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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5 and 10-12 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections, specification objections, and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/28/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities
Claim 10: “a dielectric, each of the plurality of dielectrics being on a corresponding one of the plurality of radiating electrodes” should read “a dielectric,
Similar objection would be applied for claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohno et al, US-20050057402-A1 (hereinafter Ohno).
Regarding claim 1, Ohno discloses an antenna device, comprising:
a substrate (10, fig. 6) comprising a ground conductor plate (11);
a radiating electrode (13) on the substrate, separated from the ground conductor plate (11) in a thickness direction of the substrate (fig. 6); and
a dielectric (3) on the radiating electrode,
wherein the dielectric comprises two dielectric blocks separated by a distance in a first direction (fig. 11 reproduced below), the first direction being an excitation direction of the radiating electrode, and wherein in a plan view of the substrate: the two dielectric blocks are symmetrically arranged across a geometric center of the radiating electrode (figs. 6, 11), and each of the two dielectric blocks at least partially overlaps the radiating electrode (figs. 6, 11, para [0133]).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ohno discloses wherein the dielectric further comprises a connection (33a, fig. 11) that connects the two dielectric blocks to each other, and wherein a section of the connection that is orthogonal to the first direction is smaller than a section of each of the two dielectric blocks that is orthogonal to the first direction (fig. 11).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno as applied to claim 1 above in view of Chang et al, US-7663553-B2 (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 2, although Ohno does not explicitly disclose each of the two dielectric blocks is a rectangular parallelepiped or a cube, Ohno discloses that the dielectric block could be different shape in order to achieve desired gain and beam directivity depending the requirements of the application (para [0132]).
Chang discloses each of the two dielectric blocks is a rectangular parallelepiped or a cube (fig. 1, 3A reproduced below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the two dielectric blocks taught in Ohno to be rectangular parallelepiped as taught in Chang as claimed for the purpose of achieving the desired gain and beam directivity depending the requirements of the application (Ohno, para [0132]).
PNG
media_image2.png
486
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno ( US-20050057402-A1) in view of Williams et al, US-20200133398-A1 (hereinafter Williams), and further in view of Vaucher, US-20220065986-A1.
Regarding claim 10, Ohno discloses the following:
a radar module, comprising:
a substrate (10, fig. 6) comprising a ground conductor plate (11);
a plurality of antennas on the substrate (fig. 19);
wherein each of the plurality of antennas comprises:
a radiating electrode (8a-8e/13, fig. 6) on the substrate, separated from the ground conductor plate (11) in a thickness direction of the substrate (fig. 6); and
a dielectric (31a-31e/3), each of the plurality of dielectrics being on a corresponding one of the plurality of radiating electrodes (fig. 19),
wherein an excitation direction of the plurality of radiating electrodes is parallel to a first direction (fig. 6),
wherein each of the plurality of dielectrics comprises two dielectric blocks separated by a distance in the first direction (fig. 11 reproduced above), and
wherein, for each of the plurality of dielectrics in the plan view of the substrate:
the two dielectric blocks are symmetrically arranged across a geometric center of the corresponding radiating electrode (figs. 6, 11), and
each of the two dielectric blocks at least partially overlaps the corresponding radiating electrode (figs. 6, 11, para [0133]).
Ohno does not disclose the radar module comprising:
a plurality of reception antennas configured to receive a radio wave radiated from the plurality of transmission antennas and reflected by a target; and
a signal processing circuit configured to process a signal received by the plurality of reception antennas, and to generate position information of the target,
wherein the plurality of transmission and reception antennas is aligned in a direction orthogonal to the first direction in plan view.
Williams suggests the radar module comprising:
a plurality of reception antennas (250, para [0033]) configured to receive a radio wave radiated from the plurality of transmission antennas (200) and reflected by a target (para [0033]); and
a signal processing circuit (102) configured to process a signal received by the plurality of reception antennas (para [0033]),
wherein the plurality of transmission and reception antennas (250, 200) is aligned in a direction orthogonal to the first direction in plan view (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmission and reception antennas as suggested in William to the radar module taught in Ohno as claimed for the purpose of being able to transmit and receive the reflected signals in order to perform different functions depending on the reflected signals (Williams, para [0033]).
The combination of Ohno and Williams does not disclose a signal processing circuit configured to generate position information of the target.
Vaucher discloses a signal processing circuit (440, para [0038]) configured to generate position information of the target (para [0025], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the signal processing circuit of the radar module taught in Ohno and Williams to generate the position information of the target as disclosed in Vaucher as claimed for the purpose of providing the application of variety of functions depending on the position information of the target (Vaucher, para [0002]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 11, Ohno discloses the following:
a communication module, comprising:
a substrate (10, fig. 6) comprising a ground conductor plate (11);
a plurality of antennas on the substrate (fig. 19);
wherein each of the plurality of antennas comprises:
a radiating electrode (8a-8e/13, fig. 6) on the substrate, separated from the ground conductor plate (11) in a thickness direction of the substrate (fig. 6); and
a dielectric (31a-31e/3), each of the plurality of dielectrics being on a corresponding one of the plurality of radiating electrodes (fig. 19),
wherein an excitation direction of the plurality of radiating electrodes is parallel to a first direction (fig. 6),
wherein each of the plurality of dielectrics comprises two dielectric blocks separated by a distance in the first direction (fig. 11 reproduced above), and
wherein, for each of the plurality of dielectrics in the plan view of the substrate:
the two dielectric blocks are symmetrically arranged across a geometric center of the corresponding radiating electrode (figs. 6, 11), and
each of the two dielectric blocks at least partially overlaps the corresponding radiating electrode (figs. 6, 11, para [0133]).
Ohno does not disclose wherein the plurality of antennas is aligned in a direction orthogonal to the first direction in plan view.
Williams suggests wherein the plurality antennas (250, 200, fig. 2) is aligned in a direction orthogonal to the first direction in plan view (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the plurality of antennas taught in Ohno to be aligned in a direction orthogonal to the first direction as suggested in Williams as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired radiating characteristics and be able to fit the plurality of antennas in a limited space inside the communication module.
Ohno and Williams do not disclose a radio frequency integrated circuit configured to supply a radio frequency signal to the plurality of antennas, and to down-convert a radio frequency signal received by the plurality of antennas into an intermediate frequency signal or a baseband signal.
Vaucher discloses a radio frequency integrated circuit (510, fig. 5, para [0041]) configured to supply a radio frequency signal to the plurality of antennas (512, 522), and to down-convert a radio frequency signal received by the plurality of antennas into an intermediate frequency signal or a baseband signal (para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a radio frequency integrated circuit as suggested in Vaucher to the communication module taught in Ohno and Williams as claimed for the purpose of supplying power to antennas and converting the received signals to the desired frequency depending on the requirement of the application (Vaucher, para [0041]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, although Ohno does not explicitly disclose wherein a connection portion connecting the two dielectric blocks has a dimension perpendicular to the first direction of less than 0.3 times a dimension of either of the dielectric blocks perpendicular to the first direction, Ohno discloses the height is smallest at the connection portion (para [0126]) and the height of the dielectric block can be adjusted to achieve a desired antenna gain in a desired direction (para [0213] and [0240]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dimension of the connection portion of the antenna device taught in Ohno perpendicular to the first direction to be less than 0.3 times a dimension of either of the dielectric blocks perpendicular to the first direction as claimed, since 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). The motivation stems from the need to achieve a desired antenna gain in a desired direction (para [0213] and [0240]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or render obvious that "the dielectric comprises two dielectric blocks separated by a distance in a first direction," as recited therein. The Office action cites to opposite portions of loading dielectric block 3 for allegedly teaching this feature. See Office action, page 6 (annotated FIG. 11 of Ohno).
However, one of ordinary skill would not understand the loading dielectric block 3 to be two dielectric blocks; rather, the loading dielectric block 3 only corresponds to a single block. This is clear, for example, from FIG. 1 which shows the loading dielectric block 3 as a single element and defined by the measurements of the block as a whole. Further, the depressed portion 31 between the slopes 31x and 31y is described as being machined out of a solid block. See Ohno, paragraph [0139]. Therefore, it is never contemplated by Ohno that the loading dielectric block 3 has two distinct dielectric blocks.
Indeed, this distinction is not trivial or obvious because there is a functional distinction between the depressed portion 31 of the loading dielectric block 3 and the claimed two dielectric blocks. That is, a main beam is widened by the formation of the depressed portion 31; however, the arrangement of two dielectric blocks as claimed enhances gain by narrowing a main beam in the direction in which the two dielectric blocks are arranged.
Considering the above, Ohno does not teach or render obvious "wherein the dielectric comprises two dielectric blocks separated by a distance in a first direction" as claimed”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Ohno shows 2 dielectric blocks separated by a distance as shown in fig. 11 below and the two dielectric blocks are connected by a connection portion.
The structure of the dielectric blocks in fig. 11 of Ohno is the same as fig. 7A of the current application. Moreover, the current application also mentioned that the two dielectric blocks and the connection portion can be made from one piece (para [0055]: “The two dielectric block portions 40A and the connection portion 40B are made of the same dielectric material and are integrally formed”).
Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969).
PNG
media_image3.png
571
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845