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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “As shown in FIG.2D of Warnick, although a portion of slot 108 has a rectangular annular shape when viewed from above, the feed point I/O ports 206 and 216 are clearly not located within the rectangular annular shape. As a result, the radiation pattern generated by Warnick's antenna structure is prone to directional deviation and exhibits inferior directivity.”
The arguments are moot because claim 1 is now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al, US-20130187830-A1 in view of Huber et al, EP-3499640-A1 as explained below.
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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick et al, US-20130187830-A1 (hereinafter Warnick) in view of et al, EP-3499640-A1 (hereinafter Huber).
Regarding claim 1, Warnick discloses the following:
a radar signal device comprising:
an antenna unit configured to transmit a transmission signal and receive a reception signal concurrently during a time interval (para [0077]: the first feed point 202, the first feed line 204, and the first feed point I/O port 206 are part of a receive feed network and the second feed point 212, the second feed line 214, and the second feed point I/O port 216 are part of a transmit feed network), the antenna unit comprising:
a first metal layer (110, 106, fig. 2D) where a first opening (108) is formed on the first metal layer, and the first opening passes through the first metal layer (fig. 3A: opening/slot 108 passes through the first metal layer 110);
a first feed structure (216, 214, 232, 212, fig. 2D) configured to receive a first internal signal, where the transmission signal is generated according to at least the first internal signal (para [0077]: the second feed point 212, the second feed line 214, and the second feed point I/O port 216 are part of a transmit feed network), and a first projection of the first feed structure on the first metal layer at least partially overlaps with the first opening (fig. 2D); and
a second feed structure (206, 204, 222, 202, fig. 2D) configured to transmit a second internal signal, where the second internal signal is generated according to at least the reception signal (para [0077]: the first feed point 202, the first feed line 204, and the first feed point I/O port 206 are part of a receive feed network), and a second projection of the second feed structure on the first metal layer at least partially overlaps with the first opening (fig. 2D);
a transmission circuit (para [0077]: the second feed point I/O port 216 are part of a transmit feed network, it is implied that there is a transmission circuit) configured to generate the first internal signal; and
a reception circuit (para [0077]: the first feed point I/O port 206 are part of a receive feed network, it is implied that there is a receiver circuit) configured to generate a processed signal related to the second internal signal;
wherein the first opening is a member selected from a group consisting of a rectangular aperture, a circular aperture, an elliptical aperture, a rectangular annular slot (fig. 2D), a circular annular slot and an elliptical annular slot, the antenna unit is configured to form a first radiation pattern and a second radiation pattern (fig. 2D: there are first and second feed structures to the antenna unit, it is implied that there are first and second radiation pattern), the first radiation pattern is used to transmit the transmission signal and has a first co-polarized electric field direction (para [0077]: the second feed point 212, the second feed line 214, and the second feed point I/O port 216 are part of a transmit feed network and excite one of orthogonal polarization, see para [0078]), the second radiation pattern is used to receive the reception signal and has a second co-polarized electric field direction (para [0077]: the first feed point 202, the first feed line 204, and the first feed point I/O port 206 are part of a receive feed network and excite a second one of orthogonal polarization, see para [0078]), and an angle between the first co-polarized electric field direction and the second co-polarized electric field direction is between 45 degrees and 135 degrees (fig. 2D, para [0078]: the angle is 90 degrees).
Warnick does not disclose a projection of a first feed point of the first feed structure on a plane of the first metal layer is located in the selected member, a projection of a second feed point of the second feed structure on the plane of the first metal layer is located in the selected member.
Huber suggests a projection of a first feed point (34, fig. 40) of the first feed structure on a plane of the first metal layer is located in the selected member (12), a projection of a second feed point (34) of the second feed structure on the plane of the first metal layer is located in the selected member (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the projections of the feed points of the radar signal device taught in Warnick to in the selected member as suggested in Huber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the degree of the coupling between the feed structures and the opening and the impedance of the circuit in order to improve the antenna’s efficiency (Huber, page 5, para 10).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
PNG
media_image1.png
186
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Warnick discloses wherein the first metal layer comprises a first metal sub-layer (110, fig. 2D) and a second metal sub-layer (106), the first metal sub-layer surrounds the second metal sub-layer (fig. 2D), and the first opening (108) is located between the first metal sub-layer and the second metal sub-layer to form the rectangular annular slot (fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 5, Warnick discloses wherein the first metal sub-layer (110, fig. 2D) is a ground plane (para [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Warnick discloses wherein the first projection of the first feed structure (216, 214, 232, 212) and the second projection of the second feed structure (206, 204, 222, 202) respectively overlap with a first side slot and a second side slot of the rectangular annular slot (fig. 2D), the first side slot extends along a first direction (fig. 2D: vertical direction), the second side slot extends along a second direction (fig. 2D: horizontal direction) perpendicular to the first direction, and the first side slot is adjacent to the second side slot (fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 7, although Warnick does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side slot has a first width along the second direction, the second side slot has a second width along the first direction, and the first width is equal to the second width, Warnick discloses the patch 106 can have square shape (para [0052]) which is separated with the first metal layer 110 by the slot 108 (fig. 2D), it is implied that the first width of the slot is equal to the second width.
Regarding claim 8, Warnick discloses wherein the first co-polarized electric field direction is perpendicular to the second co-polarized electric field direction (fig. 2D, para [0078]: the first feed point 202 and the second feed point 212 may have orthogonal circular polarizations).
Regarding claim 9, Warnick discloses wherein the first opening is configured to enable the first radiation pattern to form a first bi-directional radiation pattern and enable the second radiation pattern to form a second bi-directional radiation pattern (fig. 2D, para [0078]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 10, Warnick discloses wherein the antenna unit further comprises a reflector (306, fig. 3A which reflects radiation directed behind the patch antenna element 106 to increase the efficiency of the patch antenna element 106, para [0087], it is implied that 306 is a reflector), and the reflector is configured to enable the first radiation pattern to form a first unidirectional radiation pattern and enable the second radiation pattern to form a second unidirectional radiation pattern (fig. 3A).
Although Warnick does not explicitly disclose a distance between the reflector and the first metal layer is between 0.1 and 1 free space wavelength, Warnick discloses there is a distance between the reflector (306, fig. 3A) and the first metal layer (110) which is the thickness of the substrate 302 and the thickness of the substrate in their invention can be adjusted depending operating frequencies and other design considerations (para [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance between the first metal layer and the reflector of the radar signal device taught in Warnick and Huber to be between 0.1 and 1 free space wavelength as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to be able to work in different frequencies depending on the requirements of the application (para [0100]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 11, Warnick discloses wherein a first reference line passes through the first feed point of the first feed structure (216, 214, 232, 212, fig. 2D reproduced below) and a centroid of the first opening (108), a second reference line passes through the second feed point of the second feed structure (206, 204, 222, 202) and the centroid of the first opening, and an angle between the first reference line and the second reference line is between 45 degrees and 135 degrees (fig. 2D: the angle is 90 deg).
PNG
media_image2.png
529
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick in view of Huber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiraoka et al, WO-2020095436-A1 (hereinafter Hiraoka).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Warnick and Huber does not disclose wherein the antenna unit further comprises a second metal layer, the first metal layer and the second metal layer are arranged along a thickness direction, a second opening is formed on the second metal layer, and the first opening at least partially overlaps with the second opening.
Hiraoka discloses wherein the antenna unit further comprises a second metal layer (layer of slot 112 on substrate 110B, fig. 16, which is slot antenna, page 6, para 5, it is implies that the layer of slot 112 is conductive), the first metal layer (layer of GND cutout 135 on substrate 130B, fig. 17) and the second metal layer (layer of slot 112 on substrate 110B) are arranged along a thickness direction (fig. 15), a second opening (135) is formed on the second metal layer, and the first opening (112, fig. 31) at least partially overlaps with the second opening (135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second layer comprising second opening as suggested in Hiraoka to the radar signal device taught in Warnick and Huber as claim for the purpose of adding more openings to the radar signal device in order to control the beamwidth of the antenna unit and improve the directivity of the beam to improve the antenna gain (Hiraoka, page 2, last para – page 3, para 1).
Regarding claim 3, Warnick discloses wherein the first metal layer is a ground plane (110, para [0055]).
Although Warnick does not disclose the first feed structure, the second feed structure and the second metal layer are formed on a same metal layer, Warnick discloses that the feed structures can be in different layer (fig. 3B, para [0091]).
Hiraoka suggests the first feed structure (133a, figs. 15-17), the second feed structure (133b) and the second metal layer (layer of slots 112) are formed on a same metal layer (metal layer of slots 112, page 12, para 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second feed structures of the radar signal device taught in Warnick and Huber to be coplanar with the second metal layer as suggested in Hiraoka as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process and reducing the wiring distance between the feed structures and the opening on the second metal layer in order to reduce the signal loss in transmitting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights