DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 based on QU and modified by Buralli, the Applicant states that “a person skilled in the art would recognize that modifying the array antenna of Qu to incorporate the parasitic patches of Buralli would change the principle of operation of the array antenna of Qu and render it inoperable.“ The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the art rejection.
The applicant argues that “incorporating the parasitic patches of Buralli in the array antenna of Qu would defeat Qu's purpose of controlling the mutual coupling amplitude and phase or simultaneously controlling the amplitude and phase of the feed element 201 and the coupling network 203 for various reasons.” The examiner disagrees and points to the claims as currently filed in response.
Independent claims 1 and 10 as presently filed discloses “A phased array antenna for at least one of transmitting or receiving beamformed signals on a plurality of beams using a common frequency-limited and time- limited physical channel resource.” Antenna cells comprised by the phased array antenna further comprise: an antenna element, first and second coupling structures having different coupling structures, and adjacent antenna cells having mirror symmetry. In the arguments filed 08/11/2025, the applicant does not contest that QU discloses all the features above, excluding “a coupling factor of the first coupling structure differing from a coupling factor of the second coupling structure.”
In the rejections of Independent claims 1 and 10, Buralli is not used to disclose either coupling structure, but instead is used to teach a difference in coupling factors between the coupling structures as taught by Qu. As claimed the coupling structures are broadly limited to structures that manipulate coupling between adjacent antenna cells. The parasitic patches in Buralli do in fact manipulate coupling between adjacent antenna cells (see, Col.8 ll.38-47, Buralli). While Buralli is only used to teach a difference in coupling factors between the existing coupling structures, Buralli’s parasitic patches are encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed coupling structures. A reading of the specification does not reveal a special definition regarding coupling structures recited in claims 1 and 10. The Applicant is additionally reminded that it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced MicroDevices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Further, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The Parasitic patch of Buralli is not being bodily incorporated into the apparatus of Qu, instead Qu in combination with Buralli makes obvious the limitation “a coupling factor of the first coupling structure differing from a coupling factor of the second coupling structure” (see, Col.10, 11.38, Buralli and 103 rejection below). The Examiner maintains that the combination of Qu and Buralli discloses all the limitations of at least independent claims 1 and 10.
The Applicant further argues “Second, even if the parasitic patches were to be connected to neighboring elements in the array antenna of Qu, Qu and Buralli either individually or collectively fail to teach or suggest how to implement such parasitic patches with phase-shifting functions to control the phase of the parasitic patches or the respective mutual coupling with neighboring elements in the array antenna of Qu.” In light of the argument above the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Buralli is only used to teach a difference in coupling factors, QU discloses that (“[the] coupling structure also has a phase shifting function on through control the horizontal and vertical directions of 503 and 504 “ [0050]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QU(CN102623805A) in view of Buralli(US5576718A).
Regarding Claim 1, Qu discloses
A phased array antenna for at least one of transmitting or receiving beamformed signals on a plurality of beams using a common frequency- and time-limited physical channel resource, said phased array antenna comprising: an array of antenna cells for electromagnetic radiation, wherein each antenna cell of the antenna cells comprise: an antenna element (“phased array antenna “ [0047]); a first coupling structure at a first side of the antenna element for manipulating coupling with a first adjacent antenna cell at a first side of the antenna element (“and a coupling network 303” [0048]); a second coupling structure at a second side of the antenna element opposite to the first side for manipulating coupling with a second adjacent antenna cell at the second side of the antenna element (“and a coupling network 303” [0048]) […]wherein adjacent antenna cells of the array of antenna cells are mirror- symmetric structures (FIG.3(b), Parts 302, 303 and 304).
Qu does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the first and second coupling structures have separate coupling factors. Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor a wireless communication system ranging including the antenna wherein a coupling factor of the first coupling structure differing from a coupling factor of the second coupling structure (“Note that the parasitic patches 1 and 3 are different sizes” [Col.10, ll.38]).
Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless communication system ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu with the teachings of Buralli to incorporate the features a first and second coupling structure having different coupling factors so as to gain the advantage of improving resonant frequency range [Col.10, Par.5, Buralli]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qu discloses the phased array antenna wherein, the first coupling structure comprises a first crossbar and the second coupling structure comprises a second crossbar (“and a coupling network 303” [0048]),
Qu does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the first and second coupling structures have separate sizes. Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor, a size of the first crossbar is different from a size of the second crossbar(“Note that the parasitic patches 1 and 3 are different sizes” [Col.10, ll.38]).
Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless communication system ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu with the teachings of Buralli to incorporate the features a first and second coupling structure having different sizes so as to gain the advantage of improving resonant frequency range [Col.10, Par.5, Buralli]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qu discloses the phased array antenna comprising, a third coupling structure at a third side of an antenna element for manipulating coupling in the electric plane(“and a coupling network 303, 304” [0048]); a fourth coupling structure at a fourth side of the antenna element opposite to the third side for manipulating coupling in the electric plane (“and a coupling network 303, 304” [0048]);
Qu does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the third and fourth coupling structures have separate coupling factors. Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor, a coupling factor of the third coupling structure differing from a coupling factor of the fourth coupling structure (“Note that the parasitic patches 1 and 3 are different sizes” [Col.10, ll.38]).
Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless communication system ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu with the teachings of Buralli to incorporate the features a third and fourth coupling structure having different coupling factors so as to gain the advantage of improving resonant frequency range [Col.10, Par.5, Buralli]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Qu discloses the phased array antenna wherein, the array of antenna cells comprises N rows and M columns of antenna cells (“This constructed in the invention of novel phased array antenna array element form is not limited, can be realized by different array elements form, “ [0011] & FIG.3) .
Regarding claim 6, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Qu discloses the phased array antenna wherein, The antenna according to claim 5, wherein the antenna cells of adjacent rows are mirror-symmetric and antenna cells of adjacent columns are mirror-symmetric (FIG.3 & FIG.5a).
Regarding claim 9, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Qu discloses the phased array antenna wherein, the first coupling structure of the antenna element and a second coupling structure of the first or second adjacent antenna element are combined as coupling manipulating structure in between the one antenna element and the first or second adjacent antenna element (“coupling structure also has a phase shifting function on through control the horizontal and vertical directions of 503 and 504 “ [0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, Qu discloses
An apparatus comprising a phased array antenna for least one of transmitting or receiving beamformed signals on a plurality of beams using a common frequency- and time-limited physical channel resource, said phased array antenna comprising: an array of antenna cells for electromagnetic radiation (“phased array antenna “ [0047]), wherein antenna cell of the antenna cells comprise: an antenna element (“phased array antenna “ [0047]); a first coupling structure at a first side of the antenna element for manipulating coupling with an adjacent antenna cell at a first side of the antenna element (“and a coupling network 303” [0048]); a second coupling structure at a second side of the antenna element opposite to the first side for manipulating coupling with another adjacent antenna cell at the second side of the antenna element (“and a coupling network 303” [0048]);[…] wherein adjacent antenna cells of the array of antenna cells are mirror- symmetric structures (FIG.3(b), Parts 302, 303 and 304).
Qu does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the first and second coupling structures have separate coupling factors. Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor a coupling factor of the first coupling structure differing from a coupling factor of the second coupling structure (“Note that the parasitic patches 1 and 3 are different sizes” [Col.10, ll.38]);
Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless communication system ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu with the teachings of Buralli to incorporate the features a first and second coupling structure having different coupling factors so as to gain the advantage of improving resonant frequency range [Col.10, Par.5, Buralli]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Qu discloses the antenna wherein, the first coupling structure comprises a first crossbar and the second coupling structure comprises a second crossbar (“and a coupling network 303” [0048]),
Qu does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the first and second coupling structures have separate sizes. Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor, a size of the first crossbar is different from a size of the second crossbar(“Note that the parasitic patches 1 and 3 are different sizes” [Col.10, ll.38]).
Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless communication system ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu with the teachings of Buralli to incorporate the features a first and second coupling structure having different sizes so as to gain the advantage of improving resonant frequency range [Col.10, Par.5, Buralli]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Qu discloses the antenna comprising, a third coupling structure at a third side of the antenna element for manipulating coupling in the electric plane (“and a coupling network 303, 304” [0048]);a fourth coupling structure at a fourth side of the antenna element opposite to the third side for manipulating coupling in the electric plane (“and a coupling network 303, 304” [0048]);
Qu does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the third and fourth coupling structures have separate coupling factors. Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor a coupling factor of the third coupling structure differing from a coupling factor of the fourth coupling structure (“Note that the parasitic patches 1 and 3 are different sizes” [Col.10, ll.38]).
Buralli teaches in the same field of endeavor wireless communication system ranging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu with the teachings of Buralli to incorporate the features a third and fourth coupling structure having different coupling factors so as to gain the advantage of improving resonant frequency range [Col.10, Par.5, Buralli]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Qu discloses the antenna wherein, the array of antenna cells comprises N rows and M columns of antenna cells (“ This constructed in the invention of novel phased array antenna array element form is not limited, can be realized by different array elements form, “ [0011] & FIG.3) .
Regarding claim 15, Qu as modified by Buralli discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Qu discloses the antenna wherein, the antenna cells of adjacent rows are mirror-symmetric and antenna cells of adjacent columns are mirror- symmetric (“ This constructed in the invention of novel phased array antenna array element form is not limited, can be realized by different array elements form, “ [0011]& FIG.3) .
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QU(CN102623805A) as modified by Buralli(US5576718A) ) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of RUSSO(WO2021204362A1)
Regarding claim 3, Qu as modified by Buralli teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Qu as modified by Buralli fails to teach the antenna wherein the coupling structures comprise stubs. Russo teaches in the same field of endeavor The antenna according to claim 1, wherein the first coupling structure comprises a first stub electrically in contact with the antenna element (Fig.3, Part 102(a)) and the second coupling structure comprises a second stub electrically in contact with the antenna element (Fig.3, Part 102(b)), wherein a size of the first stub is different from a size of the second stub (FIG.3).
RUSSO teaches in the same field of endeavor of processing radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu as modified by Buralli with the teachings of RUSSO to incorporate the feature of stubs of different sizes so as to gain the advantage of improving radiation characteristics [Page.4, Par.1, RUSSO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, Qu as modified by Buralli teach all of the limitations of claim 10. Qu as modified by Buralli fails to teach the antenna wherein the coupling structures comprise stubs. Russo teaches in the same field of endeavor the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the first coupling structure comprises a first stub electrically in contact with the antenna element (Fig.3, Part 102(a)) and the second coupling structure comprises a second stub electrically in contact with the antenna element (Fig.3, Part 102(b)), wherein a size of the first stub is different from a size of the second stub (FIG.3).
RUSSO teaches in the same field of endeavor of processing radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu as modified by Buralli with the teachings of RUSSO to incorporate the feature of stubs of different sizes so as to gain the advantage of improving radiation characteristics [Page.4, Par.1, RUSSO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QU(CN102623805A) as modified by Buralli(US5576718A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YANG(CN108306111B).
Regarding claim 7, Qu as modified by Buralli teach all of the limitations of claim 4. Qu as modified by Buralli fails to teach the antenna wherein the coupling structures comprise first and second rings. Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor the third coupling structure comprises a first ring and the fourth coupling structure comprises a second ring, and wherein a size of the first ring is different from a size of the second ring (FIG.2 Part.1)
YANG teaches in the same field of endeavor of processing radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu as modified by Buralli with the teachings of YANG to incorporate the feature of a first ring and a second ring so as to gain the advantage of reducing phase compensation error. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QU(CN102623805A) as modified by Buralli(US5576718A) and Yang(CN108306111B) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of RUSSO(WO2021204362A1).
Regarding claim 8, Qu as modified by Buralli and YANG teach all of the limitations of claim 7. Qu as modified by Buralli and YANG fail to teach the antenna wherein the coupling structures comprise stubs. Russo teaches in the same field of endeavor the third coupling structure comprises a third stub electrically in contact with the antenna element (Fig.3, Part 102(a)) and the fourth coupling structure comprises a fourth stub electrically in contact with the antenna element (Fig.3, Part 102(a)), and wherein a size of the third stub is different from a size of the fourth stub (FIG.3).
RUSSO teaches in the same field of endeavor of processing radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qu as modified by Buralli and yang with the teachings of RUSSO to incorporate the feature of stubs of different sizes so as to gain the advantage of improving radiation characteristics [Page.4, Par.1, RUSSO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Koul (US20220294107A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in paragraph [0091] “T-shaped stub having a mirror symmetry”
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights