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
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on October 2,2025. The Remarks of October 2, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 1-18 are considered. The amendments to claim 1 are accepted and the 112(b) rejections of the original claims are withdrawn. There are no further 112 rejections to the Claims.
Applicant argues on page 10 that “Claims 13 (now claim 1) defines only the length of the claimed "first main branch", rather than the overall length of the claimed "first radiation element". Such a design is entirely different from the length of a conventional radiator.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The length of the claimed “first main branch” is directly related to the length of a conventional radiator due to the fact that the sum of the lengths of the claimed “feeding branch” and “main branch” provides the length of the conventional radiator. Thus, depending of the length of the “feeding branch”, the length of the “main branch” would vary in a certain range of fractions of the wavelength of radiation as determined by the relationship between the length of a conventional radiator and the wavelength of radiation.
Applicant further argues on page 11 that Pant does not provide “any suggestion of "wherein a length of the first main branch is from 0.25 to 0.5 wavelength of a central frequency of the operational frequency band" as recited in the present application.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The basis for the 103 rejection of the limitation in question (original claim 13) is common knowledge (well-known in the art) and the fact that discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 as stated in the rejection below.
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. The following features are not shown in the drawings:
Claim 6 (lines 1-2): the antenna structure provides an omnidirectional radiation pattern.
Figs. 4A and 4B in the drawings present radiation patterns of the antenna structure for different embodiments of the invention. The figures present the antenna gain in a particular plane on a dB-scale with 10 dB increments. By definition omnidirectional radiation pattern provides equal gain in all directions from the (phase) center of an antenna in a plane of interest. Regarding Fig. 4A, as estimated by the examiner, the difference between the maximum gain value (in a direction close to the y-axis) and the minimum gain value (at approximately +/- 50 degrees from the y-axis) is approximately 7 dB. Regarding Fig. 4B, as estimated by the examiner, the difference between the maximum gain value (in a direction close to the y-axis) and the minimum gain value (in a direction close to the x-axis) is approximately 5 dB. This means that the maximum gain is approximately three and five times greater than the minimum gain for the antenna radiation patterns presented in Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B, respectively, which does not qualify as an omnidirectional antenna radiation pattern (regarding omnidirectional radiation patterns, see annotated Figs. 4A and 4B in the Drawings below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the above features 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 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, 7-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over Pant et al. ("Design, development, and applications of 5G antennas: A review", International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies, Feb. 2022, hereinafter Pant).
Regarding claim 1, Pant (Figs. 6 a, b, c) discloses an antenna structure, comprising:
a dielectric substrate (regarding the dielectric substrate, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below), having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (inherent);
a conductive frame (regarding the conductive frame, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below), disposed on the first surface of the dielectric substrate, wherein the conductive frame has a slot region (regarding the slot region of the conductive frame, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below);
a first radiation element (regarding the first radiation element, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below), disposed on the second surface of the dielectric substrate, and coupled to a feeding point (regarding the feeding point, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below); and
a second radiation element (regarding the second radiation element, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below), disposed on the first surface of the dielectric substrate, and coupled to the conductive frame, wherein the second radiation element is adjacent to the first radiation element, and the first radiation element is partially adjacent to the second radiation element on one side;
wherein the first radiation element and the second radiation element are substantially positioned inside the slot region of the conductive frame (see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below),
wherein the antenna structure covers an operational frequency band (Fig. 6 c - frequency bands with center frequencies at approximately 3.5 and 4.75 GHz where measured S11 < -10 dB);
wherein the first radiation element comprises:
a first main branch (regarding the first radiation element first main branch, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below); and
PNG
media_image2.png
532
1192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a feeding branch (regarding the first radiation element feeding branch, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below), wherein a first central point on the first main branch (regarding the first central point on the first main branch, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below) is coupled through the feeding branch to the feeding point (regarding the feeding point, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below).
Pant does not disclose the limitation wherein a length of the first main branch is from 0.25 to 0.5 wavelength of a central frequency of the operational frequency band.
However, it is well-known in the art that the length of a radiation branch of an antenna is sized to fractions of the wavelength at the resonance frequency (frequencies) of the antenna (e.g., the length of a monopole antenna is 0.25 wavelengths and the length of a dipole antenna is 0.5 wavelengths at the respective first resonance frequencies). The examiner notes that the sum of the lengths of the “feeding branch” and “first main branch” provides the length of a radiation branch. Thus, depending of the length of the “feeding branch”, the length of the “first main branch” would vary in a range of fractions of the wavelength of radiation as determined by the relationship between the length of a radiation branch of an antenna and the wavelength of the resonance frequency (frequencies). Furthermore, applicant discloses in paragraph [0028], lines 16-18, that: “The above ranges of element sizes are calculated and obtained according to many experiment results, and they help to optimize the radiation gain and the omnidirectional characteristics of the antenna structure 100”. Therefore, the optimal range for the length of the first main branch would be selected based on experimentation and design goals.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a length of the first main branch from 0.25 to 0.5 wavelength of the central frequency of the operational frequency band. This modification would provide an antenna with the desired antenna characteristics, such as good radiation efficiency and bandwidth at the respective frequency band of operation. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above, wherein the conductive frame (regarding the conductive frame, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above) substantially has a hollow rectangular shape.
Regarding claim 8, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above, wherein the slot region of the conductive frame (regarding the slot region of the conductive frame, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above) substantially has a rectangular shape.
Regarding claim 9, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above, wherein the first radiation element (regarding the first radiation element, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above) substantially has a T-shape.
Regarding claim 10, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above, wherein the second radiation element (regarding the second radiation element, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above) substantially has an inverted Y-shape.
Regarding claim 14, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
Further, Pant (Fig. 6 a, b) teaches the second radiation element comprises:
a second main branch, having a first end and a second end (regarding second main branch, second main branch first end and second end, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 2 in Pant below);
a connection branch, wherein a second central point on the second main branch is coupled through the connection branch to the conductive frame (regarding connection branch and second central point, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 2 in Pant below);
a first extension branch (regarding first extension branch, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 2 in Pant below), coupled to the first end of the second main branch; and
a second extension branch (regarding first extension branch, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 2 in Pant below), coupled to the second end of the second main branch.
PNG
media_image3.png
626
1346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 14 as addressed above.
Pant does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein a length of the second main branch is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of a central frequency of the operational frequency band.
However, it is well-known in the art that the length of a radiation branch of an antenna is sized to fractions of the wavelength at the respective resonance frequency (frequencies) of the antenna (e.g., the length of a monopole antenna is 0.25 wavelengths and the length of a dipole antenna is 0.5 wavelengths at the respective first resonance frequencies). The examiner notes that the sum of the lengths of the “connection branch” and “second main branch” provides the length of a radiation branch. Thus, depending of the length of the “connection branch”, the length of the “second main branch” would vary within a certain range of fractions of the wavelength of radiation as determined by the relationship between the length of a radiation branch of an antenna and the wavelength at the resonance frequency (frequencies). Furthermore, applicant discloses in paragraph [0028], lines 16-18, that: “The above ranges of element sizes are calculated and obtained according to many experiment results, and they help to optimize the radiation gain and the omnidirectional characteristics of the antenna structure 100”. Therefore, the optimal range for the length of the second main branch would be selected based on experimentation and design goals.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a length of the second main branch substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of a central frequency of the operational frequency band. This modification would provide an antenna with the desired antenna characteristics, such as good radiation efficiency and bandwidth at the respective frequency band of operation. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Regarding claim 16, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 14 as addressed above, wherein a first coupling gap is formed between the first extension branch and the first main branch, and a second coupling gap is formed between the second extension branch and the first main branch (regarding first and second coupling gaps, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 2 in Pant above).
Regarding claim 17, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 16 as addressed above.
Pant does not teach explicitly that a width of each of the first coupling gap and the second coupling gap is from 0.5mm to 2mm.
However, it is well known in the art that the gap will depend on the frequency and design goals. Furthermore, applicant discloses in paragraph [0028], lines 16-18, that: “The above ranges of element sizes are calculated and obtained according to many experiment results, and they help to optimize the radiation gain and the omnidirectional characteristics of the antenna structure 100”. Therefore, the optimal range of values for the first coupling gap and the second coupling gap would be selected based on experimentation and design goals.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the first coupling gap and the second coupling gap from 0.5mm to 2mm. This modification would provide an antenna with the desired antenna characteristics, such as good impedance matching at the respective frequency band(s) of operation. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pant in view of Yu et al. (US 20140176378 A1, hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 2, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
Pant does not teach a cable, comprising a central conductive line and an outer conductor, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is coupled to the conductive frame.
Yu (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0021, 0024]) teaches a cable (150), comprising a central conductive line (an internal conductor of the coaxial wire 150 – see paragraph [0024], line 1) and an outer conductor (an external conductor of the coaxial wire 150 – see paragraph [0024], lines 3-4), wherein the outer conductor of the cable is coupled to the conductive frame (110 – ground plane 130 is electrically connected to metal plate 110 – paragraph [0021], lines 6-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the SMA connector in Pant’s antenna structure, which feeds the first radiation element via the feed point, with a cable, comprising a central conductive line and an outer conductor, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is coupled to the conductive frame. This modification would allow the antenna structure to be connected to a signal source (e.g., a transceiver) which may be located at a significant distance away from the antenna structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Pant as applied to claim 2 in view of Jensen et al. (US 5245745 A, hereinafter Jensen).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 2 as addressed above.
The modified Pant does not teach the limitation wherein the dielectric substrate further has a via hole, and the central conductive line of the cable passes through the via hole and is coupled to the feeding point.
Jensen (Fig. 6) teaches a dielectric substrate (42, 48) having a via hole (54), and the central conductive line (56) of the cable passing through the via hole and being coupled to the feeding point (feed point of patch element 50).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pant, so that the dielectric substrate has a via hole, and the central conductive line of the cable passes through the via hole and is coupled to the feeding point. This modification would allow connecting the first radiating element in the antenna structure in such a way, so that the cable is located on the other side of the dielectric substrate opposite to the side where the first radiation element is disposed on. This would shield the first radiating element from the cable due to the conductive frame being located between them and, thus, reduce interference and noise coupling, which would improve the antenna performance.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Pant as applied to claim 2 in view of Ng et al (US 20180109006 A1, hereinafter Ng).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 2 as addressed above.
The modified Pant does not teach a ground plane, disposed below the dielectric substrate, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is further coupled to the ground plane.
Ng (Fig. 2C; paragraph [0066], lines 1-4) teaches a ground plane (216), disposed below the dielectric substrate (regarding dielectric substrate, see annotated Fig. 2C in Ng below), wherein the outer conductor of the cable (regarding outer conductor of the cable, see annotated Fig. 2C in Ng below)
PNG
media_image4.png
646
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is further coupled to the ground plane.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pant to include a ground plane disposed below the dielectric substrate, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is further coupled to the ground plane. This modification would improve the antenna performance, since having a large ground plane to which the outer conductor of the cable is coupled would help dissipate unwanted currents induced on the cable and, thus, prevent unwanted distortions of the antenna radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Pant as applied to claim 4 teaches the antenna structure of claim 4 as addressed above.
Further, Ng teaches that the ground plane is substantially perpendicular to the dielectric substrate (see annotated Fig. 2C in Ng above). Therefore, by modifying Pant by the teachings of Ng, the modified Pant as applied to claim 4 teaches the limitation wherein the ground plane is substantially perpendicular to the dielectric substrate, as well.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Pant as applied to claim 4 in view of Chen et al. (“Pattern Reconfigurable Slot Antenna with Broadband Operation”, Proceedings of ISAP 2014, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Dec. 2-5, 2014, pp. 607-608, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 4 as addressed above.
Furthermore, the modified Pant teaches that the ground plane is configured to prevent the cable from negatively affecting the radiation pattern.
The modified Pant does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna structure provides an omnidirectional radiation pattern.
Chen (Figs. 1 and 5) teaches that by designing the conductive frame around a radiator to provide a certain geometry of the top, bottom and side portions of the conductive frame (see Fig. 1 – very narrow side sections of the conductive frame in comparison with the antenna structure in Pant) the antenna structure provides an omnidirectional radiation pattern (see Fig. 5a and the explanation of the different antenna modes on p. 608, col. 1, lines 13-21).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pant to provide the corresponding geometry of the conductive frame which would result in the antenna structure having an almost omnidirectional radiation pattern. This in turn would provide a more uniform coverage of the antenna which is beneficial in various wireless communications scenarios (e.g., communicating with multiple wireless devices located at different directions from the antenna).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pant in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 18, Pant teaches the antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
Pant does not teach the limitation wherein the conductive frame comprises a first narrow portion and a second narrow portion opposite to each other, and further comprises a first wide portion and a second wide portion opposite to each other.
PNG
media_image5.png
670
956
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chen (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna comprising a conductive frame (regarding the conductive frame, see annotated Fig. 1 in Chen below) comprising a first narrow portion (strip A) and a second narrow portion (strip B) opposite to each other, and further comprising a first wide portion and a second wide portion opposite to each other (regarding the first wide portion and the second wide portion, see annotated Fig. 1 in Chen below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pant, so that the conductive frame comprises a first narrow portion and a second narrow portion opposite to each other, and further comprises a first wide portion and a second wide portion opposite to each other. Given appropriate dimensions of the corresponding conductive frame portions at a specific frequency range of operation, this modification would provide an antenna with a more uniform radiation pattern (see Chen – Figs. 3a and 5a) as compared to the less uniform radiation pattern of the antenna taught by Pant (see Pant – Fig. 6d). Having an antenna which provides more uniform coverage is beneficial in various wireless communications scenarios (e.g., communicating with multiple wireless devices located at different directions from the antenna).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Pant as applied to claim 18 teaches the antenna structure of claim 18 as addressed above.
The modified Pant does not teach explicitly that a width of each of the first narrow portion and the second narrow portion of the conductive frame is from 0.25mm to 0.5mm.
However, it is well known in the art that the choice of width of the narrow portions will depend on the frequency of antenna operation and design goals. Furthermore, applicant discloses in paragraph [0028], lines 16-18, that: “The above ranges of element sizes are calculated and obtained according to many experiment results, and they help to optimize the radiation gain and the omnidirectional characteristics of the antenna structure 100”. Therefore, the optimal range of values for the width of each of the first narrow portion and the second narrow portion of the conductive frame would be selected based on experimentation and design goals.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Pant so that the width of each of the first narrow portion and the second narrow portion of the conductive frame from 0.25mm to 0.5mm. This modification would provide an antenna with the desired antenna characteristics, such as nearly omnidirectional radiation pattern and good return loss over wider frequency band (see Chen, Figs. 2 and 3). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20160049736 A1, hereinafter Liu) in view of Pant.
Regarding claim 20, Liu (Figs. 1 and 2A) discloses a communication device (10), comprising:
a plurality of antenna structures (211-214 and 221-224);
an RF (Radio Frequency) module (12), wherein the antenna structures are excited by the RF module; and
a system ground plane (24), coupled to the antenna structures, wherein the system ground plane is disposed between the antenna structures.
Liu does not teach a plurality of antenna structures as claimed in claim 1.
Pant teaches an antenna structure with all of the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above. Further, the antenna structure taught by Pant provides two frequency bands of operation (see Fig. 6c).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by substituting the antenna structures in Liu with the antenna structure taught by Pant. By replacing the single-band antennas in Liu (see Fig. 2B; paragraph [0028], lines 13-21) with the dual-band antenna of Pant, this substitution would allow the device of Liu to perform in two frequency bands, while reducing the required number of antennas by a factor of two.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pant in view of Yu and Ng.
Regarding claim 21, Pant (Figs. 6 a, b) discloses an antenna structure, comprising:
a dielectric substrate (regarding the dielectric substrate, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above), having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (inherent);
a conductive frame (regarding the conductive frame, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant below), disposed on the first surface of the dielectric substrate, wherein the conductive frame has a slot region (regarding the slot region of the conductive frame, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above);
a first radiation element (regarding the first radiation element, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above), disposed on the second surface of the dielectric substrate, and coupled to a feeding point (regarding the feeding point, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above);
a second radiation element (regarding the second radiation element, see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above), disposed on the first surface of the dielectric substrate, and coupled to the conductive frame, wherein the second radiation element is adjacent to the first radiation element, and the first radiation element is adjacent to the second radiation element on one side;
wherein the first radiation element and the second radiation element are substantially positioned inside the slot region of the conductive frame (see annotated Figs. 6 a, b Part 1 in Pant above).
Pant does not disclose a cable, comprising a central conductive line and an outer conductor, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is coupled to the conductive frame.
Yu (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0021, 0024]) teaches a cable (150), comprising a central conductive line (an internal conductor of the coaxial wire 150 – see paragraph [0024], line 1) and an outer conductor (an external conductor of the coaxial wire 150 – see paragraph [0024], lines 3-4), wherein the outer conductor of the cable is coupled to the conductive frame (110 – ground plane 130 is electrically connected to metal plate 110 – paragraph [0021], lines 6-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the SMA connector in Pant’s antenna structure, which feeds the first radiation element via the feed point, with a cable, comprising a central conductive line and an outer conductor, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is coupled to the conductive frame. This modification would allow the antenna structure to be connected to a signal source (e.g., a transceiver) which may be located at a significant distance away from the antenna structure.
The so modified Pant does not teach a ground plane, disposed below the dielectric substrate, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is further coupled to the ground plane; wherein the ground plane is substantially perpendicular to the dielectric substrate.
Ng (Fig. 2C; paragraph [0066], lines 1-4) teaches a ground plane (216), disposed below the dielectric substrate (regarding dielectric substrate, see annotated Fig. 2C in Ng above), wherein the outer conductor of the cable (regarding outer conductor of the cable, see annotated Fig. 2C in Ng above) is further coupled to the ground plane; wherein the ground plane is substantially perpendicular to the dielectric substrate (see annotated Fig. 2C in Ng above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pant to include a ground plane disposed below the dielectric substrate, wherein the outer conductor of the cable is further coupled to the ground plane. This modification would improve the antenna performance, since having a large ground plane to which the outer conductor of the cable is coupled would help dissipate unwanted currents induced on the cable and, thus, prevent unwanted distortions of the antenna radiation pattern.
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845