DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(a), said rejection is withdrawn due to proper amendments.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection.
With respect to the rejection of claims 9, 11-17, 19, 20 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection.
With respect to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection.
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, 3-5, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gonzalez (WO 2025026564 A1 ).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez teaches a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) antenna array (page 1, Background, massive MIMO) comprising:
a first plurality of antenna elements arranged in a first plane (Fig. 3, page 13, Detailed Description, 2nd para, a first radiating element 401a being arranged in a first plane);
a second plurality of antenna elements arranged in a second plane that is different from the first plane, wherein the first plane is positioned to overlay the second plane to increase gain of the MIMO antenna array(Fig. 3, page 13, Detailed Description, 2nd para, a second radiating element 401b being arranged in a second plane); and
at least one separation layer that is positioned between the first plane and the second plane, wherein the at least one separation layers is comprised of a dielectric material (page 14, last para. PCB), and wherein the first plurality and the second plurality of antenna elements are concurrently powered on within a same operating frequency band (Fig. 3(a), page 13, Detailed Description, 2nd para, a common node 403 for being fed with a RF signal).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Gonzalez.
Gonzales further teaches the antenna array, wherein at least a portion of antenna elements in the first plurality of antenna elements are connected to at least another portion of antenna elements in the first plurality to form one or more groups (page 1, Background, massive MIMO).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Gonzalez.
Gonzales further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane, and wherein the first plane overlays the second plane such that a position of at least one individual antenna element in the first plurality of antenna elements is arranged in the first plane to align with a position of at least one other corresponding individual antenna element in the second plurality of antenna elements arranged in the second plane (Fig. 3(a), 401a, 401b).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Gonzalez.
Gonzales further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane, and wherein the first plane overlays the second plane such that a position of each individual antenna element in the first plurality of antenna elements is arranged in the first plane to align with a position of an individual corresponding antenna element in the second plurality of antenna elements arranged in the second plane (Fig. 3(a), 401a, 401b).
Regarding claim 9, Gonzalez teaches a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) antenna array (page 1, Background, massive MIMO) comprising:
a first plurality of antenna elements arranged in a first plane (Fig. 3, page 13, Detailed Description, 2nd para, a first radiating element 401a being arranged in a first plane), the first plurality of antenna elements corresponding to a first size (Fig. 3(a) 401a);
a second plurality of antenna elements arranged in a second plane that is different from the first plane and parallel to the first plane, the second plurality of antenna elements corresponding to the first size (401b, the same RF source 403), wherein the first plane is positioned to overlay the second plane (Fig. 3, page 13, Detailed Description, 2nd para, a second radiating element 401b being arranged in a second plane); and
at least one separation layer that is positioned between the first plane and the second plane, wherein the at least one separation layers is comprised of a dielectric material (page 14, last para. PCB), and wherein the first plurality and the second plurality of antenna elements are concurrently powered on within a same operating frequency band (Fig. 3(a), page 13, Detailed Description, 2nd para, a common node 403 for being fed with a RF signal).
Regarding claim 11, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
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 of this title, 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (WO 2025026564 A1 ) in view of Schober (US 2022/0140475 A1).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Gonzalez.
Gonzalez does not explicitly teach the antenna array, wherein the dielectric material includes polytetrafluoroethylene.
Schober teaches an antenna, wherein the dielectric material includes polytetrafluoroethylene ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Schober to the teachings of Gonzalez in order to configure a high-frequency board (Schober, [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (WO 2025026564 A1 ) in view of Shiueru (JP 6138795 B2, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Gonzalez.
Gonzalez further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane (Fig. 3(a)).
However, Gonzales does not explicitly teach the antenna array, wherein the first plane overlays the second plane such that a position of at least one individual antenna element in the first plurality of antenna elements is arranged in the first plane to be misaligned with a position of at least one other corresponding individual antenna element in the second plurality of antenna elements arranged in the second plane.
Shiueru teaches an antenna array, wherein a first plane overlays a second plane such that a position of at least one individual antenna element in the first plurality of antenna elements is arranged in the first plane to be misaligned with a position of at least one other corresponding individual antenna element in the second plurality of antenna elements arranged in the second plane (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Shiueru to the teachings of Gonzales in order to reduce the potential interference of antenna array elements (Shiueru, page 3, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Gonzalez.
Gonzalez further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane (Fig. 3(a)).
However, Gonzales does not explicitly teach the antenna array, wherein the first plane overlays the second plane such that a position of each individual antenna element in the first plurality of antenna elements is arranged in the first plane to be misaligned with a position of an individual corresponding antenna element in the second plurality of antenna elements arranged in the second plane.
Shiueru teaches an antenna array, wherein a first plane overlays a second plane such that a position of each individual antenna element in the first plurality of antenna elements is arranged in the first plane to be misaligned with a position of an individual corresponding antenna element in the second plurality of antenna elements arranged in the second plane (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Shiueru to the teachings of Gonzales in order to reduce the potential interference of antenna array elements (Shiueru, page 3, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are allowed. Specifically, the independent claim 17 is allowed over the prior arts. The dependent claims 19 and 20 are allowed due to their dependencies to the said independent claim 17.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 17, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a system comprising a multi input multi output (MIMO) antenna array wherein the first plane and the second plane are concurrently powered on within a same operating frequency band such that a user device can switch between the layers, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached on 571-272-8048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844