DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner appreciates the time and effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case; however, the arguments have not placed the application in condition for allowance. In addition,
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The argument regarding objection to the Specification is persuasive and hence the objection is hereby withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 20200067170).
Sato et al. disclose;
Regarding claim 25:
an antenna device (in Figs. 2-4, 5A, 5B, 8 and 9) comprising: a plurality of antennas (23 as shown in Figs. 8 and 9) arranged on a first substrate (21), and including a first antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) and a second antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9); a plurality of rectifier elements (26; See Figs. 8 and 9) arranged on the first substrate (21); a peripheral electrode (35) arranged on the first substrate (21); and a signal-processing circuits (defined by 12, 18) arranged on a signal-processing substrate (11), wherein the first antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) and the second antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) each comprise: a first part (23 along the right side) electrically connected to one of terminals of the rectifier element (26), a second part (23 along the left side) electrically connected to the other terminal of the rectifier element (26; See Fig. 2), a first lead line (24) connected to the first part (23 along the right side), a second lead line (24) connected to the second part (23 along the left side), and a first through electrode (25) connected to the first lead line (24) and the signal-processing circuits (defined by 12, 18), and wherein the peripheral electrode (35) is connected to the second lead line (24) of the first antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) and the second lead line (24) of the second antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 26:
a second trough [through] electrode (25) electrically connected to the peripheral electrode (35) and arranged in an outer part of a region in which the first antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) and the second antenna (defined by any 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) are arranged (See Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14-20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067170; referred to as Sato hereafter) in view of Sato (US 20210058570; referred to as Sato 570’ hereafter).
Regarding claim 1:
Sato discloses an antenna device (in Figs. 2-4, 5A, 5B, 8 and 9) comprising: a first substrate (21) including a first face (the surface accommodating 23) and a second face (the surface accommodating 27) opposite to the first face (the surface accommodating 23); a signal-processing substrate (11) configured to be stacked with the first substrate (21), and disposed at the second face side (the surface accommodating 27) of the first substrate (11); an antenna array (as shown in Figs. 8 and 9) constituted by a plurality of antennas (23); a plurality of rectifier elements (26) disposed correspondingly to each of the plurality of antennas (23); and a peripheral electrode (29), wherein the antenna (23) comprises: a first part (23 along the right side) electrically connected to one of terminals of the rectifier element (26), and opposite at the first face side; a second part (23 along the left side) electrically connected to the other terminal of the rectifier element (26), and disposed at the first face side; a first lead line (24) connected to the first part (23 along the right side), and disposed at the first face side; a second lead line (24) connected to the second part (23 along the left side), and disposed at the first face side; and a first through electrode (25) connected to the first lead line (24) and the signal-processing substrate (11) and, the peripheral electrode (29) is disposed between the plurality of antennas (23), and is connected (via 25) to the second lead line (24).
Sato is silent on that the peripheral electrode is disposed at the first face side.
Sato 570’ discloses (in Figs. 1-3) the peripheral electrode (106, 107) is disposed at the first face side (accommodating the loop antenna, 111).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the peripheral electrode is disposed at the first face side surrounding the antenna as taught by Sato 570’ into the device of Sato for the benefit of easily supplying a current or a voltage to the rectifying element from an external circuit such as a current source or a voltage source connected to the peripheral electrode (Para. 0033, Lines 1-4) to adjust a radiation pattern of the loop antenna (Para. 0032, Lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 7:
Sato discloses a second through electrode (25) that electrically connects the peripheral electrode (29) and the signal-processing substrate (11) on an outer peripheral part of the antenna array (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8:
Sato discloses the first lead line (24), the second lead line (24), and the peripheral electrode (29) are formed in a conductive layer (surrounding 21) common to the antenna (23).
Regarding claim 14:
Sato discloses a notch (defined by the cut around 29; See Fig. 2) is formed in the peripheral electrode (29); and the second lead line (24) is connected to the peripheral electrode (29) inside the notch (defined by the cut around 29; See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15:
Sato discloses the rectifier element (26) is a Schottky-barrier diode (Para. 0086, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16:
Sato discloses between the support substrate (21) and the signal-processing substrate (11), a reflective layer (27) formed of metal or an alloy is provided (Para. 0063, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 17:
Sato is silent on that a fixed voltage is applied to the peripheral electrode.
Sato 570’ discloses a fixed voltage is applied to the peripheral electrode (Para. 0026, Lines 16-20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the fixed voltage applied to the peripheral electrode as taught by Sato 570’ into the device of Sato for the benefit of supplying power to an element such as an electrical circuit connected to a loop antenna via the loop antenna (Para. 0009, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18:
Sato discloses the antenna device detects a terahertz wave with a frequency of at least 0.03 THz and not more than 30 THz (Para. 0002, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 19:
Sato discloses the antenna (23) is a loop antenna (See Figs.; Para. 0036, Lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 20:
Sato discloses a detection system (Para. 0042, Lines 1-2) comprising: the antenna device (in Figs. 2-4, 5A, 5B, 8 and 9) according to claim 1; a transmitting device for transmitting an electromagnetic wave (Para. 0058, Lines 10-15); and a processing portion (19) which processes a signal from the antenna device (Para. 0094, Lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 21:
Sato discloses a second trough [through] electrode (25) electrically connected to the peripheral electrode (29) and arranged in an outer peripheral part of an antenna array region (defined 23 in Figs. 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 22:
Sato discloses a number of the plurality of antennas (defined by 23 in Figs. 8 and 9) is equal to a number of the first through electrodes (25) in the antenna array region (since each antenna has one first through electrode, 25).
Regarding claims 23 and 24:
Sato is silent on that comprising a pad terminal electrically connected to the peripheral electrode as required by claim 23; and comprising a pad terminal formed in a conductive layer common to the peripheral electrode.
Sato 570’ discloses further comprising a pad terminal (125) electrically connected to the peripheral electrode (123); further comprising a pad terminal (125) formed in a conductive layer common to the peripheral electrode (123; Para. 0029, Lines 2-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pad terminal electrically connected to the peripheral and formed in a conductive layer common to the peripheral electrode as taught by Sato 570’ into the device of Sato for the benefit of achieving a terahertz wave sensor receiving terahertz waves which are radio waves (electromagnetic waves) with a frequency of at least 0.03 THz and not more than 30 THz (Para. 0002, Lines 1-3).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067170; referred to as Sato hereafter) in view of Sato (US 20210058570; referred to as Sato 570’ hereafter) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tateishi et al. (US 20200072663).
Regarding claims 2-4:
Sato as modified are silent on that a recess structure is formed in at least either one of a space between the antenna and the peripheral electrode and an inside of the antenna as required by claim 2; the recess structure is formed between the antenna and the peripheral electrode and inside the antenna; and on a plan view of the antenna, a dimension in a perpendicular direction with respect to a tangent line of a loop part of the antenna in the support substrate below the antenna sandwiched by the recess structures is 1/30 to 1/18 of a resonance wavelength of the antenna as required by claim 3; and the recess structure is formed between the antenna and the peripheral electrode and inside the antenna; and on a plan view of the antenna, a dimension in a perpendicular direction with respect to a tangent line of a loop part of the antenna in the support substrate below the antenna sandwiched by the recess structures is 10 µm to 17 µm as required by claim 4.
Tateishi et al. disclose (in Figs. 4A and 4B) a recess structure (defined by L1 and D1) is formed in at least either one of a space (L1) between the antenna (105) and the peripheral electrode (108) and an inside of the antenna (104); the recess structure (defined by L1 and D1) is formed between the antenna (105) and the peripheral electrode (108) and inside the antenna (104); and on a plan view of the antenna (105), a dimension in a perpendicular direction with respect to a tangent line of a loop part of the antenna (105) in the support substrate (107) below the antenna (105) sandwiched by the recess structures (defined by L1 and D1); and the recess structure (defined by L1 and D1) is formed between the antenna (105) and the peripheral electrode (108) and inside the antenna (104); and on a plan view of the antenna (105), a dimension in a perpendicular direction with respect to a tangent line of a loop part of the antenna (105) in the support substrate (107) below the antenna (105) sandwiched by the recess structures (defined by L1 and D1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the recess structure along with the peripheral electrode and the antenna arranged as taught by Tateishi et al. into the modified device of Sato et al. for the benefit of adjusting the radiated power of the antenna as desired (Para. 0051, Lines 4-6).
Sato as modified are silent on that the pillar width of the antenna substrate within a range of 1/30 to 1/18 of a resonance wavelength of the antenna and 10 µm to 17 µm.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement the thickness within a particular range to achieve the tolerable radiated power 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).
Regarding claims 5 and 6:
Sato as modified are silent on that wherein on a plan view of the support substrate, 50% or more of a region excluding a region occupied by the recess structure in a region occupied by the antenna array is covered by the peripheral electrode as required by claim 5; and wherein on a plan view of the support substrate, 75% or less of a region excluding a region occupied by the recess structure in a region occupied by the antenna array is covered by the peripheral electrode as required by claim 6.
Tateishi et al. disclose wherein on a plan view (in Fig. 4B) of the support substrate (107), 50% or more of a region excluding a region occupied by the recess structure (defined by L1 and D1) in a region occupied by the antenna array (105) is covered by the peripheral electrode (108); wherein on a plan view (in Fig. 4B) of the support substrate (107), 75% or less of a region excluding a region occupied by the recess structure (defined by L1 and D1) in a region occupied by the antenna array (105) is covered by the
peripheral electrode (108).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the recess structure along with the peripheral electrode and the antenna arranged as taught by Tateishi et al. for the benefit of adjusting the radiated power of the antenna as desired (Para. 0051, Lines 4-6).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067170; referred to as Sato hereafter) in view of Sato (US 20210058570; referred to as Sato 570’ hereafter), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Debray et al. (US 20150034825).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 13:
Sato as modified are silent on that the second lead line has a stub as required by claim 9; the stub is formed in a conductive layer common to the antenna array as required by claim 10; and the stub has a part extending so as to oppose the second lead line as required by claim 13.
Debray et al. disclose (in Figs. 13A and 13B) the second lead line (1307) has a stub (1309); the stub (1309) is formed in a conductive layer common to the antenna array (1303); and the stub 1309) has a part extending so as to oppose the second lead line (1307; See Figs.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the stub in the antenna array and arranged as taught by Debray et al. into the modified device of Sato for the benefit of accurately adjusting the characteristics of the antenna with respect to the operating wavelength A, so that the yield rate of the device is improved (Para. 0070, Lines 22-24).
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
Sato as modified are silent on that at a position of 1/10 or less of a resonance wavelength in the antenna array from a connection position between the second lead line and the stub, the second lead line and the peripheral electrode are connected as required by claim 11; and at a position of 30 um or less from a connection position between the second lead line and the stub, the second lead line and the peripheral electrode are connected as required by claim 12.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement the lead line and the stub within a particular range to achieve the tolerable radiated power 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights