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 August 15th 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on May 15th 2025.
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) 1-9, 11-13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shams et al. (US 20210293950A1) in view of Dejean et al. (US 8279137B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Shams et al. discloses an antenna array comprising: a plurality of patch antenna structures disposed as a planar array in one plane (Radar antenna 500 comprises a plurality of patch antennas 510-540 disposed on a single plane as seen in figure 5 of Shams et al.),
wherein each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises: an active element configured to emit radiofrequency waves (Patch antenna would comprise an active element that allows them to transmit and receive radio frequency signals; Paragraph 69-77 and figure 5 of Shams et al.)
a first beamforming circuit configured to simultaneously supply respective phase and amplitude values to each active element of a first subset of at least two patch antenna structures of the plurality of patch antenna structures to steer a first coherent beam in a first azimuth direction in an azimuth plane, the first azimuth direction is determined based on the respective phase and amplitude values supplied to each active element in the first subset, wherein the first azimuth direction corresponds to the first subset (A first beamforming circuit may take the form of a phase shifter 616 and coupler 678 in the RF front ends which can be used to supply a phase and amplitude to antennas 608 which may be a first subset of patch antennas 520 to steer a first coherent beam like 832 which can scan an azimuth plane in the form of a first azimuth direction of a bottom side horizontal U-axis determined based on the phase and amplitude fed to the subset 520 wherein the beam can cover 360 degrees; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.);
a second beamforming circuit configured to simultaneously supply respective phase and amplitude values to each active element of a second subset of at least two patch antenna structures of the plurality of patch antenna structures to steer a second coherent beam in a second azimuth direction in the azimuth plane, the second azimuth direction is determined based on the respective phase and amplitude values supplied to each active element in the second subset, wherein the second azimuth direction corresponds to the second subset (A second beamforming circuit may take the form of phase shifter 622 and coupler 672 in the RF front ends that supply a phase and amplitude to antennas 613 which may be a second subset of patch antennas 540 to steer a second coherent beam like 822 which can scan a azimuth plane in the form of a second azimuth direction on a right side vertical V-axis determined based on the phase and amplitude fed to the subset 530 wherein the beam can cover 360 degrees; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.),
wherein the second azimuth direction is different from the first azimuth direction, and wherein the azimuth plane including the first azimuth direction and the second azimuth direction is parallel to the plane in which the patch antenna structures arc disposed (The direction of the first beam in the U-axis and the direction of the second beam in the V-axis as seen in figure 5 and 8 are different from each other and these beams lie on the x-y plane which is the same plane in which the patch antennas are disposed upon; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.).
Shams et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises:, a parasitic reflector element, and a parasitic director element, wherein the parasitic reflector element and the parasitic director element are configured to direct the radiofrequency waves emitted by the active element towards a corresponding emission direction.
However, Dejean et al. does disclose wherein each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises:, a parasitic reflector element, and a parasitic director element, wherein the parasitic reflector element and the parasitic director element are configured to direct the radiofrequency waves emitted by the active element towards a corresponding emission direction(Patch antenna 202-208 can include a parasitic reflecting element 112 and parasitic director elements 114 and 116 wherein the reflectors and directors are configured to direct radio waves emitted from the patch antenna active element 106 in a corresponding emission direction; Paragraph 15-23 and figure 1-2 of Dejean 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 Shams et al. to have each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises:, a parasitic reflector element, and a parasitic director element, wherein the parasitic reflector element and the parasitic director element are configured to direct the radiofrequency waves emitted by the active element towards a corresponding emission direction as taught by Dejean et al. to re-direct radiation form active elements to a corresponding wanted radiation direction (Paragraph 15-23 of Dejean et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
724
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
580
777
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Shams et al. further discloses a third beamforming circuit configured to control the respective active elements of a third subset of patch antenna structures of the plurality of patch antenna structures to provide beamforming in a third azimuth direction in the azimuth plane, the third azimuth direction corresponding to the third subset of patch antenna structures, wherein the third azimuth direction is different from the first azimuth direction and from the second azimuth direction (A third beamforming circuit may take the form of phase shifter 620 and coupler 671 in the RF front ends that supply a phase and amplitude to antennas 612 which may be a third subset of patch antennas 510 to steer a third coherent beam like 812 which can scan a azimuth plane in the form of a third azimuth direction on a upper horizontal U-axis determined based on the phase and amplitude fed to the subset 530 wherein the beam can cover 360 degrees; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 3, Shams et al. further discloses the first subset of patch antenna structures and the second subset of patch antenna structures are configured such that the first azimuth direction and the second azimuth direction are at an angle with respect to one another in the range from 30 ° to 90 ° (First and second azimuth directions are of first subset 520 and second subset 540 are spaced apparat from each other by a range of 30 to 90 degrees as seen in figures 5 and 8 of Shams et al.)
