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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 27, 2025 is 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 § 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0143558).
LeBlanc, in figure 1, discloses:
Claims 1, 3 and 4: An optically transparent antenna (300), the antenna comprising: a substrate layer (16); and a first conductive layer (10) formed on the substrate layer, wherein the first conductive layer is optically transparent such that the first conductive layer exhibits optical transmission of approximately 80% or more (para. [0026]).
LeBlanc fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the width of the first conductive layer to the length of the first conductive layer is between 0.125/0.5 and 0.9, or 0.8. However, LeBlanc, in paragraph [0019], discloses varying the shape and size of the antenna to be within the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the antenna of LeBlanc, to those claimed in order to have optimized the antenna for operation in a particular application.
Claim 2: wherein the first conductive layer exhibits optical transmission of at least 90% (para. [0026]).
Claim 5: LeBlanc fails to disclose wherein the first conductive layer is a layer of one of the following materials: silver-nanowire (AgNW), carbon nanotube (CNT), a hybrid material that combines carbon nanotube and silver-nanowire (AgNW), graphene, indium tin oxide (ITO), gallium-doped zinc oxide (GZO), aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO), a Copper-silver-nanowire (AgNW) hybrid or network material, or a Aluminum-doped Zinc Oxide (AZO)-silver-nanowire (AGNW)-Aluminum-doped Zinc Oxide (AZO) hybrid or network material. However, Official notice is taken that it was well known to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have used one of the above materials to form optically transparent conductors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of LeBlanc, and used one of the materials as claimed, in order to have optimized the device for antenna operation and optical transparency.
Claims 6, 11 and 12: a second conductive layer (20) arranged below the conductive layer such that the conductive layer and the second conductive layer overlap, wherein the second conductive layer is optically transparent such that the second conductive layer exhibits optical transmission of approximately 80% or more (para. [0026]).
LeBlanc fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the width of the second conductive layer to the length of the second conductive layer is between 0.125 and 0.9. However, LeBlanc, in paragraph [0019], discloses varying the shape and size of the antenna to be within the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the antenna of LeBlanc, to those claimed in order to have optimized the antenna for operation in a particular application.
Claim 7: wherein: a length of the second conductive layer is the same or substantially the same as the length of the first conductive layer (fig. 3); a width of the second conductive layer is the same or substantially the same as the width of the first conductive layer (fig. 3); a top surface of the first conductive layer is located in a first plane (fig. 1); and a top surface of the second conductive layer is located in a second plane parallel or substantially parallel to the first plane (fig. 1).
Claim 8: wherein a thickness of the second conductive layer is the same or is substantially the same as a thickness of the first conductive layer (fig. 1).
Claim 9: wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer each exhibit an optical transmission of at least 90% (para. [0026]).
Claim 10: wherein: a thickness of the first conductive layer is less than 100 nm (para. [0042]); and a thickness of the second conductive layer is less than 100 nm (para. [0042]).
Claim 13: wherein: the first conductive layer is electrically connected to a device (15, fig. 3) capable of introducing a current in the first conductive layer; and the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are arranged sufficiently close to one another such that, when current is introduced by the device in the first conductive layer, approximately the same level of current is introduced in the second conductive layer by electrical coupling between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (fig. 1).
Claim 14: wherein the antenna is configured such that the second conductive layer is dependent on current being introduced in the first conductive layer by the device for current to be introduced in the second conductive layer (fig. 1).
Claim 15: wherein: the first conductive layer is electrically connected to a device (450, fig. 7); the second conductive layer is electrically connected to the device; and the device is capable of introducing a current in the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer.
Claim 16: comprising a third conductive layer arranged below the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, wherein (i) a length of the third conductive layer is greater than a width of the third conductive layer and (ii) the width of the third conductive layer is at least one eighth the length of the third conductive layer; wherein a length of the third conductive layer is the same or substantially the same as the length of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer; wherein a width of the third conductive layer is the same or substantially the same as the width of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer; wherein a top surface of the third conductive layer is located in a third plane parallel or substantially parallel to the first plane and the second plane; and wherein the third conductive layer is optically transparent (para. [0019]).
