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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections, specification objections and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/06/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 12-21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Species I, amended claims 1-11, directed to embodiment of fig. 1, requires the features of “the first opening is a rectangular aperture, a circular aperture, an elliptical aperture or a rectangular annular slot”.
Species II, amended claims 12-20, directed to embodiment of fig. 11, requires the features of “the first opening has a first long side and a first short side, the second opening has a second long side and a second short side, the first long side extends along a first direction, the second long side extends along a second direction, the first direction and the second direction are not in parallel and not perpendicular to one another”.
Species III, newly added claim 21, directed to embodiment of fig. 12, requires the features of “the first opening has a first short side, a second short side, a first long side, and a second long side, the second opening has a third short side, a fourth short side, a third long side, and a fourth long side, a shortest distance between the first short side and the third short side is smaller than a shortest distance between the second short side and the third short side, the shortest distance between the first short side and the third short side is greater than a shortest distance between the first short side and a centroid of the second opening”.
The claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species as mentioned above.
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 Accordingly, claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
Priority
Although Applicant claim benefits of the provisional application 63/342635 filed 05/17/2022, the drawings and claims of the provisional application are different to the current application, therefore, the current application will not be entitled to the benefits of an earlier filling date.
Applicant argued that “the provisional application discloses various antenna-related embodiments, wherein embodiment "Loop antenna I" describes a loop antenna configuration, embodiments "Loop antenna II" and "Loop antenna III" describe annular slot structures, embodiments "slot antenna I" and "slot antenna II" describe elongated aperture configurations, and embodiment "patch antenna with shorting via" describes antenna implementation utilizing different metal layers”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because loop antenna I, loop antenna II and loop antenna III do not have all the elements cited in the claims of the current application, such as the first and second feed structure, the transmission and reception circuits, the first and second radiation patterns and the first and second co-polarized electric field directions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Warnick et al, US-20130187830-A1 (hereinafter Warnick).
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 rectangular aperture, a circular aperture, an elliptical aperture or a rectangular annular slot (fig. 2D), 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).
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 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 11, Warnick discloses wherein a first reference line passes through a 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 a 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_image1.png
529
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick as applied to claims 1, 12 and 15 above, and in view of Hiraoka et al, WO-2020095436-A1 (hereinafter Hiraoka).
Regarding claim 2, Warnick 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 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 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warnick, US-20130187830-A1.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that “Although Warnick teaches various antenna-related technical features, Warnick does not disclose "the first opening is a rectangular aperture, a circular aperture, an elliptical aperture or a rectangular annular slot" as recited in the amended claim 1. By way of example, as shown in FIGS. 2A-2D of Warnick, the slot patch antennas 200, 210, 220 and 230 taught by Warnick have slots 108 that, while having a portion somewhat resembling a rectangular shape in top view, are irregular in overall configuration.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because under BRI, the slot/opening 108 of Warnick has a portion of a rectangular annular slot as marked in in fig. 2D below. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art”, see MPEP 2111.01.I.
Moreover, because the claim cited that “a radar signal device comprising”, the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional term, according to MPEP 2111.03.I, therefore it does not exclude the radar signal device from having additional opening on the sides of the rectangular annular slot.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argued that “In Warnick's design, the slot 108 deviates from aperture configurations such as rectangular, circular, elliptical, or rectangular annular slots as recited in Claim 1. The slot 108 of Warnick features extended portions that correspond to the ports 206 and 216, and incorporates an irregular configuration to accommodate the feed lines 214 and 204, as 10 as the capacitive coupling 222. Consequently, the slot 108 of Warnick lacks geometric symmetry.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because the claims do not require the slot/opening has to be geometric symmetry. Moreover, the slot 108 is geometric symmetry along the diagonal line as marked in fig. 2D below.
PNG
media_image3.png
356
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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.
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845