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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on August 27, 2025. The Remarks of August 27, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered. The examiner finds the applicant arguments persuasive and the objections to the Drawings are withdrawn. There are no further objections to the Drawings.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specifications are considered and the respective amendments to the Specification are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 1, 11, and 13 are considered. The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive. The respective amendments to claims 1 and 11 are accepted. The original 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 11, and 13 are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 102 rejection of claim 1 are considered. The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection and the 102 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn. Due to their dependency on claim 1, the 102 rejections of claims 2, 10-12, and 16 are subsequently withdrawn, as well.
The Remarks regarding the cited prior art not corresponding to the limitations of the amended claim 1 are considered. The applicant argues that “even if Ertan and Huh were combined, it would not be possible to derive the antenna device of the present application, in which the ground pattern and the dummy mesh pattern with segmented regions are disposed on the same layer to independently and stably implement vertical radiation and omni-directional radiation.” The examiner finds the applicant’s argument not persuasive since the dummy mesh pattern in Huh (Fig. 5 – 137) is used for visual purposes (see Huh, paragraph [0077], lines 3-4) and can be used to conceal any element of the antenna structure regardless of where (on what layer) that particular element is disposed. Furthermore, the vertical and the omni-directional radiation would exist without the presence of the dummy mesh pattern. In fact, in the case wherein the dummy mesh pattern comprises conductive lines and has the geometry as shown in Fig. 6 in the current disclosure, the second antenna unit would not provide omni-directional radiation.
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 17 are amended. Claims 14, 15, and 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 16-17 are considered.
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 1-13, 16, and 17 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.
Claim 1 recites “a second dummy mesh pattern” (line 10) and “the second dummy mesh pattern” (lines 12, 14-15). The limitation regarding a (the) second dummy mesh pattern is indefinite because a first dummy mesh pattern has not been recited/defined in the claim.
Claim 1 (lines 6-7) recites “the second antenna unit comprising a second radiator configured to provide an omni-directional radiation. Further, claim 1 recites: “a second dummy mesh pattern disposed around the ground pattern to overlap the second antenna unit in the plan view” (lines 10-11) and “the second dummy mesh pattern comprises conductive lines crossing each other” (line 14). As written, it appears that the second dummy mesh pattern overlaps the entire second antenna unit in the plan view. This is supported by the geometry of the second dummy mesh pattern (420) as shown in Fig. 6 of the Drawings. However, it is well-known in the art that, in the case wherein a conductive surface is located in close proximity to a radiator/antenna so that it overlaps the entire radiator/antenna, the radiator/antenna cannot provide an omni-directional radiation. Therefore, absent recitation of key elements, such as the extent of the overlap between the second dummy mesh pattern and the second antenna unit, the periodicity of the mesh structure (i.e., the mesh space free of conductive material), the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-13, 16 and 17 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
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, 2, 8-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ertan et al. (US 20190317177 A1, hereinafter Ertan) in view of Huh et al. (US 20200194896 A1, hereinafter Huh).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Ertan (Fig. 6, [0069]) discloses an antenna device (48R) comprising:
a dielectric layer (134) having a central portion and a peripheral portion (regarding the peripheral and central portions, see [0069], lines 8-10);
a first antenna unit (48 – patch antenna) disposed on a top surface of the dielectric layer, the first antenna unit comprising a first radiator (48P) providing a vertical radiation from the top surface of the dielectric layer (regarding the vertical radiation, it is well-known in the art that a patch antenna provides vertical radiation from the top surface of the dielectric layer);
a second antenna unit (48 – dipole antenna) spaced apart from the first antenna unit on a plan view, the second antenna unit comprising a second radiator (48 – dipole antenna with arms 48-1 and 48-2) configured to provide an omni-directional radiation (regarding the omni-directional radiation, it is well-known in the art that a dipole antenna provides omni-directional radiation).
Ertan does not explicitly teach a ground pattern disposed on a bottom surface of the dielectric layer to overlap the first antenna unit in the plan view.
However, Ertan (Fig. 5, [0067]) teaches ground pattern (48G) parallel to an antenna element (48P), wherein the ground pattern is located below and overlaps the antenna element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ertan by including the dielectric layer (Fig. 6, 134) in between the ground layer (Fig. 5, 48G) and the first antenna unit (Fig. 6, 48 – patch antennas) as is well-known in the art. This modification would provide the appropriate separation between the ground pattern and the antenna and would provide the predictable result of the antenna device comprising a ground pattern disposed on a bottom surface of the dielectric layer to overlap the first antenna unit in the plan view.
The so modified Ertan does not teach a second dummy mesh pattern disposed around the ground pattern to overlap the second antenna unit in the plan view, wherein the ground pattern and the second dummy mesh pattern are disposed at the same level, and the second dummy mesh pattern comprises conductive lines crossing each other, and the second dummy mesh pattern has segmented regions at which the conductive lines are cut.
However, Huh (Fig. 5; [0076-0078]) teaches a dummy mesh pattern (137) disposed around and at the same level as an antenna unit (132); and the second dummy mesh pattern comprises conductive lines crossing each other (regarding conductive lines crossing each other, the dummy mesh pattern (137) may have substantially the same mesh structure as the antenna unit (132) which comprises metal wires – see [0077], lines 1-3), and the second dummy mesh pattern has segmented regions at which the conductive lines are cut.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the antenna device comprises a second dummy mesh pattern disposed around the ground pattern to overlap the second antenna unit in the plan view, wherein the ground pattern and the second dummy mesh pattern are disposed at the same level, and the second dummy mesh pattern comprises conductive lines crossing each other, and the second dummy mesh pattern has segmented regions at which the conductive lines are cut. This modification would achieve the desirable result of providing a visually uniform pattern of the antenna device by preventing the ground pattern from being recognized (see Huh, paragraph [0077], lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first antenna unit further comprises a first transmission line electrically connected to the first radiator.
However, Ertan (Fig. 5) teaches an antenna unit (48) comprising a transmission line (48A) electrically connected to a radiator (48P).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ertan so that the first antenna unit further comprises a first transmission line electrically connected to the first radiator. This modification would provide means for the first antenna unit to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals as is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first radiator and the second radiator have a mesh structure.
Huh (Fig. 3; paragraph [0073], lines 5-8) teaches a radiator (132) having a mesh structure.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the first radiator and the second radiator have a mesh structure. This modification would achieve the desirable result of having radiators with increased transmittance – i.e. optical transparency (see Huh, paragraph [0073], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not teach a first dummy mesh pattern disposed around the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit to be spaced apart from the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit.
However, Huh teaches (Fig. 5, [0076, 0077]) a dummy mesh pattern (137) disposed around an antenna unit (132) and being spaced apart from the antenna unit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan to add a dummy mesh pattern disposed around the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit to be spaced apart from the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit. This modification would achieve the desirable result of preventing the first and the second antenna units from being recognized (see Huh, paragraph [0077], lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein an area of the first radiator is smaller than an area of the second radiator.
However, Ertan teaches that the antennas (48) may be tuned to perform in desired frequency ranges (see [0064], lines 5, 6). Further, Ertan teaches that desired frequency ranges may include millimeter wave frequencies such as extremely high frequencies of 10 GHz to 400 GHz (see [0055]). It is well-known in the art that dipole antennas and patch antennas which are taught by Ertan have dimensions proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation. Thus, an area of the first radiator (48 – patch antenna), which operates at 400 GHz (wavelength of approximately 0.75 mm) would be smaller than an area of the second radiator (48 – dipole antenna), which operates at 10 GHz (wavelength of approximately 30 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ertan so that the first antenna unit operates at extremely high frequencies (e.g., 400 GHz) and the second antenna unit operates at substantially lower frequencies (e.g. 10 GHz). This modification would provide the predictable result of an area of the first radiator being smaller than an area of the second radiator.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
Ertan (Fig. 6, [0069]) further teaches the antenna device (48R) comprises a plurality of the first antenna units (48 – patch antenna), and a plurality of the second antenna units (48 – dipole antenna).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 11 as addressed above.
Ertan (Fig. 6, [0069]) further teaches the plurality of first antenna units (48 – patch antenna) are disposed on the central portion (see [0069], lines 8-10) of the dielectric layer (134), and the plurality of second antenna units are disposed on the peripheral portion (see [0069], lines 8-10) of the dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a distance between centers of the first radiators included in neighboring first antenna units among the plurality of first antenna units is 1/4 of a radiation wavelength of the first radiator, and a distance between centers of the second radiators included in neighboring second antenna units among the plurality of second antenna units is 1/4 of a radiation wavelength of the second radiator.
However, Ertan teaches (Fig. 10; [0083], lines 10-12) a first antenna (48-1) and a second antenna (48-2) separated by a distance (d1). Further, Ertan recites ([0085], lines 4-5) “d1 may be less than or equal to one half of the wavelength (e.g., effective wavelength) of the received signal”. Furthermore, Ertan teaches ([0113], lines 1-2) that various modifications can be made to the described embodiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ertan so that a distance between centers of the first radiators included in neighboring first antenna units among the plurality of first antenna units is 1/4 of a radiation wavelength of the first radiator, and a distance between centers of the second radiators included in neighboring second antenna units among the plurality of second antenna units is 1/4 of a radiation wavelength of the second radiator. This modification would have achieved the predictable result of providing the desired antenna device performance, such as easier calculation for the phase difference between the signals received by two antennas (see Ertan, [0085], lines 1-3). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the ground pattern is spaced apart from the second antenna unit in the plan view.
However, Ertan (Fig. 5) teaches (Fig. 5) the ground pattern (48G) overlapping the first antenna unit (48 – patch antenna 48P), and the ground pattern (48G) not overlapping the second antenna unit (48 – dipole antenna with arms 48-1 and 48-2) and, thus, the ground pattern is spaced apart from the second antenna unit in the plan view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ertan so that the ground pattern is spaced apart from the second antenna unit in the plan view. This modification would provide the antenna device with a first antenna unit having vertical radiation and a second antenna unit having omni-directional radiation, as is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the ground pattern has a mesh structure.
Huh (Fig. 3; paragraph [0073], lines 5-8) teaches a radiator (132) having a mesh structure.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the ground pattern has a mesh structure. This modification would achieve the desirable result of having an antenna ground pattern with increased transmittance – i.e. optical transparency (see Huh, paragraph [0073], lines 5-8).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ertan as applied to claim 1 in view of Choi et al., (“A new ultra-wideband antenna for UWB applications,” Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 40, No. 5, March 5 2004, pp. 399-401; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not teach the limitation wherein the second radiator comprises a plurality of radiation portions, widths of which sequentially decrease.
Choi (Figs. 1a, 1b) teaches an antenna having a radiator (depicted in Fig. 1a), wherein the radiator comprises a plurality of radiation portions, widths of which sequentially decrease. Further, the radiator in the antenna taught by Choi is located close to the antenna ground (depicted in Fig. 1b) and has omni-directional radiation patterns in the XZ plane (see Figs. 4b, 5b, and 6b).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan by substituting the second antenna unit with the antenna described by Choi. This modification would have led to the predictable result of providing a second radiator comprising a plurality of radiation portions, widths of which sequentially decrease. Further, this modification would provide multiple benefits to the antenna device by having an antenna with an ultra-wide band of operation, wherein the radiator is located very close to the antenna ground (thus, suitable for integration in small electronic devices), while maintaining omni-directional radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 3 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the plurality of radiation portions comprise a first radiation portion, a second radiation portion and a third radiation portion, widths of which sequentially decrease.
Choi (Fig. 1a) teaches the plurality of radiation portions comprise a first radiation portion, a second radiation portion and a third radiation portion, widths of which sequentially decrease (regarding the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion and the third radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 1a in Choi below).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the plurality of radiation portions comprise a first radiation portion, a second radiation portion and a third radiation portion, widths of which sequentially decrease. This modification would have provided the antenna device with an ultra-wideband antenna which operates over a wide range of frequencies (see Choi, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion and the third radiation portion are arranged in a stepped shape.
Choi (Fig. 1a) teaches the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion and the third radiation portion are arranged in a stepped shape (regarding the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion and the third radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 1a in Choi above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion and the third radiation portion are arranged in a stepped shape. This modification would have provided the antenna device with an ultra-wideband antenna which operates over a wide range of frequencies (see Choi, Abstract).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ertan as applied to claim 1 in view of Suh (US 7183977 B2, hereinafter Suh).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not teach the limitation wherein the second antenna unit further comprises: a second transmission line electrically connected to the second radiator; and an auxiliary radiator disposed around the second transmission line and physically spaced apart from the second radiator and the second transmission line.
Suh (Figs. 2C; col. 3, lines 35-49) teaches an antenna unit (201) comprising: a transmission line (208) electrically connected to a radiator (202); and an auxiliary radiator (204) disposed around the transmission line and physically spaced apart from the radiator and the transmission line.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the second antenna unit further comprises a second transmission line electrically connected to the second radiator, and an auxiliary radiator disposed around the second transmission line and physically spaced apart from the second radiator and the second transmission line. This modification would provide antennas with a form factor suitable in space limited platforms, such as portable and laptop computers and other wireless communication devices, and/or antennas suitable for UWB wireless technology (see Suh, col. 3, lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Ertan teaches the antenna device of claim 6 as addressed above.
The modified Ertan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the auxiliary radiator serves as a fourth radiation portion.
Suh (Figs. 2C; col. 3, lines 35-49) teaches the auxiliary radiator (204) serves as a second radiation portion in addition to the radiator (202).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ertan so that the auxiliary radiator serves as a fourth radiation portion in the second antenna unit. This modification would provide antennas with a form factor suitable in space limited platforms, such as portable and laptop computers and other wireless communication devices, and/or antennas suitable for UWB wireless technology (see Suh, col. 3, lines 52-59).
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights