DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 16 are currently pending. Amendments to the claims have overcome the drawing and claim objections and 112(d) rejections set forth in the Final Rejection dated 02/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 26): “wherein the radome disposed on a side of the array antenna” should read “wherein the radome is disposed on a side of the array antenna”.
Claim 1 (lines 32 and 40): “mechanical strength” should read “structural strength” (see, for example, ¶63 of the instant Specification).
Claim 1: the limitation “wherein the second dielectric constant cover body is disposed at a position corresponding to the radiation direction of each radiating sheet” (lines 29-30) appears to be a duplicate of “the second dielectric constant cover body is disposed at a position corresponding to a radiation direction of each radiating metal sheet” (lines 20-21). The limitation of lines 29-30 should be deleted.
Claim 1 (line 38): “wherein the array antenna operates at 28 GHz and 39 GHz millimeter-wave frequency bands” should read “wherein the array antenna operates at 28 GHz and 39 GHz”.
Claim 16 (lines 30 and 38): “mechanical strength” should read “structural strength” (see, for example, ¶63 of the instant Specification).
Claim 16: “wherein the radome disposed on a side of the array antenna” should read “wherein the radome is disposed on a side of the array antenna”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-2, 4-6 and 16 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 (line 37) and claim 16 (line 35) recite the limitation “the radome forms a fence-type structure surrounding the array antenna”. However, the term “fence-type structure” does not have a specific meaning in the art, and Applicant’s specification does not provide a standard for determining what constitutes a fence-type structure. Therefore, the meaning of the limitation is unclear and the scope of the claims cannot be determined. Claims 1 and 7 are therefore indefinite. The Examiner notes that this limitation was rejected under 112(b) in the Non-Final Rejection dated 09/05/2025.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets a fence-type structure to be formed by portions of the first dielectric constant cover body (metal portions) which are adjacent to, and disposed between, portions of the second dielectric constant cover body (dielectric).
Claims 1 and 16 also recite the limitation “wherein a gain difference of the array antenna relative to a hollowed-out radome is controlled to be less than 0.5 dB while maintaining mechanical strength of the radome”. It is understood by the Examiner that a hollowed-out radome is a radome without the metallic “fence-type structure”. It is not clear to the Examiner how this gain difference could be measured as the parameters of an antenna structure without the fence-type structure (i.e., the hollowed-out radome) are not defined in the claim. It is also not clear which structural properties of the two types (fence-type and hollowed-out) of the antenna structure are to be compared in order to assess whether or not mechanical strength of the radome has been maintained. This limitation is unclear and therefore the scope of claims 1 and 16 cannot be ascertained.
Claims 1 and 16 are interpreted by the Examiner “as best understood”.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. The limitation “wherein the array antenna operates at 28 GHz and 39 GHz millimeter-wave frequency bands” is recited in claim 1. 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 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, 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou (US 2016/0351996) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2019/0051967; “Ryu”).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: As best understood, 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);
a material of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) is a metal material (¶59, “the external housing 205 may be made of a metallic material. In such case, the walls 240 of the cavities 210 may collect/radiate communication signals for the respective antenna elements 220 by reflecting such signals, without an additional layer of material, as represented by the left side of the cavities in FIG. 2.”);
a material of the second dielectric constant cover body (650) is a non-conductive material (¶61 & ¶71, “the cavities 210 may be filled with a suitable dielectric or non-metal material. The material may be transmissive to mmW communication signals”);
wherein 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);
wherein the radome (605, 650) is disposed on a side of the array antenna (620) corresponding to a radiation direction of the radiating metal sheets (the radome is positioned above the antenna elements 620, as shown in fig. 6), wherein the first dielectric constant cover body (605) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) are spatially separated and alternately arranged, and the first dielectric constant cover body (605) forms a continuous peripheral structure surrounding the array antenna (array of elements 620), such that the radome maintains mechanical strength while allowing transmission of millimeter-wave signals (¶9, “The described features generally relate to one or more improved systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for wireless communication using the mmW spectrum”; see Examiner’s note below), wherein the second dielectric constant cover body (650) replaces only portions of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) corresponding to radiation directions of the radiating metal sheets (620), remaining portions of the radome (605, 650) are formed by the first dielectric constant cover body (650) to maintain continuity of metallic material (605), and the radome (605) forms a fence-type structure surrounding the array antenna; wherein a gain difference of the array antenna relative to a hollowed-out radome is controlled to be less than 0.5 dB while maintaining mechanical strength of the radome (see Examiner’s note below)”.
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; 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).
Ou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the array antenna operates at 28 GHz and 39 GHz. However, Ou does disclose (¶7) that the antenna structure is suitable for use in a gigahertz band.
Ryu teaches (abstract) a mobile terminal including a patch antenna array. Ryu also teaches (¶160) that the mobile terminal with the patch antenna array can be used for 5G wireless communication in an (ultra) high frequency band of about 28 GHz or 39 GHz.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna structure of Ou wherein an operating frequency band of the array antenna is located at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, as taught by Ryu. Doing so allows for the antenna structure to be used for a 5th generation mobile terminal.
Also, 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).
Examiner’s note: According to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. When the claimed and prior art produces are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Claim 2: the modified Ou teaches the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou 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 5: the modified Ou teaches the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou discloses (fig. 6) “wherein a perimeter of the radome includes the first dielectric constant cover body (605)”.
Claim 6: the modified Ou teaches the antenna structure according to claim 1.
Ou 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: As best understood Ou discloses (figs. 6 & 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 (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); wherein 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) 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);
wherein the radome (605, 650) is disposed on a side of the array antenna (620) corresponding to a radiation direction of the radiating metal sheets (the radome is positioned above the antenna elements 620, as shown in fig. 6), wherein the first dielectric constant cover body (605) and the second dielectric constant cover body (650) are spatially separated and alternately arranged, and the first dielectric constant cover body (605) forms a continuous peripheral structure surrounding the array antenna (array of elements 620), such that the radome maintains mechanical strength while allowing transmission of millimeter-wave signals (¶9, “The described features generally relate to one or more improved systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for wireless communication using the mmW spectrum”; see Examiner’s note above), wherein the second dielectric constant cover body (650) replaces only portions of the first dielectric constant cover body (605) corresponding to radiation directions of the radiating metal sheets (620), remaining portions of the radome (605, 650) are formed by the first dielectric constant cover body (650) to maintain continuity of metallic material (605), and the radome (605) forms a fence-type structure surrounding the array antenna; and wherein a gain difference of the array antenna relative to a hollowed-out radome is controlled to be less than 0.5 dB while maintaining mechanical strength of the radome (see Examiner’s note above)”.
Ou, in the embodiment shown in figure 6, does not disclose “an orthographic projection area of the dielectric substrate on the radome is smaller than an area of the radome; 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.
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).
Ou fails to explicitly disclose wherein the array antenna operates at 28 GHz and 39 GHz. However, Ou does disclose (¶7) that the antenna structure is suitable for use in a gigahertz band.
Ryu teaches (abstract) a mobile terminal including a patch antenna array. Ryu also teaches (¶160) that the mobile terminal with the patch antenna array can be used for 5G wireless communication in an (ultra) high frequency band of about 28 GHz or 39 GHz.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna structure of Ou wherein an operating frequency band of the array antenna is located at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, as taught by Ryu. Doing so allows for the antenna structure to be used for a 5th generation mobile terminal.
Also, 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou in view of Ryu, and further in view of Bondyopadhyay (US 5,661,494 – of record; “B”).
Claim 4: the modified Ou teaches 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 in view of Ryu, 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 on 05/24/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues (p. 8 of Remarks) “Ou mainly forms a cavity structure in a housing and utilizes a metallic coating or dielectric filling to optimize signal reflection and transmission. The core of Ou lies in the cavity structure and feed alignment design.
In contrast, the present application does not employ a cavity structure, but instead adopts a radome structure having partitioned metallic and non-conductive materials, wherein regions corresponding to radiation directions employ low dielectric-constant materials, while peripheral regions maintain a continuous metallic structure so as to simultaneously achieve millimeter-wave transmission performance and structural strength”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the difference between the “cavity structure” and the Applicant’s “radome structure”, the term “radome structure” does not have a specific meaning in the art. Claim 1 of the instant Application uses the term “radome” which the Examiner has interpreted broadly to mean a structure that protects antenna elements. The Examiner thus considers the external housing 605/705 of Ou, which may be formed from a metallic material (¶59) and can be integrated with the external housing (¶76), to be a radome. The radome 605/705 of Ou (see fig. 6) has partitioned metallic and non-conductive materials, wherein regions corresponding to radiation directions employ low dielectric-constant materials (¶61 & ¶71, “the cavities 210 may be filled with a suitable dielectric or non-metal material. The material may be transmissive to mmW communication signals”). The Examiner acknowledges that Ou discloses a cavity structure (see ¶71, where the term “cavity” is used), but the antenna structure of Ou shown in figs. 6 & 7 reads on claim 1: there is nothing in claim 1 which distinguishes the cavity structure of Ou and the fence-like structure of the present Application.
Regarding the structural strength of the antenna structure, Ou discloses (¶76), “while fig. 7 shows the external housing 705 as having separate first and second portions 705a and 705b, it should be understood that such portions may be integral with each other (e.g., a unitary or monolithic rear cover)”. The peripheral regions of radome 705 of Ou clearly form a continuous metallic structure while simultaneously achieving millimeter-wave transmission performance and structural strength due to the unitary nature of the radome.
The Applicant argues, on p. 8 and p. 9 of Remarks, “Ou neither discloses a radome structure in which metallic and non-metallic portions are separated and alternately arranged, nor discloses the design concept of improving mechanical strength through a continuous metallic peripheral structure. Rather, Ou emphasizes an overall non-metallic or filled structure, which instead weakens metallic continuity, and therefore teaches away from the present application”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons given above, Ou does disclose a radome structure in which metallic and non-metallic portions are separated and alternately arranged (see grid-like structure shown in fig. 6). While Ou fails to disclose the design concept of improving mechanical strength through a continuous metallic peripheral structure, the external housing (radome) of Ou has a continuous metallic peripheral structure with dielectric portions, which is the same structure as the radome recited in present Claim 1, and therefore is considered by the Examiner to possess the same properties of improved mechanical/structural strength.
The Applicant further argues, on p. 9 of Remarks, “Bondyopadhyay relates to a microstrip array feed structure and a circular polarization implementation. Its multilayer structure is used for electromagnetic coupling and feed network design, and is unrelated to radome structures or mechanical strength optimization. The innovation of the present application lies in the material partitioning and structural reinforcement design of the radome, rather than the feed network. Accordingly, Bondyopadhyay neither discloses nor suggests a metallic/non-metallic partitioned radome structure, nor provides any teaching regarding maintenance of structural strength”.
Bondyopadhyay has been cited as teaching the features of claim 4 which relate to horizontal and vertical feeds for feeding an antenna element. The motivation to combine Ou and Bondyopadhyay 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.
The Applicant argues on p. 9 of Remarks, “the present application further limits that the second dielectric constant cover body replaces only portions of the first dielectric constant cover body corresponding to radiation-direction positions of the respective radiating metal sheets, rather than replacing an entire corresponding region with non-metallic material as in the prior art”. However, figures 5 and 6 of Ou clearly show portions of the first dielectric constant cover body (dielectric material 550, 650) corresponding to radiation-direction positions of the respective radiating metal sheets (antenna elements 520, 620). Ou does not show replacing an entire corresponding region with non-metallic material.
On p. 10 of Remarks, the Applicant argues “Such technical effects could neither be expected nor derived from Ou or Bondyopadhyay. Ou focuses on cavity filling and reflective structure design, and does not consider maintaining millimeter-wave transmission performance while preserving metallic continuity”.
The Examiner again disagrees. The external housing (radome) of Ou is clearly designed for operation at mm-Wave frequencies, as stated in ¶105, “such alignment may configure the antenna element to receive and/or transmit radio frequency communications signals (e.g., mmW) through the cavity during operation of the wireless communication device”. As for metallic continuity, this has already been addressed.
On p. 10, Applicant continues, “Bondyopadhyay merely relates to feed networks and circular polarization implementation, and is unrelated to radome structures, material partitioning, or structural strength. Therefore, even if the above references were combined, a person having ordinary skill in the art would still not arrive at the fence-type metallic/non-metallic partitioned radome structure proposed by the present application, nor the technical solution simultaneously achieving transmission performance and structural strength. Accordingly, the present application remains significantly non-obvious over the prior art”.
The Examiner does not agree with this argument. For the reasons given above, the Examiner considers that the Ou antenna has the same structure as proposed by the present application, as currently claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been aware of the use of pairs of coupled horizontal and vertical feeds on a dielectric substrate in order to feed a plurality of antenna elements. Ou does not specify the use of a particular feed structure but does mention communication between a mobile terminal and a mm-Wave base station (fig. 1 and ¶¶40-51), and it would have been obvious to choose a well-known feed structure in order to provide improved flexibility and immunity to multipath effects.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and claim 16 are therefore rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang (US 2021/0320408) – (fig. 4) discloses antenna array elements arranged in a metal structure.
Noori (US 2017/0309991) - ¶44 “In configurations in which housing 12 is formed from a conductive material such as metal, regions of the housing such as slots or other openings in the metal may be filled with plastic or other dielectric. Antennas 40 may be mounted in alignment with the dielectric in the openings.”.
Ouyang (US 2017/0110787) – Fig. 23 shows a portion of metal housing 12 with an array of mm-Wave antenna window openings 114. Antennas 116 may be patch antennas (¶77).
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
Prosecution Insights