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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of 08/13/2025 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 Li in view of Guichi is maintained. On page 3 of the remarks, applicant argues that Li does not describe the notches (13) as comprising two adjacent rectangular parts in a depth direction, nor are they located between adjacent radiation blocks. Examiner respectfully disagrees, looking at the notches in fig. 1 we can see they comprise two parts (131 and 132) both of which are rectangular in size and adjacent to each other. Furthermore, they are located between the radiation blocks (the 4 radiation blocks are the subdivision of the planar body (11) created by the cross shaped slots (12)). Applicant also argues on page 6 that in Guichi “the notches out of the antenna are “ L-shaped” and not two slots cross a center of the planar body with a ratio of depths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is the predetermined value. The notch does not include two adjacent rectangular parts in a depth direction or a predetermined ratio of lengths and depths between those parts”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, applicant recites “not two slots cross a center of the planar body” however the slots and the notch in instant are not the same and so while claim 1 does disclose two slots cross a center of the planar body, it does not claim the two slots with a ratio of depths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is the predetermined value. Secondly, applicant states the notches in Guichi to be the “L-shaped stubs” however it is stated in the final office action the notches and specifically the rectangular parts are the “staircase notch” labeled L1/L2 and W1/ W2 and further as stated in previous remarks the “L-shaped stubs” of Guichi are never used in the rejection. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/13/2025, with respect to claims 1, 4, and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/13/2025, with respect to claims 5-7 reciting the term “basically” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5-7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/13/2025, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
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, 4-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN110098477; hereinafter Li) in view of Guichi et al. (Guichi, F., & Challal, M. (2017). Compact UWB monopole antenna with WiMAX/ITU band Notch Characteristics. 2017 5th International Conference on Electrical Engineering - Boumerdes (ICEE-B), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/icee-b.2017.8192109; hereinafter Guichi).
Regarding claim 1, Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “An antenna radiator, comprising: a planar body (11); at least two slots (12) located in the planar body; and at least one notch (13) located on at least one outer side of the planar body (fig. 1-3), respectively; wherein the at least two slots cross a center of the planar body (fig. 1), to divide the planar body to at least four radiation blocks (four subdivision made by slots in fig. 1); wherein a notch of the at least one notch is located between two adjacent radiation blocks of the at least four radiation blocks (see fig. 1); and wherein a length direction of the notch extends along the outer side of the planar body (fig. 1) at which the notch is located, wherein the notch (13) comprises at least two rectangle parts (131/132) adjacent in a depth direction; and wherein the depth direction is basically perpendicular to the outer side of the planar body (see fig. 1)”.
Li does not disclose “wherein a ratio of lengths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is a predetermined value; wherein a ratio of depths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is the predetermined value; and wherein in the at least two rectangle parts, a first rectangle part further away from the outer side of the planar body has a first length less than a second length of a second rectangle part closer to the outer side of the planar body”.
However, Guichi teaches “wherein a ratio of lengths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is a predetermined value; wherein a ratio of depths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is the predetermined value; and wherein in the at least two rectangle parts, a first rectangle part further away from the outer side of the planar body has a first length less than a second length of a second rectangle part closer to the outer side of the planar body (see fig. 1-2 showing, for example, L1/L2 and W1/W2 with the decreasing length)”.
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 Guichi and make Li’s antenna radiator wherein a ratio of lengths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is a predetermined value; wherein a ratio of depths of two adjacent rectangle parts of the at least two rectangle parts is the predetermined value; and wherein in the at least two rectangle parts, a first rectangle part further away from the outer side of the planar body has a first length less than a second length of a second rectangle part closer to the outer side of the planar body, in order to have the notch have a multiband rejection characteristic (Guichi Introduction ¶[0001] and Antenna Design Procedure ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 3, wherein the notch is located with a distance d0 to the at least two slots (fig. 1-3); and wherein the distance d0 is associated with the predetermined value”.
Although Li does not specifically disclose that the distance d0 is associated with the predetermined value, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice (specification of the instant application states “The specific values of K and B may be determined according to practical applications”, therefore they are admitted to be a matter of engineering design choice) and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 4, wherein the distance d0 is equal to d1/(BxK); and wherein dl is a depth of a rectangle part, that is closest to the at least two slots, among the at least two rectangle parts, K is the predetermined value, B is a tuning factor”.
Although Li does not specifically disclose that the distance d0 is equal to d1/(NxK); and wherein dl is a depth of a rectangle part, that is closest to the at least two slots, among the at least two rectangle parts, K is the predetermined value, B is a tuning factor, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice (specification of the instant application states “The specific values of K and B may be determined according to practical applications”, therefore they are admitted to be a matter of engineering design choice) and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 1, wherein the planar body (11) is in a form of square (fig. 1)”.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 6, wherein the at least two slots (12) comprises a first slot (121) and second slot (122) perpendicular with each other; wherein the first slot extends basically perpendicularly to a first outer side and a third outer side of the planar body (11, see fig. 1), the third outer side is opposite to the first outer side; and wherein the second slot (122) extends perpendicularly to a second outer side and a fourth outer side of the planar body (see fig. 1), the fourth outer side is opposite to the second outer side”.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 7, wherein the at least one notch (13) comprises: a first notch (Left side notch of fig. 1) located at the first outer side of the planar body (11); a second notch (Top notch) located at the second outer side of the planar body; a third notch (Right side notch) located at the third outer side of the planar body; and a fourth notch (Bottom notch) located at the fourth outer side of the planar body”.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 7, wherein the at least four radiation blocks (four subdivisions of 11 made by 12) comprises four radiation blocks (there are four subdivision)”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Guichi in view of Zhang et al. (CN110768005; hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the antenna structure of claim 1 as shown previously.
Li does not directly disclose “The antenna radiator according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least four radiation blocks (subdivisions of 11) has at least one hole located on a diagonal line of the planar body, wherein the diagonal line goes from a first corner of the planar body to a second corner of the planar body”.
However, Li does teach in ¶[0058] that “In another preferred embodiment, the feeding column 14 and the radiation sheet 11 are separate structures, and the two can be connected by welding or snapping, which is convenient for production and processing”. The snapping connection implies a securing structure most likely utilizing some sort of hole.
To further show this, Zhang (fig. 2) teaches “wherein each of the at least four radiation blocks (subdivisions of 10) has at least one hole (1012) located on a diagonal line of the planar body”.
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 Zhang and make Li’s antenna radiator wherein each of the at least four radiation blocks has at least one hole located on a diagonal line of the planar body, wherein the diagonal line goes from a first corner of the planar body to a second corner of the planar body, in order to secure the feed and dielectric base to the radiator.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 1, wherein a feeding point (21) of each of the at least four radiation blocks (subdivisions of 11) is located on a diagonal line of the planar body (fig. 1) , wherein the diagonal line goes from a first corner (top left corner (or top right for second diagonal)) of the planar body to a second corner (bottom right corner (or bottom left for second diagonal)) of the planar body (21 is on the diagonals)”.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 11, wherein a feeding point (attachment point of 14) is connected to a feeding network (211) though a feeding pin (14); wherein the feeding pin further supports the each of the at least four radiation blocks with a height over a dielectric substrate (212)”.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 1, wherein the at least four radiation blocks (subdivisions of 11) are in symmetry with each other around the center of the planar body (fig. 1)”.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna radiator according to claim 13, wherein two radiation blocks of the at least four radiation blocks located on a same diagonal line form a pair (fig. 1)”.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “An antenna, comprising: an antenna radiator according to claim 1; and a dielectric substrate (212); wherein the antenna radiator (11) is electrically coupled to a feeding network (211) arranged on the dielectric substrate (212)”.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Li (figs. 1-3) discloses “The antenna according to claim 15, further comprising a grounded metal plate (213) arranged on the dielectric substrate”.
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18021008. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845