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 February 27, 2026 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 13. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2025. The examiner withdraws the Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “on its upper surface” is improper and should read “on an upper surface of the first dielectric member”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "an outer edge of the first dielectric member" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previous limitation in claim 1 or a new limitation.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okegawa et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0181379 A1), hereinafter known as Okegawa.
Regarding claim 1, Okegawa discloses (Fig. 35) A patch antenna (Fig. 35) comprising: a radiating element (3’); a first dielectric member (41’) on which the radiating element (3’) is provided on its upper surface; at least one second dielectric member (39’) provided around the first dielectric member (41’); and a conductive pattern (8x) in contact with a lower surface of the first dielectric member (41’) and in contact with a lower surface of the at least one second dielectric member (39’), wherein in a plan view of the patch antenna (Fig. 35), an outer edge of the first dielectric member (41’) is positioned outwardly to an outer edge of the radiating element (3’), an outer edge of the at least one second dielectric member (39’) is positioned outwardly to the outer edge of the first dielectric member (41’), and a thickness of the at least one second dielectric member (39’) is smaller than or equal to a thickness of the first dielectric member (41’).
Regarding claim 5, Okegawa further discloses wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave ([0100]).
Regarding claim 6, Okegawa further discloses (Fig. 35) wherein the at least one second dielectric member (39’) is formed in such a shape as to surround the first dielectric member (41’).
Regarding claim 7, Okegawa further discloses (Fig. 35) wherein the at least one second dielectric member (39’) includes a plurality of second dielectric members (39’), and each of the plurality of second dielectric members (39’) is provided in parallel to an outer edge of the first dielectric member (41’).
Regarding claim 9, Okegawa further discloses (Fig. 35) wherein the at least one second dielectric member (39’) is in contact with the outer edge of the first dielectric member (41’).
Regarding claim 11, Okegawa further discloses (Fig. 35) further comprising a circuit board (8x) on which the first dielectric member (41’) is provided, the circuit board (8x) having a conductive pattern functioning as a ground ([0125]).
Regarding claim 12, Okegawa further discloses wherein the first dielectric member is formed of ceramic ([0128]).
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0051989 A1), hereinafter known as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses (Fig. 1) A patch antenna (10) comprising: a radiating element (110); a first dielectric member (130) on which the radiating element (110) is provided on its upper surface; at least one second dielectric member (140) provided around the first dielectric member (130); and a conductive pattern (202) in contact with a lower surface of the first dielectric member (130) and in contact with a lower surface of the at least one second dielectric member (140), wherein in a plan view of the patch antenna (10), an outer edge of the first dielectric member (130) is positioned outwardly to an outer edge of the radiating element (110), an outer edge of the at least one second dielectric member (140) is positioned outwardly to the outer edge of the first dielectric member (130), and a thickness of the at least one second dielectric member (140) is smaller than or equal to a thickness of the first dielectric member (130).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the thickness of the at least one second dielectric member (140) is smaller than the thickness of the first dielectric member (130).
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses (Fig. 1) further comprising a circuit board (200) on which the first dielectric member (130) is provided, the circuit board (200) having a conductive pattern functioning as a ground ([0082]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the first dielectric member (130) is formed of ceramic ([0076]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim further discloses (Fig. 1) further comprising a gap between the at least one second dielectric member (140) and an outer edge of the first dielectric member (130).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okegawa in view of Kumar et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0212569 A1), hereinafter known as Kumar.
Regarding claim 2, Okegawa does not specifically teach wherein a relative dielectric constant of the at least one second dielectric member is larger than a relative dielectric constant of the first dielectric member.
However, Kumar teaches wherein a relative dielectric constant of the at least one second dielectric member is larger than a relative dielectric constant of the first dielectric member ([0006], [0054], [0065]).
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 patch antenna of Okegawa with Kumar to include “wherein a relative dielectric constant of the at least one second dielectric member is larger than a relative dielectric constant of the first dielectric member,” as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of improving performance (see also [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Okegawa does not specifically teach wherein the relative dielectric constant of the at least one second dielectric member is 30 or larger.
However, Kumar teaches wherein the relative dielectric constant of the at least one second dielectric member is 30 or larger ([0006], [0054]).
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 patch antenna of Okegawa with Kumar to include “wherein the relative dielectric constant of the at least one second dielectric member is 30 or larger,” as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of improving performance (see also [0054]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kumar.
Regarding claim 5, Kim does not specifically teach wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave.
However, Kumar teaches wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave ([0077]).
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 patch antenna of Kim with Kumar to include “wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave,” as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of improving reception from satellite and other desired applications (see also [0033] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the at least one second dielectric member (140) is formed in such a shape as to surround the first dielectric member (130).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the at least one second dielectric member (140) includes a plurality of second dielectric members (140), and each of the plurality of second dielectric members (140) is provided in parallel to an outer edge of the first dielectric member (130).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okegawa in view of Azuma et al. (WO 2017168705 A1), hereinafter known as Azuma.
Regarding claim 8, Okegawa further teaches (Fig. 35) the at least one second dielectric member (39’) includes a plurality of second dielectric members (39’), but does not specifically teach wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a linearly polarized electromagnetic wave, and the plurality of second dielectric members are provided at positions facing each other with the radiating element in between in a direction of a straight line connecting a feed point at the radiating element and a center point of a shape of the radiating element.
However, Azuma teaches (Fig. 4) wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a linearly polarized electromagnetic wave ([0015]]), and the plurality of second dielectric members (34) are provided at positions facing each other with the radiating element (21) in between in a direction of a straight line connecting a feed point (37) at the radiating element and a center point of a shape of the radiating element (21).
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 patch antenna of Okegawa with Azuma to include “wherein the radiating element is an element that receives a linearly polarized electromagnetic wave, and the plurality of second dielectric members are provided at positions facing each other with the radiating element in between in a direction of a straight line connecting a feed point at the radiating element and a center point of a shape of the radiating element,” as taught by Azuma, for the purpose of improving protection of the patch antenna (see also [0061] of machine translation).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845