Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6, lines 1-3, the limitation “the dielectric layer (104) is sandwiched between a feedline of the electromagnetic coupled feed and the microstrip patch antenna (106)” renders the claimed indefinite because “a feedline of the electromagnetic coupled feed” is not clear. Claim 1 has been amended to include the feature “the microstrip patch antenna (106) is fed by electromagnetic coupling with a microstrip line (103)”. A microstrip line 103 is described in Figures 1 and 4 and no others feedline in invention. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as “the dielectric layer (104) is sandwiched between the microstrip line of the electromagnetic coupled feed and the microstrip patch antenna (106)”.
Clarification(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saily (US 20090201211) in view of Saidulu et al, “Investigations on Wideband U-Slot Microstrip Patch Antenna with Dielectric Superstrate”, IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering (IOSR-JECE) e-ISSN: 2278-2834, p- ISSN: 2278-8735.Volume 10, Issue 3, Ver. I (May - Jun.2015), PP 14-21, hereinafter “Saidulu”.
Regarding claim 1, Saily discloses in Figure 1, a broadband microstrip patch antenna for a millimeter wave phased array comprising:
two substrate layers (110, 103) separated by a dielectric layer (109, see par. 0056);
a microstrip patch antenna (106) operating in a millimeter wave frequency range (see par. 0083) is fabricated on an upper surface of an upper substrate layer (110) of the two substrate layers; and
an electromagnetically coupled feed is applied in the antenna (106) to reduce the feed loss and the microstrip patch antenna (106) is fed by electromagnetic coupling with a microstrip line (104, see par. 0061) fabricated on an upper surface of a lower substrate layer (103) of the two substrate layers, wherein the microstrip patch antenna is fed by electromagnetic coupling due to a close proximity with the microstrip line (104).
Saily does not disclose the patch antenna having a U-shaped slot wherein the U-shaped slot is having unequal arms.
Saidulu discloses in Figure 2, the microstrip patch antenna having a U- shaped slot wherein the
U-shaped slot is having unequal arms.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microstrip patch antenna of Saily with the microstrip patch
antenna having U-shaped slot with unequal arms as taught by Saidulu to achieve a wideband for the
antenna. Therefore, to employ having the microstrip patch antenna as claimed invention would have
been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Saily discloses in in Figure 1, wherein relative permittivity of the dielectric layer (109) is 1 (109, see par. 0056, note that permittivity of air is 1).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Saily discloses wherein the arms of the U- shaped slot are adapted to function as separate and compactly coupled resonators.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Saily discloses in Figure 1,
wherein the dielectric layer (109) is sandwiched between a feedline (104) of the electromagnetic coupled feed and the microstrip patch antenna (106), wherein the dielectric layer (104) is having properties similar to air (see par. 0056).
Regarding claims 7, 9 and 12-13, as applied to claim 1, Saily discloses in Figure 1, wherein a material of the two substrate layers is dielectric material;
wherein a ground conducting layer (101) is fabricated on a lower surface of the lower substrate layer of the two substrate layers;
wherein the microstrip patch antenna (106) is rectangular;
wherein the height of the dielectric layer (109) is selected such that maximum impedance bandwidth is attained.
Regarding claim 15, Saily discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for
wherein an operation of the broadband microstrip patch antenna over a desired frequency band is achieved by a second level of optimization and the broadband microstrip patch antenna is configured for operating in 60 GHz millimeter wave phased array.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. The specific or desired frequency band of operation of antennas would have been obvious in the art. Antennas and their elements are routinely "frequency scaled" and thus claimed limitations are obvious design choices of a desired operating frequency assigned to the antennas for using in a single antenna or in a phased array based on particular application or environment of use. Therefore, to employ having the 60HGhz millimeter wave as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 1, Saily discloses in Figure 1,
wherein an operation of the broadband microstrip patch antenna (106) over a desired frequency band is achieved by a third level of optimization of different parameters.
Claims 10-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saily (US 20090201211) in view of Saidulu and and further in view of Seo et al, "Microstrip-to-waveguide
transition using waveguide with large broad-wall in millimeter-wave band," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Ultra-Wideband, Nanjing, China, 2010, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/ICUWB.2010.5614169, hereinafter “Seo”.
Regarding claim 10, Kamogawa discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited
in claim 9, except for a wideband proximity coupled microstrip to waveguide transition for making
electrical contact with a circuit element, a waveguide is provided below the ground layer, wherein the
waveguide is having large broad walls.
Seo discloses in Figure 1, a wideband proximity coupled microstrip to waveguide transition for
making electrical contact with a circuit element, a waveguide is provided below the ground layer,
wherein the waveguide is having large broad walls.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the antenna of Kamogawa with the antenna having a waveguide as
taught by Seo be adding the waveguide transition of Seo to the antenna of Saily to extend
bandwidth of the antenna. Therefore, to employ having the waveguide as claimed invention would have
been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Seo discloses in Figure 1, a microstrip to waveguide
transition structure comprises: a microstrip line (Microstrip line), a planar probe (Probe), a waveguide
short (Waveguide short), and a rectangular patch element (Rectangular patch element);
wherein a ground layer (Surrounding ground) adapted to be patterned on a lower plane of a
lower substrate layer (Substrate) of the two substrate layers with via hole surrounding a waveguide
aperture printed on the lower substrate layer adapted to be electrically connecting ground layer and
waveguide short.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 11, Seo discloses in Figure 1, wherein an operation of the
antenna over a desired frequency band is achieved by optimizing a length of the rectangular patch
element in the microstrip to waveguide transition structure to attain a desired lower resonant
frequency.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 11, Seo discloses in Figure 1, wherein the operation of
the antenna over the desired frequency band is achieved by optimizing a distance of the via holes from
an edge of the broad- wall of the wave guide to attain a higher resonant frequency.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 11, Seo discloses in Figure 1, wherein an operation of the
antenna over a desired frequency band is achieved by optimizing an overlap length of an inserted probe
and width of the probe for impedance matching to the waveguide.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 11, Seo discloses in Figure 1, wherein an operation of the
antenna over a desired frequency band is achieved by optimizing a diameter and a separation of the via
holes to reduce the leakage of a parallel plate mode transmitting into the substrate layers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saily (US 20090201211) in view of Saidulu and further in view of Ogilvie (US 9,755,306).
Regarding claim 14, Saily/Saidulu discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for wherein an antenna size is so selected to avoid a grating lobe when the antenna is used in phased array configuration. However, such difference is not patentable merit. An antenna size is so selected to avoid a grating lobe when the antenna is used in phased array configuration is well known in the art. One of such examples is the teaching of Ogilvie, Fig. 6. And col. 6, lines 30-45. Therefore, to employ having the antenna size as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-20 have been considered and persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as set forth above.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DIMARY CRUZ LOPEZ can be reached at 571-270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845