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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0072], “207and” is improper and should read “207 and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2205.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 132, 244, 254, 256, 302.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, “claim 1 further” is improper and should read “claim 1, further”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ground plane element" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a ground element” or a new limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the ground element”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the base plane element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “the base plate” in claim 1 or a new limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the base plate”.
Claims 11-13 recite the limitation "The antenna element according to claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “The antenna apparatus” in claim 1 or “the patch antenna element” or a new limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the limitation as “The antenna apparatus according to claim 1”.
Claims 2-15 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvarez et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0136811 A1), hereinafter known as Alvarez.
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez discloses (Fig. 1A-1B and 1E) An antenna apparatus (100) comprising: a base plate (132); a ground element (106; [0072]) disposed above the base plate (132); and a patch antenna element (104) disposed above the base plate (132); and one or more slots (116A-116D) being formed in corner regions of the ground plane element (106), wherein the one or more slots (116A-116D) being arranged to form an arrow shape (two arrow shapers by 116A-116D in the corner regions) in the corner regions.
Regarding claim 3, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the patch antenna (104) is configured as a planar element (104).
Regarding claim 5, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1B) wherein the ground plane (106) is configured as a planar element (106).
Regarding claim 8, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1B-1E) wherein a wall member (108) is disposed between the base plate element (132) and the ground plane element (106).
Regarding claim 9, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1D) wherein the wall member (108) includes one or more elongated openings (126) between sections of the wall member (108).
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1D) wherein corner regions of the wall member (108) defining openings (126, 128) between sections of the wall member.
Regarding claim 12, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the patch antenna element (104) is suspended above the ground element (106) with standoffs (112A-112D).
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the ground element (106) is supported above the base plate (132) by standoffs (112A-112D).
Regarding claim 14, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 5) wherein the standoffs (508) comprise metal standoffs (510; [0105]).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the standoffs (112A-112D) comprise dielectric standoffs ([0059]).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Griffee et al. (US Patent No. 3811127 A), hereinafter known as Griffee.
Regarding claim 2, Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein the patch antenna element has a conical shape configured as a faceted cone with a folded rim.
However, Griffee teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the patch antenna element (30, 32, 34, 36) has a conical shape configured as a faceted cone with a folded rim (bottom folded rim of 30, 32, 34, 36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Griffee to include “wherein the patch antenna element has a conical shape configured as a faceted cone with a folded rim,” as taught by Griffee, for the purpose of improving bandwidth (see also col. 1, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 4, Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein the ground plane element is configured as faceted cone elements.
However, Griffee teaches (Fig. 3-4) wherein the ground plane element is configured as faceted cone elements (40)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Griffee to include “wherein the ground plane element is configured as faceted cone elements,” as taught by Griffee, for the purpose of improving bandwidth (see also col. 1, lines 13-16)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Kubwimana et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0250430 A1), hereinafter known as Kubwimana.
Regarding claim 6, Alvarez further teaches wherein the ground plane element (102) includes a top face sheet (106), a bottom face sheet (108) but does not specifically teach and a foam layer disposed there between.
However, Kubwimana teaches (Fig. 1D) a foam layer (120) disposed there between.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Kubwimana to include “a foam layer disposed there between,” as taught by Kubwimana, for the purpose of improving bandwidth (see also [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein a capacitive metallic strip is disposed across a slot on the top face sheet of the ground plane element.
However, Kubwimana teaches (Fig. 1C) wherein a capacitive metallic strip (108) is disposed across a slot (124) on the top face sheet of the ground plane element (112).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Kubwimana to include “wherein a capacitive metallic strip is disposed across a slot on the top face sheet of the ground plane element,” as taught by Kubwimana, for the purpose of feeding the antenna element (see also [0047]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Namba (US PGPUB 2021/0119337 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez does not specifically teach further comprising a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground plane element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables.
However, Namba teaches (Fig. 1) a cross-over bracket (4) disposed on an underside of the ground plane element (2), the cross-over bracket (4) comprising one or more cable terminations (4b) for terminating ends of feed cables (5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Namba to include “a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground plane element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables,” as taught by Namba, for the purpose of reducing noise (see also [0034]).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2845