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 02/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-27 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections and some of the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Based on the Examiner's annotations, Panther describes an either chamfer side extending from a chamfer side to a third chamfer side to define a chamfer length. However, the chamfer length defined by the eighth chamfer side is not longer than the first side length, L1, the second side length, L2, and the third side length, L3. Therefore, Panther fails to disclose each and every feature presently recited in independent claim 1. The remaining cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Panther discussed above. Therefore, independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited art.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because Panther reference teaches the octagon-shaped EM radiator. Although Panther does not disclose the chamfer length defined by the eighth chamfer side is longer than the first side length, the second side length, and the third side length, 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 chamfer length of the eight chamfer side of the antenna taught in Nakamura and Panther as to be longer than other chamfer lengths 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 the desired radiating characteristics of the antenna because changing the lengths of the chamfer sides and location of the feed point on the radiator would change the operating frequency and polarization direction of the antenna.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8-9 and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is a feed element to the EM radiator. Currently, the antenna only comprises a substrate and an EM radiator. Without the feed element, the EM radiator is only a conductive material disposed on the substrate and cannot radiate. Para [0005] and [0050] of the spec mention the octagon shaped patch antenna having off-center single feed for circular polarization and multi-band operation.
Claims 8-9 and 18-27 recites functional language, therefore they are also indefinite without the recitation of a feed element or feed point because these functionalities cannot be performed without an antenna feed.
Claims 3-9 and 11-27 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 as follows:
“1. (Currently amended) An antenna, comprising:
a substrate comprising a magnetodielectric material; and
an electromagnetic (EM) radiator comprising an electrically conductive material disposed on an upper surface of the substrate, the EM radiator including a plurality of chamfered sides extending contiguously from one another to define an octagon-shaped EM radiator, and the EM radiator is coupled to a single feed,
wherein:
the substrate extends from a first substrate end to an opposing second substrate end parallel to a first axis, X-axis, to define a substrate length, Subx …”.
Applicant should also amend claim 17 to create the structural relationship between “the electrically conductive via” to “the single feed” recited in claim 1 as follows:
“The antenna of Claim 16, wherein the single feed further comprises an electrically conductive via extending through the EM radiator, the substrate, and the host board, the via configured to establish electrical conductivity with the EM radiator and the substrate.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation " wherein: the first chamfered side and the second chamfered side are each located a first distance, C_L1Distance, away from a center point, C” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear this center point is of which element of the antenna. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as “a center point of the EM radiator, C”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation " wherein the antenna is operational with a gain equal to or greater than 3 dBi at each respective operational band" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what the operational band of the antenna is and if this respective operational band is one of the at least three frequency bands recited in claim 18 or something different. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as " wherein the antenna is operational with a gain equal to or greater than 3 dBi at each of the at least three frequency bands
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, 3, 7-9, 11, 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al, US-20120154235-A1 (hereinafter Nakamura) and in view of Panther et al, US-20180048069-A1 (hereinafter Panther).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Nakamura discloses the following:
an antenna, comprising:
a substrate comprising a magnetodielectric material (3 comprises portions 31, 32, fig. 1, para [0043]); and
an electromagnetic, EM, radiator (2) comprising an electrically conductive material (para [0046]: the EM radiator 2 is made of metal conductor such as silver or copper) disposed on an upper surface of the substrate (3), the EM radiator including a plurality of chamfered sides extending contiguously from one another (fig. 1), wherein:
the substrate extends from a first substrate end to an opposing second substrate end parallel to a first axis, X-axis, to define a substrate length, Subx, and extends from a third substrate end to a fourth substrate end parallel to a second axis, Y-axis, to define a substrate width, Suby, and further extends from a lower substrate surface to the upper substrate surface parallel to a third axis, Z-axis, to define a substrate thickness, Subz; wherein the X, Y, and Z, axes form an orthogonal X-Y-Z coordinate system (fig. 1 below).
Nakamura does not disclose the plurality of chamfered sides extending contiguously from one another define an octagon-shaped EM radiator, and wherein the plurality of chamfered sides includes: a first chamfered side arranged adjacent to the third substrate end; a second chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the first chamfered side and adjacent to the fourth substrate end, the first and second chamfered sides extending parallel to the first axis, X-axis, to define a first side length, L1;a third chamfered side arranged adjacent to the first substrate end; a fourth chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the third chamfered side and adjacent to the second substrate end, the third and fourth chamfered sides extending parallel to the second axis, Y-axis, to define a second side length, L2;a fifth chamfered side extending from the first chamfered side to the third chamfered side at a distance defining a third side length, L3; a sixth chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the fifth chamfered side and extending from the second chamfered side to the fourth chamfered side at the distance defining the third side length, L3;a seventh chamfered side extending from the first chamfered side to the fourth chamfered side at a distance defining a fourth side length, L4; and an eighth chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the seventh chamfered side and extending from the third chamfered side to the second chamfered side at the distance defining the fourth side length, L4,wherein the fourth side length, L4, is longer than the first side length, L1, the second side length, L2, and the third side length, L3.
Panther suggests the plurality of chamfered sides extending contiguously from one another define an octagon-shaped EM radiator (fig. 14), and wherein the plurality of chamfered sides includes: a first chamfered side arranged adjacent to the third substrate end; a second chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the first chamfered side and adjacent to the fourth substrate end, the first and second chamfered sides extending parallel to the first axis, X-axis, to define a first side length, L1;a third chamfered side arranged adjacent to the first substrate end; a fourth chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the third chamfered side and adjacent to the second substrate end, the third and fourth chamfered sides extending parallel to the second axis, Y-axis, to define a second side length, L2;a fifth chamfered side extending from the first chamfered side to the third chamfered side at a distance defining a third side length, L3; a sixth chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the fifth chamfered side and extending from the second chamfered side to the fourth chamfered side at the distance defining the third side length, L3; a seventh chamfered side extending from the first chamfered side to the fourth chamfered side at a distance defining a fourth side length, L4; and an eighth chamfered side arranged opposite and parallel to the seventh chamfered side and extending from the third chamfered side to the second chamfered side at the distance defining the fourth side length, L4 (fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the EM radiator taught in Nakamura with an octagon-shaped EM radiator as suggested in Panther as claimed for the purpose of achieving the desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirements of the application because changing the shape of the radiator will change the radiating characteristics of the antenna and to allow a larger clearance between the substrate edges and the edges of the radiator (Panther, para [0122]).
Although Panther does not disclose wherein the fourth side length, L4, is longer than the first side length, L1, the second side length, L2, and the third side length, L3, 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 chamfer length of the eight chamfer side of the antenna taught in Nakamura and Panther as to be longer than other chamfer lengths 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 the desired radiating characteristics of the antenna because changing the lengths of the chamfer sides and location of the feed point on the radiator would change the operating frequency and polarization direction of the antenna.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura discloses wherein the antenna is a patch antenna (1, fig. 1, para [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses wherein the EM radiator defines a chamfer function based on the plurality of chamfered sides (Fig. 1: the EM radiator 2 has chamfered sides, it is implied that the EM radiator defines a chamfer function).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, although Nakamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamfer function utilizes a vertex of the EM radiator as a reference point and removes metallic portions of the EM radiator to achieve edge truncation of the EM radiator to define the chamfered sides, which control radiating modes of the EM radiator at specific frequencies, this is a process of how to create the chamfered sides.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of “utilizes a vertex of the EM radiator as a reference point and removes metallic portions of the EM radiator to achieve edge truncation of the EM radiator to define the chamfered sides” – “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, although Nakamura does not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the chamfer function increases or decreases an effective aperture of the EM radiator for a specific frequency, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art that adjusting the dimension of the EM radiator would adjust the operating frequency of the antenna.
Regarding claim 11, although the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose does not explicitly teach wherein a combination of the first side length L1, the second side length L2 and the third side length L3 controls an operating performance of the antenna 102 in the L2 and L5 bands, and the fourth side length L4 controls the operating performance of the antenna in the L1 band, the antenna in the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the side lengths of the antenna taught in Nakamura and Panther to control different frequency bands as claimed for the purpose of designing one antenna being able to operate in multiple frequency bands in order to save space and cost and maintain the wireless communication.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Nakamura does not disclose wherein: the first chamfered side and the second chamfered side are each located a first distance, C_L1Distance, away from a center point, C; the third chamfered side and the fourth chamfered side are each located a second distance,C_L2Distance, away from the center point, C; the fifth chamfered side and the sixth chamfered side are each located a third distance, C_L3Distance, away from the center point, C; and the seventh chamfered side and the eighth chamfered side are each located a fourth distance,C_L4Distance, away from the center point, C.
Panther suggests wherein: the first chamfered side and the second chamfered side are each located a first distance, C_L1Distance, away from a center point, C; the third chamfered side and the fourth chamfered side are each located a second distance,C_L2Distance, away from the center point, C; the fifth chamfered side and the sixth chamfered side are each located a third distance, C_L3Distance, away from the center point, C; and the seventh chamfered side and the eighth chamfered side are each located a fourth distance,C_L4Distance, away from the center point, C (fig. 14 above: all the chamfered sides are located at a distance from the center point of the EM radiator 59).
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 chamfered sides of the antenna taught in Nakamura to be away from the center point as suggested in Panther as claimed for the purpose of increasing the size of the radiator in order to achieve the desired radiating characteristics because changing the size of the radiator will change the radiating characteristics of the antenna.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Nakamura discloses wherein the antenna is operational with right- hand-circular-polarization (para [0044]).
Claims 4-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Panther as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al, US-20190013128-A1 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the magnetodielectric material comprises hexagonal ferrite particles and PTFE or PPS polymer.
Chen suggests wherein the magnetodielectric material (para [0003]: using magneto-dielectric materials as substrates) comprises hexagonal ferrite particles and PTFE or PPS polymer (para [0017]: the magneto-dielectric material comprises a plurality of hexaferrite microfibers and a polymer matrix which comprises PTFE, 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 use hexagonal ferrite particles and PTFE or PPS polymer as suggested in Chen to the magnetodielectric material taught in Nakamura and Panther as claimed for the purpose of achieving low magnetic loss in order to perform well in high frequency applications (Chen, para [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the hexagonal ferrite material includes Z-type (Co2Z), or Y-type (Co2Y) hexaferrite.
Chen suggests wherein the hexagonal ferrite material includes Z-type (Co2Z), or Y-type (Co2Y) hexaferrite (para [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Z-type or Y-type hexaferrite as suggested in Chen to the magnetodielectric material taught in Nakamura and Panther as claimed for the purpose of achieving low magnetic loss in order to perform well in high frequency applications (Chen, para [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose the substrate is a single layer comprising the magnetodielectric material.
Chen suggests the substrate is a single layer comprising the magnetodielectric material (fig. 5, para [0064]).
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 single layer substrate as suggested in Chen to the antenna taught in Nakamura and Panther for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process in order to save cost and still maintain the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the substrate includes a permittivity of (ε), equal to or greater than 2.0 and equal to or less than 7.0, and a permeability (µ) equal to or greater than 0.5 and equal to or less than 3.
Chen suggests the permittivity and the permeability can be adjusted depending on the operating frequency and the material (para [0039]: the permittivity is less than or equal to 5 as determined at 1 GHz, or 1 to 2 GHz and the permeability is 2.5 to 7, or 2.5 to 5 as determined at 1 GHz, or 1 to 2 GHz, see para [0037]).
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 permittivity and permeability of the substrate taught in Nakamura, Panther and Chen to be equal to or greater than 2.0 and equal to or less than 7.0 and equal to or greater than 0.5 and equal to or less than 3 as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the radiating characteristics of the substrate depending the operating frequency of the antenna and the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the substrate has a loss tangent parameter (tanδ) equal to or greater than 0.001 and equal to or less than 0.015, and a magnetic loss tangent (tanµ) equal to or greater than 0.01 and equal to or less than 0.09.
Chen suggests wherein the substrate has a loss tangent parameter (tanδ) equal to or greater than 0.001 and equal to or less than 0.015 (para [0040]: dielectric loss tangent of less than or equal to 0.005, or less than or equal to 0.001 as determined at 1 GHz, or 1 to 2 GHz), and a magnetic loss tangent (tanµ) equal to or greater than 0.01 and equal to or less than 0.09 (para [0038]: magnetic loss tangent of less than or equal to 0.03, or less than or equal to 0.01 as determined at 1 GHz, or 1 to 2 GHz).
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 loss tangent parameter and the magnetic loss tangent of the substrate taught in Nakamura and Panther to be equal to or greater than 0.001 and equal to or less than 0.015 and equal to or greater than 0.01 and equal to or less than 0.09 as suggested in Chen as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the radiating characteristics of the substrate depending the operating frequency of the antenna and the requirements of the application.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Panther as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL “GNSS patch antenna W3216” cited in the IDS dated 04/22/2024 (hereinafter W3216).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein: the first side length, L1, and the second side length, L2, are greater than the third side length, L3; and wherein the fourth side length, L4, is greater than the first side length, L1, the second side length, L2, and the third side length, L3.
W3216 suggests wherein: the first side length, L1, and the second side length, L2, are greater than the third side length, L3; and wherein the fourth side length, L4, is greater than the first side length, L1, the second side length, L2, and the third side length, L3 (page 3).
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 side lengths of the antenna taught in Nakamura and Panther to be 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 the desired radiating characteristics because changing the size of the radiator will change the radiating characteristics of the antenna.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Panther as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monma et al, US-20200251824-A1 (hereinafter Monma) applied as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses the following:
an antenna, comprising:
the antenna of Claim 1, and further comprising: a host board (circuit board, para [0052]).
Although Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the host board including an upper dielectric surface and a lower dielectric surface located opposite the upper dielectric surface, wherein the substrate is disposed on the upper dielectric surface, but one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the circuit board is a dielectric substrate which has upper and lower dielectric surface.
Monma applied as a teaching reference teaches the host board (30, fig. 1, para [0031]) including an upper dielectric surface and a lower dielectric surface located opposite the upper dielectric surface (fig. 1), wherein the substrate (21) is disposed on the upper dielectric surface (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the host board as suggested in Monma to the antenna assembly taught in Nakamura and Panther as claimed for the purpose of being able to mount other circuit elements to the antenna assembly (Monma, para [0031]).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura discloses the antenna of Claim 16, further comprising an electrically conductive via (5, 4a, 32a, 31a, fig. 2) extending through the EM radiator (2), the substrate (31, 32), and the host board (para [0052]: a circuit board arranged under the patch antenna is used as a ground 4), the via configured to establish electrical conductivity with the EM radiator and the substrate (para [0053]).
Claims 18-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Panther as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saraswat et al, NPL “Design of Multi-Band Octagonal Shape Patch Antenna For WLAN/WiMAX Applications” (hereinafter Saraswat).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, although the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not explicitly disclose wherein the antenna is operational over at least three frequency bands, the antenna assembly in Nakamura and Panther has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Saraswat applied as a teaching reference discloses the octagon-shaped EM radiator is operational over at least three frequency bands (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the antenna assembly taught in Nakamura and Panther to be operational over at least three frequency bands as disclosed in Saraswat as claimed for the purpose of designing one antenna being able to operate in multiple frequency bands in order to save space and cost and maintain the wireless communication.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, although the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not explicitly disclose wherein the antenna is operational to discriminate frequencies between individual ones of the at least three frequency bands, the antenna assembly in Nakamura and Panther has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Saraswat applied as a teaching reference suggests wherein the antenna is operational to discriminate frequencies between individual ones of the at least three frequency bands (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the antenna assembly taught in Nakamura and Panther to be operational to discriminate frequencies between individual ones of the at least three frequency bands as suggested in Saraswat as claimed for the purpose of avoiding interference between different frequency bands in order to maintain the wireless communication.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein a first of the at least three frequency bands is a L5 band.
Saraswat discloses the antenna operates in 2.4 GHz.
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 frequency of the antenna assembly taught in Nakamura, Panther and Saraswat to be a L5 band 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 the desired operating frequency band depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein a second of the at least three frequency bands is a L2 band.
Saraswat discloses the antenna operates in 3.5 GHz.
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 frequency of the antenna assembly taught in Nakamura, Panther and Saraswat to be a L2 band 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 the desired operating frequency band depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein a third of the at least three frequency bands is a L1 band.
Saraswat discloses the antenna operates in 5.2 GHz.
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 frequency of the antenna assembly taught in Nakamura, Panther and Saraswat to be a L1 band 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 the desired operating frequency band depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the antenna is operational with an efficiency greater than 60% within one or more of the L1 band, the L2 band, and the L5 band.
Saraswat discloses wherein the antenna is operational with an efficiency greater than 60% within one or more of the three frequency bands (fig. 4).
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 frequency of the antenna taught in Nakamura, Panther and Saraswat to be L1, L2 or L5 band and achieve the efficiency greater than 60% 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 the desired operating frequency band depending on the requirements of the application and maintain the antenna performance in order to perform wireless communication.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Panther and Saraswat as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of W3216 applied as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, although the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not explicitly disclose wherein the antenna is operational with a gain equal to or greater than 3 dBi at each respective operational band, the antenna assembly in Nakamura and Panther has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
W3216 applied as a teaching reference suggests wherein the antenna is operational with a gain equal to or greater than 3 dBi at each respective operational band (Graph “Free space RHCP gain”, page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the antenna taught in Nakamura and Panther to be operational with a gain equal to or greater than 3 dBi as suggested in W3216 as claimed for the purpose of maintaining the antenna performance in order to perform wireless communication.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Panther as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chieh et al, US-20220302603-A1 (hereinafter Chieh).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the antenna is operational with an axial ratio equal to or less than 6 dBi, alternatively equal to or less than 3 dBi, at +/- 30-degrees from each radiation boresight of the antenna.
Chieh suggests wherein the antenna is operational with an axial ratio equal to or less than 6 dBi, alternatively equal to or less than 3 dBi, at +/- 30-degrees from each radiation boresight of the antenna (para [0036]).
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 axial ratio of the antenna taught by Nakamura and Panther to be equal to or less than 6 dBi, alternatively equal to or less than 3 dBi as suggested in Chieh as claimed for the purpose of maintaining the antenna performance in order to perform wireless communication.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, the combination of Nakamura and Panther does not disclose wherein the antenna is operational at a broad axial ratio bandwidth at 3 dBi of equal to or greater than 10 MHz.
Chieh suggests wherein the antenna is operational at a broad axial ratio bandwidth at 3 dBi of equal to or greater than 10 MHz (para [0036]).
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 axial ratio bandwidth of the antenna taught by Nakamura and Panther to be at 3 dBi of equal to or greater than 10 MHz as suggested in Chieh 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 maintain the antenna performance in order to perform wireless communication.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Choi et al, US-20230170628-A1, fig. 3 could read on claim 1
Snygg et al, US-6104347-A, fig. 2 – octagon shaped radiator
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 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 HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845