so that the voltage oscillation dropping across the SQIF can be passed on to a receiver. These electrodes are connected to a waveguide suitable for the respective frequency range and which passes on the output signal of the SQIF to the receiver in a fashion as free from loss as possible.
US 2023/0137266 (McBride) at FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate a cell array that can be a matrix of quantum antennas.
PNG
media_image16.png
390
632
media_image16.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0047] FIG. 2A is a perspective view of an example vapor cell array 166, in accordance with the techniques of the disclosure. FIG. 2A illustrates a separated view of vapor cell array 162 as a layer of imaging system 160. In the example shown, vapor cell array 162 includes a plurality of vapor cells 172 arranged in a 2D array. In some examples, vapor cells 172 may be quantum antennas, and vapor cell array 162 may be a quantum antenna array, a phased array, an imaging array, and/or a multi-spectral imaging array.
[0048] FIG. 2B is a perspective view of a partially transparent block diagram illustrating an example imaging system 160, in accordance with the techniques of the disclosure. In the example shown, imaging system 160 includes coupling waveguide 166, vapor cell array 162, and a probe waveguide 168 arranged as a layered stack with coupling waveguide 162 adjacent to a detector array 164 and vapor cell array 162 between coupling waveguide 166 and probe waveguide 168. In some examples, vapor cell array 162, coupling waveguide 166, and probe waveguide 168 may form a PIC stack. In the example shown, detector array 164 is illustrated as separated from the other layers but may be a part of the PIC stack in other examples. Each of vapor cell array 162, detector array 164, coupling waveguide 166, and probe waveguide 168 may be substantially similar to vapor cell array 102, detector array 104, first waveguide 106, and second waveguide 108 as described above with respect to FIG. 1. FIG. 2B illustrates coupling light 182 (shown as dotted lines) propagating within coupling waveguide 166 along the y-direction as a plurality of “rows” corresponding to locations of vapor cells 172 and probe light 192 (shown as solid thicker lines) propagating within probe waveguide 168 along the x-direction as a plurality of “columns” corresponding to locations of vapor cells 172. In some examples, coupling light 182 and probe light 192 propagating in orthogonal directions within coupling waveguide 166 and probe waveguide 168, respectively, may allow room for coupling and probe light sources to be arranged along orthogonal edges of the PIC. In some examples, coupling light 182 and probe light 192 may propagate in any direction within coupling waveguide 166 and probe waveguide 168, respectively, and do not need to propagate in orthogonal directions.
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 DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights