DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 07/09/2026. In virtue of this request:
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-19 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-20 are pending;
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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2024/006357A1 hereinafter “Somersalo”
Regarding claim 1, Somersalo discloses patch antenna system, comprising:
a ground plane (¶31L1-2: the antenna ground [104]);
an active element (¶28L1-10: electrical connection platform [102] for electrical connection of RF components and antenna ground) comprising a metallic patch (¶66L1-22: the stacked platform has a multi-level structure, with four metal layer) disposed on a first plane (as shown in Fig.1 for example);
a plurality of metallic patches (¶32L1-6: a first arm [112] and a second arm [114] may be referred to as conductive element in general) (Note: since the elements are conductive, it implicitly disclose a metallic material) disposed on a second plane that is parallel to the first plane (as shown in Fig.1 for example), wherein the first plane is between the ground plane and the second plane (as shown in Fig.7, for example, platform [102] is between ground layer [104] and arms [112] and [114]), and wherein
each of the plurality of metallic patches is separated from a respective adjacent metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches in the second plane by a respective gap (as shown in Fig.1 for example the two arms are separate by a gap); and
a plurality of via structures (¶33LL2-4: a first via hole [116] and a second via hole [118]) disposed between the first plane and the second plane (as shown in Fig.7 for example), wherein each
a first via structure of the plurality of via structures is configured to electrically couple a respective one first metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches with the metallic patch of the active element (as shown in Fig.7; arm [114] is connected to via [118] to the RF feed [118a]), and wherein
a second via structure of the plurality of via structures is configured to electrically couple a second metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches with the metallic patch of the active element. (as shown in Fig.7; arm [124] is connected to via [128] to the RF feed [128a])
Regarding claim 2, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1 wherein
a dielectric material is disposed between the first plane and the second plane. (¶29L14-19: the dielectric layer may be in between the antenna and the ground at the bottom [104] of the antenna module)
Regarding claim 9, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1 wherein
each of the plurality of via structures contacts the active element at an equal distance from a center of the metallic patch. (as shown in Fig.7333 for example)
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.
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 3-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 3, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 2
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
the dielectric material has a dielectric constant of greater than about 5.0.
Somersalo does discloses in ¶38 that the dielectric material can be RT Duroid™ which can have a dielectric constant ranging from 2.00 to 10.2.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select a dielectric constant greater than 5.0.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the dielectric constant is a result effective variable and 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
a distance between the first plane and the second plane is between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm.
Somersalo discuss ¶36 that the distance between distance (antenna heigh from ground) is determined based on the wavelength of the signal, and thus it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select a distance between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the dielectric constant is a result effective variable and 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1 wherein
the metallic patch is square (as shown in Fig.1)
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
the patch has four equilateral sides of length about 1.4 mm.
Somersalo discloses in ¶75 that in the preceding description, numerous specific details are provided, such as examples of lengths and widths as electrical dimensions (i.e., as a function of a used wavelength), shapes, etc., to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the invention.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select side length of 1.4 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 6, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
each of the metallic patches in the plurality of metallic patches is a square shape
Somersalo discloses in ¶75 that in the preceding description, numerous specific details are provided, such as examples of lengths and widths as electrical dimensions (i.e., as a function of a used wavelength), shapes, etc., to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the invention.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select side length of 1.4 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 8, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
the gap between at least two metallic patches in the plurality of metallic patches is at least 0.05 mm.
Somersalo discuss on ¶36 that the distance between the first and second via holes can be varied to adjust the impedance of the antenna, and thus it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select a distance between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the dielectric constant is a result effective variable and 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 9
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
the equal distance is between 0.3 mm and 0.4 mm.
Somersalo discuss on ¶36 that the distance between the first and second via holes can be varied to adjust the impedance of the antenna, and thus it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to select a distance between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the dielectric constant is a result effective variable and 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 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somersalo in view of WO2024/197382A1 hereinafter “Qu”
Regarding claim 7, Somersalo discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Somersalo does not explicitly disclose:
one corner of each of the metallic patches in the plurality of metallic patches has a curved shape.
Qu discloses an antenna device wherein shape of the metallic scatters [112] as shown in Fig.1 maybe a circular shape. (¶17)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the shape of the conductor strip disclosed by Somersalo to be circular as disclosed by Qu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
