DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on SUEMATSU, the Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUEMATSU(JP2021093711A) in view of BAEK(KR102064175B1).
Regarding claim 1, SUEMATSU discloses
A patch array antenna, comprising: a dielectric substrate (“dielectric substrate 1110” [0004]); and a plurality of antenna elements formed on the dielectric substrate (“a plurality of the patch antenna elements are arranged in a row” [0018]), arranged in a first direction (“the radiation pattern is narrowed in the direction in which the multiple antenna elements are arranged” [0020]), and connected in series (“antenna elements are arranged in a row to form a series antenna configuration” [0095]), […]and wherein the […] input terminals are connected to the respective antenna element at different input positions in a second direction perpendicular to the centerline, (FIG.31, Parts.122-125) and the […] output terminals are connected to the respective antenna element at different output positions in the second direction perpendicular to the centerline (FIG.31, Parts.122-125 & “the direction of the feed line bundling N=4 patch elements is set to the vertical direction (V)” [0115]).
SUEMATSU discloses wherein input and output terminals are connected outside of a centerline, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals. BAEK discloses wherein, each antenna element of the plurality of antenna elements has two input terminals (FIG.6, Part.150-1 & 150-2) and two output terminals that are connected to the respective antenna element at respective positions outside a centerline that extends in a first direction of the antenna element, (FIG.6, Part.130-1 & 130-2).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of each antenna element having two input and two output terminals so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals. BAEK discloses wherein, a distance between the two input terminals in the second direction perpendicular to the centerline (FIG.6, Parts.150-1 & 150-2) is different from a distance between the two output terminals in the second direction perpendicular to the centerline (FIG.6, Parts.130-1 & 130-2).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of the distance between the two input terminals being different from the distance between the two output terminals so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all the limitations of claim 2. SUEMATSU does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals. BAEK discloses wherein, distances between each of the two input terminals and the centerline are equal to each other (“the four feeding points can be arranged in pairs symmetrically about the origin based on the center point of the unit patch antenna unit” [0016]), and distances between each of the two output terminals and the centerline are equal to each other (FIG.6, Parts.130-1 & 130-2).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of the distances between each of the two input and output terminals and the centerline are equal to each other so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all the limitations of claim 2. SUEMATSU does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals. BAEK discloses wherein, the two input terminals are connected more to the inside or to the outside in a width direction of the antenna element than the two output terminals (FIG.6, Parts.130-1 & 150-2).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of the two input terminals being connected more to the outside in a width direction of the antenna element than the two output terminals so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals. BAEK discloses wherein, wherein the two input terminals are connected at positions symmetric with respect to the centerline (“the four feeding points can be arranged in pairs symmetrically about the origin based on the center point of the unit patch antenna unit” [0016]).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of the two input terminals being connected at positions symmetric with respect to the centerline so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals. BAEK discloses wherein, the two output terminals are connected at positions symmetric to the centerline (FIG.6, Parts.130-1 & 130-2).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of the two output terminals being connected at positions symmetric with respect to the centerline so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU discloses wherein, the plurality of antenna elements comprise a first antenna element and a second antenna element (FIG.13, Parts.41a & 42a) wherein the […] input terminals of the first antenna element are connected to the […] output terminals of the second antenna element (“antenna elements are arranged in a row to form a series antenna configuration” [0095],
SUEMATSU does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein each antenna element has two input and two output terminals or wherein the distance between the input terminals is different from the distance between the input terminals. BAEK discloses the wherein each antenna element comprises two input terminals(FIG.6, Part.150-1 & 150-2) and two output terminals (FIG.6, Part.130-1 & 130-2), and wherein a distance between the two input terminals of the first antenna element is different from a distance between the two output terminals of the second antenna element (FIG.6, Parts.150-1, 150-2, 130-1 & 130-2).
BAEK teaches in the same field of endeavor antenna array design. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of BAEK to incorporate the features of a distance between the two input terminals of the first antenna element being different from a distance between the two output terminals of the second antenna element so as to gain the advantage of improving performance [0006, BAEK]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 5, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUEMATSU(JP2021093711A) as modified by BAEK(KR102064175B1), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of HONMA(JP2005039751A).
Regarding claim 5, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU fails to set forth input/output terminals connected on opposite eccentric sides. As above, BAEK discloses two input terminals. HONMA discloses the patch array antenna wherein, a first input terminal of the two input terminals is connected to a position that is eccentric to a first side of the centerline (fig.8, Part.4), a second input terminal is connected to a position that is eccentric to the second side opposite to the first side from the centerline (fig.8, Part.5)
HONMA teaches in the same field of patch antennas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK with the teachings of HONMA to incorporate the features of input/output terminals connected on opposite eccentric sides so as to gain the advantage of improving cross polarization characteristics [0024, HONMA]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU fails to set forth output terminals connected on opposite eccentric sides. As above, BAEK discloses two output terminals. HONMA discloses the patch array antenna wherein, a first output terminal of the two output terminals are connected to a position that is eccentric to a first side of the centerline(fig.8, Part.1, 201, 202 & 5), and a second of the output terminals is connected to a position that is eccentric to a second side opposite to the first side of the centerline (fig.8, Part.1, 302 &303).
HONMA teaches in the same field of patch antennas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU with the teachings of HONMA to incorporate the features of output terminals connected on opposite eccentric sides so as to gain the advantage of improving cross polarization characteristics [0024, HONMA]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. SUEMATSU fails to set forth a reverse phase input. As above, BAEK discloses two input terminals. HONMA discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the two of the two input terminals are configured to be input with electromagnetic waves of a reverse phase (”The feed line 1 is connected to the input and output sides of the patch antenna element at locations where the phases are reversed” [0051]).
HONMA teaches in the same field of patch antennas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK with the teachings of HONMA to incorporate the features of a reverse phase input so as to gain the advantage of improving cross polarization characteristics [0024, HONMA]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK and further modified by HONMA discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. SUEMATSU discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the patch array antenna generates the electromagnetic waves of a plane of polarization perpendicular to the first direction (“ each of the single-column transmitting series antenna array and each of the single-column receiving antenna array […]and can operate with horizontal polarization”)
Regarding claim 11, SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. SUEMATSU fails to set forth a reverse phase input. As above, BAEK discloses two input terminals. HONMA discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the two input terminals are configured to be input with the electromagnetic waves of the reverse phase to excite the corresponding reverse phases(”The feed line 1 is connected to the input and output sides of the patch antenna element at locations where the phases are reversed” [0051] & “, the current flowing on the input side and the current flowing on the output side are in opposite phases” [0051]).
HONMA teaches in the same field of patch antennas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SUEMATSU as modified by BAEK with the teachings of HONMA to incorporate the features of a reverse phase input so as to gain the advantage of improving cross polarization characteristics [0024, HONMA]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646