Claim 17: wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer fully overlap (fig. 1).
Claim 18: wherein the antenna is a dipole antenna (para. [0019]).
Claims 19 and 21: A method for fabricating an optically transparent antenna (300), the method comprising: depositing a first film (10) of an optically transparent material on a first side of a first substrate (16) such that the length of the first film is greater than a width of the first film; depositing a second film (20) of material on a first side of a second substrate that the length of the second film is greater than a width of the second film; joining a bottom surface of the first substrate to a top surface of the second film such that (i) the second film is placed below the first film and (ii) the first film and the second film overlap (fig. 1); and electrically coupling the first film to a transmitter, receiver, or transceiver (450, fig. 7).
LeBlanc fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the width of the first film to the length of the first film is between 0.125/0.5 and 0.9; and wherein a ratio of the width of the second film to the length of the second film is between 0.125/0.5 and 0.9. However, LeBlanc, in paragraph [0019], discloses varying the shape and size of the antenna to be within the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the antenna of LeBlanc, to those claimed in order to have optimized the antenna for operation in a particular application.
Claims 20 and 22: A method for fabricating an optically transparent antenna (300), the method comprising: depositing a first film (10) of an optically transparent material on a first side of a first substrate (16) such that the length of the first film is greater than a width of the first film; depositing a second film (20) of material on a second side of the first substrate such that (i) the length of the second film is greater than a width of the second film, (ii) the second film is placed below the first film (fig. 1), and (iii) the first film and the second film overlap; and electrically coupling at least one of the first film and the second film to a transmitter, receiver, or transceiver (450, fig. 7).
LeBlanc fails to explicitly disclose a ratio of the width of the first film to the length of the first film is between 0.125/0.5 and 0.9; and wherein a ratio of the width of the second film to the length of the second film is between 0.125/0.5 and 0.9. However, LeBlanc, in paragraph [0019], discloses varying the shape and size of the antenna to be within the scope of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the antenna of LeBlanc, to those claimed in order to have optimized the antenna for operation in a particular application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, paragraph 2 of the Remarks, Applicant contends, “[n]othing in LeBlanc teaches or even suggests an optically transparent antenna comprising a first conductive layer having a width-to-length ratio between 0.125 and 0.9 as claimed. Therefore, LeBlanc fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the claims and the obviousness rejection fails for this reason alone.” Additionally, on page 2, paragraph 3 of the Remarks, Applicant contends “LeBlanc provides a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSA") with no
motivation to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” This is not found persuasive.
In response, it is not required for a prior art reference to explicitly teach a missing claim limitation when making an obviousness rejection. LeBlanc, in paragraph [0019], suggests the shape of the antenna being a rectangle, thus having a width and a length. The person of skill would only need to employ general antenna design principles to arrive at the claimed width-to-length ratio. There is no undue experimentation required for the person of skill to design a simple rectangular antenna, especially when an antenna’s width and length are well-known design parameters in antenna design.
On page 11, paragraph 2 of the Remarks, Applicant contends “the reasoning provided in the Office Action as to why this limitation would be obvious is misguided. First, LeBlanc does not acknowledge the ratio of an antenna's length to width being a design parameter for an antenna, let alone a design parameter that can be optimized or used to optimize the design of an antenna … LeBlanc does not even mention once the width-to-length ratio of a conductive layer or identify such a ratio as a factor at all for an antenna … LeBlanc fails to acknowledge a single benefit that comes from the particular shape of the antenna … In fact, LeBlanc suggests that the antenna's shape - and, thereby, the ratio of the antenna's length to width - does not matter at all.” This is not found persuasive.
In response, the Examiner does not disagree with these statements; however, the fact that LeBlanc fails to recognize any benefit pertaining to the antenna’s width-to-length ratio is immaterial, as the motivation to modify a prior art reference is not required to be the same as Applicant’s.
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 ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Robert Karacsony/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845