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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 14 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 14 is directed to a method for producing the antenna of claim 1. As stated by applicant, the newly amended manufacturing process comprises a specific sequence of steps “first laminating heterogeneous substrates and an adhesive substrate to form a laminate, forming via a hole passing through the entire composite structure, and then simultaneously etching the upper and lower patterns”. A new and separate search would be required for the specific sequence of the manufacturing of the antenna.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Thai, further in view of Haviv is maintained. On page 10 of the remarks, applicant argues that “Yamaguchi merely discloses that substrates having different permittivity’s are bonded, and neither teaches nor suggests that the metal of the attachment area is intentionally and completely removed to expose the dielectric”, “Thai discloses a lower package ground structure and a connector, this is merely a conventional single-antenna packaging technology” and “Haviv merely adds a general configuration for expanding a frequency band”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, regarding the assertation that Yamaguchi does not disclose “wherein the attachment area comprises a metal-free region exposing a dielectric surface of the first base substrate” because “Yamaguchi merely discloses that substrates having different permittivity’s are bonded, and neither teaches nor suggests that the metal of the attachment area is intentionally and completely removed to expose the dielectric” it is noted that the claim does not require “the metal of the attachment area is intentionally and completely removed” but merely that there is not metal between the two substrates which is the case for Yamaguchi.
Secondly, regarding the argument that “Thai discloses a lower package ground structure and a connector, this is merely a conventional single-antenna packaging technology”, examiner agrees, however, the teaching provided by Thai is merely for a grounding structure being disposed on the bottom of the dielectric substrate. Since the via and ground are already disclosed in Yamaguchi, Thai is merely teaching moving the ground location as already suggested in Yamaguchi.
Finally, regarding the assertation that “Haviv merely adds a general configuration for expanding a frequency band”, similarly to the previous argument the limitation being taught by Haviv is merely to use two different radiating bands in a combo antenna wherein a second frequency band is higher than the first which is what applicant states Haviv is teaching.
The rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Thai, further in view of Haviv is, therefore, maintained.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 12261368; hereinafter Yamaguchi) in view of Thai et al. (US11336015; hereinafter Thai), further in view of Haviv et al. (US20210098894; hereinafter Haviv).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses “A combo antenna module comprising: a first antenna (30) including: a first antenna pattern (31) having a first operation frequency; a first base substrate (10) having a first dielectric loss value, having the first antenna pattern disposed on at least one of an upper surface and a lower surface (fig. 1A), and having an attachment area not overlapping the first antenna pattern (area of attachment for 40) defined on the upper surface; wherein the attachment area comprises a metal-free region exposing a dielectric surface of the first base substrate (no metal is disposed between 20 and 10); and a ground pattern (11), and at least partially overlapping the attachment area (fig. 1A) with the first base substrate interposed there between; a second antenna (40) disposed in the attachment area defined in the first antenna including: a second antenna pattern (41); a second base substrate (20) having a second dielectric loss value lower than the dielectric loss value of the first antenna (col. 8 lines 45-48; In contrast to this, in the second embodiment, the additional member 20 and the dielectric substrate 10 are formed of materials different from each other in permittivity. The permittivity of the additional member 20 is lower than the permittivity of the dielectric substrate 10), and having the second antenna pattern disposed on an upper surface; and an adhesive substrate interposed between a lower surface of the exposed dielectric surface of the second base substrate and the upper surface of the first base substrate to bond the second base substrate to the attachment area (col. 3 lines 43-44; The additional member 20 is fixed to the dielectric substrate 10 by an adhesive, for example), and a connection pattern (22) connecting the second antenna pattern and the ground pattern by passing through the second base substrate, the adhesive substrate, and the first base substrate (passes through 20, adhesive, and 10 and electrically couples (connects) to the ground) within the metal-free region of the attachment area, such that the connection pattern connects the second antenna pattern to the ground pattern (22 connects to 12 and 11)”.
Yamaguchi does not disclose “a ground pattern disposed on the lower surface of the first base substrate… such that the connection pattern directly connects the second antenna pattern to the ground pattern” or “the second antenna pattern having a second operation frequency higher than the first operation frequency”.
Thai teaches disposing a ground (120) on the bottom of a substrate package (136) with a direct connector (124) from the ground to the patch (114). Furthermore, Yamaguchi already suggest this type of modification (col. 4 lines 4-5; A ground plane 11 is disposed on or in an inner layer of the dielectric substrate 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Thai and make Yamaguchi’s combo antenna with a ground pattern disposed on the lower surface of the first base substrate… such that the connection pattern directly connects the second antenna pattern to the ground pattern, in order to have the correct length for the connector or have direct access to the ground.
The modified Yamaguchi does not disclose “the second antenna pattern having a second operation frequency higher than the first operation frequency”.
However, Haviv teaches “the second antenna pattern having a second operation frequency higher than the first operation frequency (¶[0004]; An example of an antenna system includes: a first patch antenna element that is electrically conductive; a first energy coupler configured to convey first energy to, or receive the first energy from, the first patch antenna element, the first energy being in a first frequency band; a second patch antenna element at least partially overlapping the first patch antenna element, the second patch antenna element including a plurality of physically separate portions that are each electrically conductive; and a second energy coupler connected to a first subset of the plurality of physically separate portions, the first subset including less than all of the plurality of physically separate portions, the second energy coupler configured to convey second energy to, or receive the second energy from, the first subset, the second energy being in a second frequency band that is higher than the first frequency band)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Haviv and make Yamaguchi’s combo antenna with the second antenna pattern having a second operation frequency higher than the first operation frequency, in order to cover multiple frequency bands.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights