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 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are currently pending. Amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 09/05/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the limitations “and the first dielectric constant cover body and the second dielectric constant cover body are spaced apart” (lines 7-8) and “wherein the radome has a first dielectric constant cover body made of a metallic material and a second dielectric constant cover body made of a non-conductive material” (lines 17-18) should be deleted, as they are repeated elsewhere in the claim.
Claim 1: the limitation “an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome” (lines 13-14) appears to be a repeat of the limitation “wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction” (lines 22-23). One of these limitations should be deleted.
Claim 1 (line 4): “opposite side” should read “opposite side surface” for consistency.
Claim 1 (line 18): “first constant cover” should read “first dielectric constant cover”.
Claim 7: the limitation “and the first dielectric constant cover body and the second dielectric constant cover body are spaced apart” (lines 7-8) should be deleted, as it is repeated elsewhere in the claim.
Claim 7 (lines 15-16): “wherein the radome has a first dielectric constant cover body made of a metallic material and a second dielectric constant cover body made of a non-conductive material” should read “wherein the first dielectric constant cover body is made of a metallic material and the second dielectric constant cover body is made of a non-conductive material”.
Claim 7 (line 4): “opposite side” should read “opposite side surface” for consistency.
Claim 7 (line 16): “first constant cover” should read “first dielectric constant cover”.
Claim 16 (line 5): “opposite side” should read “opposite side surface” for consistency.
Claim 16: the limitation “and the first dielectric constant cover body and the second dielectric constant cover body are spaced apart” (lines 9-10) should be deleted, as it is repeated elsewhere in the claim.
Claim 16 (lines 15-16): “wherein the radome has a first dielectric constant cover body made of a metallic material and a second dielectric constant cover body made of a non-conductive material” should read “wherein the first dielectric constant cover body is made of a metal material and the second dielectric constant cover body is made of a non-conductive material”.
Claim 16 (line 16): “first constant cover” should read “first dielectric constant cover”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 2-6 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 8-12 and 14-15 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites “wherein a material of the first dielectric constant cover body is a metal material”, which appears in claim 7. Claim 9 recites “wherein a material of the second dielectric constant cover body is a non-conductive material”, which appears in claim 7.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 9.
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 1-3, 5-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou (US 2016/0351996).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: Ou discloses (figs. 6 & 7 shown above) “An antenna structure (600) comprising:
an array antenna (array of antenna elements 620), wherein the array antenna is divided into a plurality of antenna elements (620), the array antenna includes a dielectric substrate (625), a plurality of radiating metal sheets (patch antenna elements 620) arranged on one side surface (upper surface) of the dielectric substrate (625), and a ground plate located on an opposite side surface of the dielectric substrate (according to ¶71, the elements of 600 shown in fig. 6 may be described with respect to figs. 2 & 3; ¶53, the substrate 615 may be a PCB which one of ordinary skill in the art would know comprises a dielectric to support antenna elements and a ground plate or plane), each of the antenna elements (620) corresponds to each of the radiating metal sheets;
a radome (650, 605; the structure shown in fig. 6 protects antenna elements 620 and is therefore a radome), the radome including a first dielectric constant cover body (605) and a second dielectric constant cover body (650),
wherein a dielectric constant of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is greater than a dielectric constant of the second dielectric constant cover body (650) (according to ¶71, the elements of 600 shown in fig. 6 may be described with respect to figs. 2 & 3; ¶59, “the first dielectric constant cover body 605 may be made of a metallic material”. ¶61, “the second dielectric cover body 650 can be a dielectric or non-metal material”. The first dielectric constant is therefore greater than the second dielectric constant);
a material of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is a metal material (¶59);
a material of the second dielectric constant cover body (650) is a non-conductive material (¶61 & ¶71);
the first dielectric constant cover body (605) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) are spaced apart from each other such that the second dielectric constant cover body is disposed at a position corresponding to a radiation direction of each radiating metal sheet (the antenna elements formed by radiating metal sheets radiate in an upward direction, away from the PCB substrate 625 and towards the non-conductive portions 650), and a peripheral portion of the radome is composed of the metallic material (see fig. 6, where edges of radome 605 are metal)”.
Ou, in the embodiment shown in figure 6, does not disclose “and an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome; wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction, and the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate”.
However, Ou teaches, in para. [0076], “While FIG. 7 shows the external housing 705 as having separate first and second portions 705-a and 705-b, it should be understood that such portions may be integral with each other (e.g., a unitary or monolithic rear cover for the wireless communication device)”. That is, the external housing of Ou may be considered to be a radome, and the dielectric substrate will necessarily have an orthographic projection area smaller than the radome. This can also be seen in fig. 9 of Ou (see below), where the antenna substrate 925 is smaller than the radome 905.
PNG
media_image2.png
161
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The embodiment shown in fig. 7 of Ou (see below) also shows that the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate on which the antenna elements (radiating metal sheets) are disposed.
PNG
media_image3.png
433
236
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide “and an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction, and the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate”, as shown in fig. 7 of Ou. Doing so allows for increased mechanical strength of the antenna structure as the antenna structure and the radome can be formed in a single element (¶76 of Ou).
Claim 2: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou also discloses “wherein the non-conductive material is plastic or glass (¶14, “A dielectric material may fill the cavity (610). The dielectric material may be a plastics material”)”.
Claim 3: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Although Ou does not explicitly disclose “wherein an operating frequency band of the array antenna is located at 28 GHz and 39 GHz”, Ou does disclose (¶7) that the antenna structure is suitable for use in a gigahertz band.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the operating frequency band of the array antenna to be located at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, 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 achieve the desired operating frequency band depending on the requirements of the design.
Claim 5: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou also discloses (fig. 6) “wherein a perimeter of the radome includes the first dielectric constant cover body (605)”.
Claim 6: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou also discloses “wherein the array antenna is a millimeter-wave array antenna (¶9, “The described features generally relate to one or more improved systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for wireless communication using the mmW spectrum”)”.
Claim 7: Ou discloses (figs. 6 & 7) “An antenna structure (600) comprising:
an array antenna (array of antenna elements 620), wherein the array antenna is divided into a plurality of antenna elements (620), the array antenna includes a dielectric substrate (625), a plurality of radiating metal sheets (patch antenna elements 620) arranged on one side surface (upper surface) of the dielectric substrate (625), and a ground plate located on an opposite side surface of the dielectric substrate (according to ¶71, the elements of 600 shown in fig. 6 may be described with respect to figs. 2 & 3; ¶53, the substrate 615 may be a PCB which one of ordinary skill in the art would know comprises a dielectric to support antenna elements and a ground plate or plane), each of the antenna elements (620) corresponds to each of the radiating metal sheets;
a radome (650, 605; the structure shown in fig. 6 protects antenna elements 620 and is therefore a radome), the radome including a first dielectric constant cover body (605) and a second dielectric constant cover body (650),
wherein a dielectric constant of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is greater than a dielectric constant of the second dielectric constant cover body (650) (according to ¶71, the elements of 600 shown in fig. 6 may be described with respect to figs. 2 & 3; ¶59, “the first dielectric constant cover body 605 may be made of a metallic material”. ¶61, “the second dielectric cover body 650 can be a dielectric or non-metal material”. The first dielectric constant is therefore greater than the second dielectric constant);
wherein the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is made of a metallic material (¶59) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) is made of a non-conductive material (¶61 & ¶71), the first dielectric constant cover body (605) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) are spaced apart from each other such that the second dielectric constant cover body is disposed at a position corresponding to a radiation direction of each radiating metal sheet (the antenna elements formed by radiating metal sheets radiate in an upward direction, away from the PCB substrate 625 and towards the non-conductive portions 650), and a peripheral portion of the radome is composed of the metallic material (see fig. 6, where edges of radome 605 are metal)”.
Ou, in the embodiment shown in figure 6, does not disclose “and an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome; wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction, and the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate”.
However, Ou teaches, in para. [0076], “While FIG. 7 shows the external housing 705 as having separate first and second portions 705-a and 705-b, it should be understood that such portions may be integral with each other (e.g., a unitary or monolithic rear cover for the wireless communication device)”. That is, the external housing of Ou may be considered to be a radome, and the dielectric substrate will necessarily have an orthographic projection area smaller than the radome. This can also be seen in fig. 9 of Ou, where the antenna substrate 925 is smaller than the radome 905.
The embodiment shown in fig. 7 of Ou also shows that the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate on which the antenna elements (radiating metal sheets) are disposed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide “and an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction, and the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate”, as shown in fig. 7 of Ou. Doing so allows for increased mechanical strength of the antenna structure as the antenna structure and the radome can be formed in a single element (¶76 of Ou).
Claim 8: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 7.
Ou also discloses (fig. 6) “wherein a material of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is a metal material (¶59)”.
Claim 9: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 7.
Ou also discloses (fig. 6) “wherein a material of the second dielectric constant cover body (650) is a non-conductive material (¶61 & 71)”.
Claim 10: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 9.
Ou also discloses “wherein the non-conductive material is plastic or glass (¶14, “A dielectric material may fill the cavity (610). The dielectric material may be a plastics material”)”.
Claim 11: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 7.
Although Ou does not explicitly disclose “wherein an operating frequency band of the array antenna is located at 28 GHz and 39 GHz”, Ou does disclose (¶7) that the antenna structure is suitable for use in a gigahertz band.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the operating frequency band of the array antenna to be located at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, 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 achieve the desired operating frequency band depending on the requirements of the design.
Claim 14: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 7.
Ou also discloses (fig. 6) “wherein a perimeter of the radome includes the first dielectric constant cover body (605)”.
Claim 15: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 7.
Ou also discloses “wherein the array antenna is a millimeter-wave array antenna (¶9, “The described features generally relate to one or more improved systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for wireless communication using the mmW spectrum”)”.
Claim 16: Ou discloses (fig. 7) “A mobile terminal (¶30, “fig. 7 shows an example of an external housing for a wireless communication device, in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure”), wherein the mobile terminal includes an antenna structure comprising:
an array antenna (array of antenna elements 620), wherein the array antenna is divided into a plurality of antenna elements (620), the array antenna includes a dielectric substrate (625), a plurality of radiating metal sheets (patch antenna elements 620) arranged on one side surface (upper surface) of the dielectric substrate (625), and a ground plate located on an opposite side surface of the dielectric substrate (according to ¶71, the elements of 600 shown in fig. 6 may be described with respect to figs. 2 & 3; ¶53, the substrate 615 may be a PCB which one of ordinary skill in the art would know comprises a dielectric to support antenna elements and a ground plate or plane), each of the antenna elements (620) corresponds to each of the radiating metal sheets;
a radome (650, 605; the structure shown in fig. 6 protects antenna elements 620 and is therefore a radome), the radome includes a first dielectric constant cover body (605) and a second dielectric constant cover body (650),
wherein a dielectric constant of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is greater than a dielectric constant of the second dielectric constant cover body (650) (according to ¶71, the elements of 600 shown in fig. 6 may be described with respect to figs. 2 & 3; ¶59, “the first dielectric constant cover body 605 may be made of a metallic material”. ¶61, “the second dielectric cover body 650 can be a dielectric or non-metal material”. The first dielectric constant is therefore greater than the second dielectric constant); wherein the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is made of a metal material (¶59) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) is made of a non-conductive material (¶61 & ¶71), the first dielectric constant cover body (605) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) are spaced apart from each other such that the second dielectric constant cover body is disposed at a position corresponding to a radiation direction of each radiating metal sheet (the antenna elements formed by radiating metal sheets radiate in an upward direction, away from the PCB substrate 625 and towards the non-conductive portions 650), and a peripheral portion of the radome is composed of the metal material (see fig. 6, where edges of radome 605 are metal)”.
Ou, in the embodiment shown in figure 6, does not disclose “wherein an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome; wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction, and the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate”.
However, Ou teaches, in para. [0076], “While FIG. 7 shows the external housing 705 as having separate first and second portions 705-a and 705-b, it should be understood that such portions may be integral with each other (e.g., a unitary or monolithic rear cover for the wireless communication device)”. That is, the external housing of Ou may be considered to be a radome, and the dielectric substrate will necessarily have an orthographic projection area smaller than the radome. This can also be seen in fig. 9 of Ou, where the antenna substrate 925 is smaller than the radome 905.
The embodiment shown in fig. 7 of Ou also shows that the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate on which the antenna elements (radiating metal sheets) are disposed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide “and an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome wherein a dielectric substrate on which the radiating metal sheets are disposed has a projection area smaller than that of the radome in an orthographic direction, and the radome surrounds the periphery of the dielectric substrate”, as shown in fig. 7 of Ou, in the mobile terminal of Ou. Doing so allows for increased mechanical strength of the antenna structure as the antenna structure and the radome can be formed in a single element (¶76 of Ou).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou in view of Bondyopadhyay (US 5,661,494 – of record; “B”).
Claim 4: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou does not disclose “wherein a plurality of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds are provided on the opposite side of the dielectric substrate, and each pair of horizontal and vertical feeds is associated with a corresponding one of plurality of the antenna elements”.
B teaches (fig. 15) “wherein a plurality of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds (feed structure 62, which has feedlines/feedpoints positioned at 90 degrees relative to one another: one horizontally positioned, and the other vertically positioned) are provided on the opposite side of the dielectric substrate (the feed structure 62 is provided on the opposite side of the dielectric 66a from which the antenna elements are formed), and each pair of horizontal and vertical feeds is associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements (col. 11, lines 11-13; “The feed structure 62 is electromagnetically coupled to the radiator elements 65)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of B to the antenna structure of Ou, wherein a plurality of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds are provided on the opposite side of the dielectric substrate, and each pair of horizontal and vertical feeds is associated with a corresponding one of plurality of the antenna elements. Doing so provides an antenna which can radiate circularly polarized electromagnetic waves (abstract).
Claim 12: Ou discloses the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou does not disclose “wherein a plurality of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds are provided on the opposite side of the dielectric substrate, and each pair of horizontal and vertical feeds is associated with a corresponding one of plurality of the antenna elements”.
B teaches (fig. 15) “wherein a plurality of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds (feed structure 62, which has feedlines/feedpoints positioned at 90 degrees relative to one another: one horizontally positioned, and the other vertically positioned) are provided on the opposite side of the dielectric substrate (the feed structure 62 is provided on the opposite side of the dielectric 66a from which the antenna elements are formed), and each pair of horizontal and vertical feeds is associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements (col. 11, lines 11-13; “The feed structure 62 is electromagnetically coupled to the radiator elements 65)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of B to the antenna structure of Ou, wherein a plurality of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds are provided on the opposite side of the dielectric substrate, and each pair of horizontal and vertical feeds is associated with a corresponding one of plurality of the antenna elements. Doing so provides an antenna which can radiate circularly polarized electromagnetic waves (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues (p. 9 of Remarks) “Ou does not disclose or suggest a radome formed by parallel metallic and non-metallic segments arranged in a spaced manner”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not specify such an arrangement. Claim 1 recites “the first constant cover body and the second constant cover body are spaced apart from each other such that the second dielectric constant cover body is disposed at a position corresponding to a radiation direction of each radiating metal sheet, and a peripheral portion of the radome is composed of the metallic material”. Parallel metallic and non-metallic segments are also not mentioned in the instant Specification.
The Applicant also argues (p. 9 of Remarks) “Ou emphasizes entirely filled or plated cavities – this teaches away from the invention”. Examiner disagrees. Figures 4 and 5 of the instant drawings clearly show portions of the radome 220 filled with a second dielectric constant cover body 222.
The Applicant further argues (p. 9 of Remarks) “Ou fails to disclose the concept of “a dielectric substrate having an orthographic projection smaller than the radome, with the radome forming a peripheral enclosure to increase strength”. Ou teaches an overall non-metallic cover to improve transparency, not maintaining a metallic exterior with structural reinforcement. Thus, Ou teaches in the opposite direction”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Ou states, in para. [0076], “While FIG. 7 shows the external housing 705 as having separate first and second portions 705-a and 705-b, it should be understood that such portions may be integral with each other (e.g., a unitary or monolithic rear cover for the wireless communication device)”. That is, the external housing of Ou may be considered to be a radome (claim 1 does not specify the size of the radome), and the dielectric substrate will necessarily have an orthographic projection smaller than the radome. This is shown more clearly in fig. 9 of Ou, where the antenna substrate 925 is smaller than the radome 905.
Although Ou does not teach that the radome forms a peripheral enclosure “to increase strength”, the external housing 705 will provide some sort of structural support to the antenna structure, and the dielectric portions 650 (shown in fig. 6) which fill the cavities 610 in the radome 605 will provide structural reinforcement.
On page 10 of Remarks, the Applicant argues “the novelty of the present invention lies in the radome’s material arrangement and mechanical reinforcement, not feed-network design. B does not address radome, housing, or mechanical optimization, nor does it provide any teaching or suggestion toward a radome with metallic periphery of metal-non-metal partitioning”. The Examiner agrees that the feed-network design of claim 12 is not novel: pairs of coupled horizontal feeds and vertical feeds for dual-polarization are well-known in the antenna arts.
Also, the fact that reference B concerns “microstrip array feed structures, HTSC thin films, and multi-layer coupling for circular polarization, none of which relates to radome structure. Its multi-layer system exists solely for electromagnetic coupling and feed-network purposes” is not relevant. The rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so” (see MPEP2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024]). The motivation to combine Ou and B is to provide an antenna which can radiate circularly polarized electromagnetic waves, which offers improved flexibility and immunity to multipath effects, making such an antenna ideal for mm-wave applications.
Finally, the Applicant has stated throughout the Remarks, that the structure of the radome of the instant Application “resolves the mechanical-strength issues of conventional hollow-cut radomes” and that the prior art “teaches away from the claimed approach” (see, for example, page 10 of Remarks). However, such functionality/limitations are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specifications, that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc. 7 USPQ 2d 064.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 therefore remain rejected.
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 ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 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 on (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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845