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 4, Shams et al. further discloses the patch antenna structures of the first subset of patch antenna structures and the patch antenna structures of the second subset of patch antenna structures are arranged around a circumference within the plane (Patch antennas 510-540 of radar 500 are arranged around a circumference of a rectangle on the plane x-y as seen in figure 5 of Shams et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Shams et al. further discloses a substrate, wherein the plurality of patch antenna structures are disposed on the substrate, and wherein at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured such that an azimuth plane of a radiation pattern of the at least one patch antenna structure is parallel to the substrate (Patch antennas 510-540 are mounted on an antenna substrate like later 710 wherein the azimuth plane of radiation is parallel to this substrate in the x-y direction; Paragraph 70-71 and 108 as well as figure 5 and 7 of Shams et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 6, Shams et al. further discloses wherein at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured such that a main lobe of the radiation pattern of the at least one patch antenna structure is at an elevation angle greater than 0 ° and less than 90 ° with respect to the substrate (Patch antennas 510-540 may be configured to have radiation beams like 812-842 which comprise a component that radiates into the z-direction which is the elevation direction at an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 with respect to the substrate as seen in figure 8 of Shams et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 7, Although Shams et al. fails to explicitly disclose one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured to operate at a frequency in the range from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz. Shams et al. does disclose one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured to operate at a frequency in the range (Radar antenna 500 is designed to operate at a frequency range of 76ghz to 81ghz; Paragraph 46 of Shams 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 Dejean et al. to operate at a frequency in the range from 24.25Ghz to 52.6Ghz 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). The motivation would stem from wanting to modify the antenna so it can employed for other antenna applications (Paragraph 46 of Shams et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 8, Although, Shams et al. fails to explicitly disclose the active element of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured to emit radiofrequency waves having a wavelength in the range from 1 mm to 100 mm. Shams et al. does disclose the active element of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured to emit radiofrequency waves having a wavelength (Patch antenna may be designed to operate in a range of 76ghz to 71ghz thus operation in the associated wavelength range would be inherent; Paragraph 128 of Shams 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 Dejean et al. have the active element of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures be configured to emit radiofrequency waves having a wavelength in the range from 1 mm to 100 mm 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). The motivation would stem from wanting to modify the antenna so it can employed for other antenna applications (Paragraph 46 of Shams et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 9, Shams et al. further discloses the first subset of patch antenna structures comprises a number of patch antenna structures in the range from 4 to 8, and/or wherein the second subset of patch antenna structures comprises a number of patch antenna structures in the range from 4 to 8 (Each of the subset of patch antennas can any number of elements including 8 elements coming together such that the plurality of patch antennas comprises 32 patch antenna elements; Paragraph 93 of Shams et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Shams et al. fails to disclose wherein the parasitic director element of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises a plurality of parasitic director elements.
However, Dejean et al. does discloses the parasitic director element of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises a plurality of parasitic director elements (Antenna 202-208 can comprise multiple director elements specifically 2 in the form of 114 and 116; Paragraph 15-23 and figure 1 of Dejean 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 Shams et al. to have the parasitic director element of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises a plurality of parasitic director elements as taught by Dejean et al. to re-direct radiation form active elements to a corresponding wanted radiation direction (Paragraph 15-23 of Dejean et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Shams et al. fails to disclose wherein at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna.
However, Dejean et al. does disclose at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna (Antennas 202-208 are configured as Yagi antenna structures with a patch element thus serving as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna; Paragraph 42 and figure 1-2 of Dejean 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 Shams et al. to have at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna as taught by Dejean et al. so that patch antennas can re-direct radiation form active elements to a corresponding wanted radiation direction (Paragraph 15-23 of Dejean et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 13, Shams et al. further discloses plurality of patch antenna structures comprises a number of patch antenna structures in the range from 16 to 32 (Each of the subset of patch antennas can any number of elements including 8 elements coming together such that the plurality of patch antennas comprises 32 patch antenna elements; Paragraph 93 of Shams et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Shams et al. further discloses an access point comprising an antenna array (Antenna can be used for wireless communication and as a part of a vehicle thus serving as an access point ; Paragraphs 56 and 69 of Shams et al.)
Regarding Claim 19, Shams et al. discloses a method of operating an antenna array,
(Radar antenna 500 comprises a plurality of patch antennas 510-540 disposed on a single plane as seen in figure 5 and a method of operation as seen in figure 14 and 16 of Shams et al.),
the antenna array comprising: a plurality of patch antenna structures disposed as a planar array in one plane (Radar antenna 500 comprises a plurality of patch antennas 510-540 disposed on a single plane as seen in figure 5 of Shams et al.), wherein each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises: an active element configured to emit radiofrequency waves, (Patch antenna would comprise an active element that allows them to transmit and receive radio frequency signals; Paragraph 69-77 and figure 5 of Shams et al.)
the method comprising: simultaneously supplying respective phase and amplitude values to each active element of a first subset of at least two patch antenna structures of the plurality of patch antenna structures to steer a first coherent beam a first azimuth direction in an azimuth plane, the first azimuth direction is determined based on the respective phase and amplitude values supplied to each active element in the first subset, wherein the first azimuth direction corresponds to the first subset (A first beamforming circuit may take the form of a phase shifter 616 and coupler 678 in the RF front ends which can be used to supply a phase and amplitude to antennas 608 which may be a first subset of patch antennas 520 to steer a first coherent beam like 832 which can scan an azimuth plane in the form of a first azimuth direction of a bottom side horizontal U-axis determined based on the phase and amplitude fed to the subset 520 wherein the beam can cover 360 degrees; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.);
simultaneously supplying respective phase and amplitude values to each active element of a second subset of at least two patch antenna structures of the plurality of patch antenna structures to steer a second coherent beam in a second azimuth direction in the azimuth plane, the second azimuth direction is determined based on the respective phase and amplitude values supplied to each active element in the second subset, wherein the second azimuth direction corresponds to the second subset (A second beamforming circuit may take the form of phase shifter 622 and coupler 672 in the RF front ends that supply a phase and amplitude to antennas 613 which may be a second subset of patch antennas 540 to steer a second coherent beam like 822 which can scan a azimuth plane in the form of a second azimuth direction on a right side vertical V-axis determined based on the phase and amplitude fed to the subset 530 wherein the beam can cover 360 degrees; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.),
wherein the second azimuth direction is different from the first azimuth direction, and wherein the azimuth plane including the first azimuth direction and the second azimuth direction is parallel to the plane in which the patch antenna structures arc disposed (The direction of the first beam in the U-axis and the direction of the second beam in the V-axis as seen in figure 5 and 8 are different from each other and these beams lie on the x-y plane which is the same plane in which the patch antennas are disposed upon; Paragraph 45, 69-96, 116-123, 144-145 as well as figure 5-8 of Shams et al.).
Shams et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises:, a parasitic reflector element, and a parasitic director element, wherein the parasitic reflector element and the parasitic director element are configured to direct the radiofrequency waves emitted by the active element towards a corresponding emission direction.
However, Dejean et al. does disclose wherein each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises:, a parasitic reflector element, and a parasitic director element, wherein the parasitic reflector element and the parasitic director element are configured to direct the radiofrequency waves emitted by the active element towards a corresponding emission direction(Patch antenna 202-208 can include a parasitic reflecting element 112 and parasitic director elements 114 and 116 wherein the reflectors and directors are configured to direct radio waves emitted from the patch antenna active element 106 in a corresponding emission direction; Paragraph 15-23 and figure 1-2 of Dejean 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 Shams et al. to have each patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures comprises:, a parasitic reflector element, and a parasitic director element, wherein the parasitic reflector element and the parasitic director element are configured to direct the radiofrequency waves emitted by the active element towards a corresponding emission direction as taught by Dejean et al. to re-direct radiation form active elements to a corresponding wanted radiation direction (Paragraph 15-23 of Dejean et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 20, Shams et al. fails to disclose wherein at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna.
However, Dejean et al. does disclose at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna (Antennas 202-208 are configured as Yagi antenna structures with a patch element thus serving as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna; Paragraph 42 and figure 1-2 of Dejean 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 Shams et al. to have at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is configured as a patch Yagi-Uda antenna as taught by Dejean et al. so that patch antennas can re-direct radiation form active elements to a corresponding wanted radiation direction (Paragraph 15-23 of Dejean et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shams et al. (US 20210293950A1) in view of Dejean et al. (US 8279137B2) and Huang et al. (US 5220335 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Shams et al. and Dejean et al. fail to disclose wherein at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures further comprises a ground plane, and wherein the active element, the reflector element, and the director element of the at least one patch antenna structure are disposed over the ground plane.
However, Huang et al. does disclose at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures further comprises a ground plane, and wherein the active element, the reflector element, and the director element of the at least one patch antenna structure are disposed over the ground plane (Planar Microstrip array comprise an antenna 10 that has an active element 12, a reflector element 14 and director elements 16/18 all of which is disposed over a ground plane 24; Paragraph 2-18 and figure 1-2 of Huang 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 Shams et al. and Dejean et al to have at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures further comprises a ground plane, and wherein the active element, the reflector element, and the director element of the at least one patch antenna structure are disposed over the ground plane as taught by Huang et al. to ground the antenna structure.
PNG
media_image4.png
505
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shams et al. (US 20210293950A1) in view of Dejean et al. (US 8279137B2) and Hong et al. (US 20190165476 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Shams et al. and Dejean et al. fail to disclose a dielectric resonator antenna coupled with at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures.
However, Hong et al. does disclose a dielectric resonator antenna coupled with at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures (Apparatus includes one or more patch antenna where dielectric resonator antenna 104 can be coupled to a first patch antenna 102; Paragraph 9 and 61 as well as figure 1 of Hong 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 Sham et al. and Dejean et al. to include a dielectric resonator antenna coupled with at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures as taught by Dejean et al. to increase the bandwidth (Paragraph 68 of Hong et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
712
553
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shams et al. (US 20210293950A1) in view of Dejean et al. (US 8279137B2) and Walker et al. (US 20160043473 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Shams et al. fail and Dejean et al. fail to disclose a ceiling-mount comprising: an antenna array, and a mounting structure configured to allow a mounting of the ceiling-mount at a ceiling.
However, Walker et al. does discloses a ceiling-mount comprising: an antenna array, and a mounting structure configured to allow a mounting of the ceiling-mount at a ceiling (Ceiling panel 1005 may include a planar antenna structure with multiple antenna like the one in figure 12 or figure 3 and be mounted to a ceiling and be used to mount the antenna system; Paragraph 20 and 121 as well as figure 10-12 of Walker 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 Shams et al. and Dejean et al. to have a celling mounting structure configured to allow mounting at a celling to further extend the range of signals (Abstract of Walker et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image6.png
669
757
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
664
329
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Shams et al. and Dejean et al. fail to disclose the ceiling mount is configured such that, in the case that the ceiling-mount is mounted at the ceiling, the substrate of the antenna array is parallel to the ceiling.
However, Walker et al. discloses the ceiling mount is configured such that, in the case that the ceiling-mount is mounted at the ceiling, the substrate of the antenna array is parallel to the ceiling (Antenna elements 1104 on a substrate 1102, which is a PCB, are mounted such that the substrate is parallel with the ceiling panel 1200 which is also how 1005 is arranged; Paragraph 123-131 and figure 10 and 12 of Walker 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 Shams et al. and Dejean et al. to have the ceiling mount configured such that, in the case that the ceiling-mount is mounted at the ceiling, the substrate of the antenna array is parallel to the ceiling to further extend the range of signals (Abstract of Walker et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 18, Shams et al. and Dejean et al. fail to disclose the ceiling mount is configured such that, in the case that the ceiling-mount is mounted at the ceiling, an azimuth plane of a radiation pattern of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is parallel to the ceiling.
However, Walker et al. does disclose the ceiling mount is configured such that, in the case that the ceiling-mount is mounted at the ceiling, an azimuth plane of a radiation pattern of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is parallel to the ceiling (Radiation pattern 110 of antennas 103 is seen to be parallel with the substrate in of Walker et al. and thus when mounted on the ceiling the radiation would also be parallel with the to the ceiling; Figure 3 and 9 of Walker 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 Shams et al. and Dejean et al. to have the ceiling-mount is mounted at the ceiling, an azimuth plane of a radiation pattern of at least one patch antenna structure of the plurality of patch antenna structures is parallel to the ceiling to further extend the range of signals (Abstract of Walker et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the 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
EP 1517398 A1 (ABRAMOV OLEG JURIEVICH et al.) relates to a configuration of an multiple antenna with flat antenna elements comprising reflector and director elements wherein the antenna are arranged around a circumference providing radiation parallel to the substrate of placement.
US 20210263124 A1 (2021-08-26) relates to a configuration of a patch antenna array disposed around a circumference wherein the patch can provide radiation parallel to a substrate.
US 20200106508 A1 (Raghavan; Vasanthan et al.) relates to a configuration of patch antenna structures disposed around a circumference and on a substrate wherein the radiation pattern is parallel to the substrate.
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