DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's response submitted on 03/31/2026. In virtue of this response:
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Machine Translation of WO2023/145937A1 hereinafter “Yamamoto”
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a patch antenna system (Page.2 L10: the array antenna), comprising:
a ground plane (Page. 2 L30: a ground layer [12]);
an active element comprising a metallic patch disposed on a first plane (Page.2 L30-32: a feeding patch layer [13] as metal layer)
a plurality of metallic patches (as shown in Fig.1 for example, there are plurality of parasitic patch layer [14]) disposed on a second plane (Page.2 L29: surface [2a]) that is parallel to the first plane (as shown in Fig.2 for example), wherein
the first plane is between the ground plane and the second plane (as shown in Fig.2 for example, feeding patch layer [13] is between surface [2a] and ground layer [12]), and wherein
each of the plurality of metallic patches is separated from a respective adjacent patch of the plurality of metallic patches in the second plane by a respective gap (as shown in Fig.1; each parasitic patch [14] is separated by a gap and arranged in a grid); and
a plurality of via structures disposed between the first plane and the second plane, wherein each of the plurality of via structures is configured to electrically couple a respective one metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches with the active element. (Page.3 L31-32: the inter-patch vias [22] electrically connect the power patch layer [13] and the first parasitic patch layer [14])
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1 wherein
a dielectric material is disposed between the first plane and the second plane. (Page.2 L18-20: substrate [2] is made of a dielectric)
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 2 wherein
the dielectric material has a dielectric constant of greater than about 5.0. (Page.2 L18-20: substrate [2] is made of a dielectric such as an aluminum oxide) (Note: dielectric constant of aluminum oxide ranges from 8.8 to 10.5)
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses the e 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.2 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 4-6 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Yamamoto does not expclitly disclose:
a distance between the first plane and the second plane is between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm.
Yamamoto discuss on Page.5 L25-43 – Page.6 L1-8 that the distance between conductive patches of a patristic patch antenna 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, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1 wherein
the metallic patch is square (as shown in Fig.1)
Yamamoto does not expclitly disclose:
the patch has four equilateral sides of length about 1.4 mm.
Yamamoto discloses on Page.6 L9-17 that the size of the square of an parasitic patch may be adjusted based on the transmission frequency 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 side length of 1.4 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 6, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1 wherein,
each of the metallic patches in the plurality of metallic patches is a square shape (as shown in Fig.1)
Yamamoto does not expclitly disclose:
each of four equilateral sides having a length of about 0.75 mm.
Yamamoto discloses on Page.6 L9-17 that the size of the square of an parasitic patch may be adjusted based on the transmission frequency 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 side length of 1.4 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 8, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Yamamoto does not expclitly disclose:
the gap between at least two metallic patches in the plurality of metallic patches is at least 0.05 mm.
Yamamoto discuss on Page.5 L25-43 – Page.6 L1-8 that the distance between conductive patches of a patristic patch antenna 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 10, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 9
Yamamoto does not expclitly disclose:
the equal distance is between 0.3 mm and 0.4 mm.
Yamamoto discuss on Page.5 L25-43 – Page.6 L1-8 that the distance between conductive patches of a patristic patch antenna 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of WO2024/197382A1 hereinafter “Qu”
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto discloses the patch antenna system of claim 1
Yamamoto does not expclitly 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 Yamamoto 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 filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argued Yamamoto does not describe “a plurality of via structures…, wherein each of the plurality of via structure is configure to electrically couple a respective one metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches with the active element” and that in antenna [3] of Yamamoto (shown in Fig.2), a single feeding patch layer is coupled by one or two inter-patch vias [22] to a single parasitic patch later [14].
The examiner disagrees, as can be seen in Fig.1 of Yamamoto, the antenna array system discloses a total of 64 individual antenna [3], each with a single feeding patch layer is coupled by one or two inter-patch vias [22] to a single parasitic patch later [14] as shown in Fig.2 and described by the applicant’s response. Thus, each of the antenna [3] within in antenna array will have “a via structures…, wherein the via structure is configure to electrically couple one metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches with the active element” and the overall antenna array will have “a plurality of via structures…, wherein each of the plurality of via structure is configure to electrically couple a respective one metallic patch of the plurality of metallic patches with the active element” as required by the claim.
Applicant relied on the same rationale as presented in claim 1 as evidence of patentability for claims 2-10, and therefore same response applies.
For the at least foregoing reason, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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 2844
Prosecution Insights