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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 14th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claims fail to provide any further claim structure to support the difference between the application and the prior art as to the radiation characteristics of the respective antennas. Furthermore, Applicant does not provide any explanation as to why the cited prior art does not teach the claim limitations.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13, 17-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite “a thresohold distance”. However, the claims do not define how the threshold is determined, or provide any objective standard for determining when the threshold distance is met. The specification discloses a “distance” (par. [0045-0047]), but does not define a threshold value, provide a range, or describe an objective standard for establishing the threshold distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tatarnikov et al. (US 10403972 B2), herein referred to as Tatarnikov.
Regarding claim 1, Tatarnikov discloses a system comprising: a support structure (col. 12, lines 2-3, not shown in figs.); a first ground plane (1202) positioned on the support structure; and an antenna module (1216) positioned above (fig. 12E) and a threshold distance away (col. 12 lines 60-61) from the first ground plane (1202), the antenna module including: a second ground plane (1212) that is separate from the first ground plane (1202), and an antenna positioned on the second ground plane, wherein the antenna exhibits primary radiation (direct rays) from a location on at least a surface of the antenna (1214) and secondary radiation (reflected rays), the secondary radiation emanating from at least an end of the second ground plane on which the antenna is disposed (all reflected radiation is at least out of one end of the smaller ground plane).
Regarding claim 2, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Tatarnikov also discloses wherein the antenna (1214) that is part of the antenna module (1216) comprises a patch antenna (col. 12, lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 3, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Tatarnikov also discloses wherein the antenna (1214) that is part of the antenna module (1216) comprises a circularly polarized patch antenna (col. 12, lines 65-66 and col. 16, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 5, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Tatarnikov also discloses wherein the antenna module (1214) is positioned closer than an additional threshold distance away from the first ground plane (1202), wherein the additional threshold distance is larger than the threshold distance (col. 12 lines 60-61).
Regarding claim 7, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Tatarnikov also discloses wherein the system includes a plurality of different radiating mechanisms (see fig. 1, direct and reflected rays, further, see col. 5, lines 15-20, regarding the symmetry of operation between transmit and receive).
Regarding claim 11, Tatarnikov discloses a mobile electronic device (col. 1, lines 50-52) a first ground plane (1202) positioned on the support structure; and an antenna module (1216) positioned above (fig. 12E) and a threshold distance away (col. 12 lines 60-61) from the first ground plane (1202), the antenna module including: a second ground plane (1212) that is separate from the first ground plane (1202), and an antenna positioned on the second ground plane, wherein the antenna exhibits primary radiation (direct rays) from a location on at least a surface of the antenna (1214) and secondary radiation (reflected rays), the secondary radiation emanating from at least an end of the second ground plane on which the antenna is disposed (all reflected radiation is at least out of one end of the smaller ground plane).
Regarding claim 13, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Tatarnikov also discloses wherein the system includes a plurality of different radiating mechanisms (see fig. 1, direct and reflected rays, further, see col. 5, lines 15-20, regarding the symmetry of operation between transmit and receive).
Regarding claim 17, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 13.
Tatarnikov also discloses further comprising: a third radiating mechanism that includes radiation from the antenna reflected by the first ground plane (reflected rays).
Regarding claim 18, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 13.
Tatarnikov also discloses further comprising a fourth radiating mechanism that includes radiation behind the ground plane (fig. 5, column 8, lines 22-52 discusses rays beyond the larger ground plane).
Regarding claim 20, Tatarnikov discloses an apparatus comprising: a support structure (col. 12, lines 2-3, not shown in figs.); a first ground plane (1202) positioned on the support structure; and an antenna module (1216) positioned above (fig. 12E) and a threshold distance away (col. 12 lines 60-61) from the ground plane (1202), the antenna module including: a second ground plane (1212) that is separate from the first ground plane (1202), and an antenna position on the second ground plane, wherein the antenna exhibits primary radiation (direct rays) from a location on at least a surface of the antenna (1214) and secondary radiation (reflected rays), the secondary radiation emanating from at least an end of the second ground plane on which the antenna is disposed (all reflected radiation is at least out of one end of the smaller ground plane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarnikov.
Regarding claim 6, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Tatarnikov does not specifically disclose wherein a length of the second ground plane is formed at a specified ratio of an additional length of the first ground plane.
However, Tatarnikov does disclose that the size of the ground plane is a results effective variable to suppress the reception of multipath signals (col. 7, lines 61-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the antenna of Tatarnikov wherein a length of the second ground plane is formed at a specified ratio of an additional length of the first ground plane, to suppress the reception of multipath signals.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatarnikov and further in view of Charaabi et al. (EP 3940885 A1), herein referred to as Charaabi.
Regarding claim 19, Tatarnikov anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Tatarnikov does not disclose wherein the mobile electronic device comprises a virtual reality head mounted device (HMD), a pair of augmented reality (AR) glasses, or a smartwatch.
However, Tatarnikov does disclose (col. 1, lines 50-52) the use of the antenna for mobile applications, and further Charaabi discloses a similar antenna (radiating elements above a ground plane (see fig. 3) for use in augmented and/or virtual reality devices (para. 0132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the device of Tatarnikov wherein the mobile electronic device comprises a virtual reality head mounted device (HMD), a pair of augmented reality (AR) glasses, or a smartwatch, as taught by Charaabi, to provide enabling components to said devices (para. 0132).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845