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 10/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 regarding the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Liu discloses an aperture 134 in the ground plane 129, where the antenna 133 is inserted in to the aperture 134, see, for example, paragraph [0024]. Specifically, paragraph [0024] in parts states "An aperture (134) is also formed in the bottom wall (129) of the waveguide (122) to insertably receive a probe (133) that is connected to the end of a transmission line (132)." The probe 133 extends perpendicular to the ground plane 129, to allow the probe 133 to be inserted into the aperture 134 of the ground plane. Therefore, the cited references do not disclose or teach "wherein the antenna feedlines and the ground plane extend parallel to each other, wherein
the antenna feedlines extend in a first direction." Furthermore, the cited references do not disclose or suggest "wherein the ground plane comprises aperture slots between the antenna feedlines and the cavity resonator radiators, wherein the aperture slots extends a first distance in a second direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, such that, only a portion of the aperture slots overlaps with the antenna feedlines." Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Puzella reference reads on the added limitations as explained below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that " The cited references do not disclose or suggest "a first component comprising a substrate having antenna feedlines within a first dielectric and a ground plane comprising aperture slots disposed on the first dielectric, wherein the antenna feedlines and the ground plane extends parallel to each other" and “The cited references do not disclose or suggest "wherein the antenna feedlines comprise first antenna feedlines and second antenna feedlines for dual-polarization, wherein the first antenna feedlines includes at least two first arms that extends parallel to the ground plane, wherein the second antenna feedlines includes at least two second arms that extends parallel to the round plane, wherein the two first arms extend perpendicular to the two second arms, and wherein the first antenna feedlines and the second antenna feedlines are located in different layers." Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 should be withdrawn.”
However, the arguments are moot because claim 14 is now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella, US-20030067410-A1 in view of Baks et al, US-20180159203-A1 as explained below.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14: “wherein the second antenna feedlines includes at least two second arms that extends parallel to the round plane” should read “wherein the second antenna feedlines includes at least two second arms that extends parallel to the ground plane”.
Claim 16, “wherein the aperture slots in ground plane” should be “wherein the aperture slots in the ground plane”
Claim 17: “wherein the aperture slot extends a first distance in a second direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, such that, only a portion of the aperture slot overlaps with the antenna feedlines” should read “wherein the aperture slots extends a first distance in a second direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, such that, only a portion of the aperture slots overlaps with the antenna feedlines”.
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 1-2, 6-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Puzella et al, US-20030067410-A1 (hereinafter Puzella).
Regarding claim 1, Puzella discloses the following:
an antenna device, comprising:
a first component (20, 22, figs. 1-2) comprising a substrate (68, 44e, 76) having antenna feedlines (72) within a first dielectric (68, 44e, 76, para [0038, [0046]), and a ground plane (64, para [0047]) disposed on the first dielectric (68, 44e, 76), wherein the antenna feedlines (72/82a-82d, 83a-83d, figs. 2-3) and the ground plane (64) extend parallel to each other (fig. 2), wherein the antenna feedlines (72, 83a-83d) extend in a first direction (horizontal direction X, figs 2-3);
a second component (18), coupled to the first component (20, 22), comprising a metallic grid (18, fig. 1, para [0027]) having a plurality of cavities (56/36a-36n, figs. 1-2) filled with a second dielectric (although Puzella is silent about the second dielectric, but 56/36a-36n are cavities, it is implied that the cavities 56/36a-36n are filled with air which is a dielectric material) to provide an array of cavity resonator radiators for the antenna device (para [0029]),
wherein the ground plane (64) comprises aperture slots (66) between the antenna feedlines (72, 82a-82d, 83a-83d) and the cavity resonator radiators (56/36a-36n), wherein the aperture slots (66) extends a first distance in a second direction (direction Y, figs. 2-3), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (figs. 2-3), such that, only a portion of the aperture slots (66) overlaps with the antenna feedlines (72, 83a-83d, figs. 2-3).
[AltContent: textbox (X)][AltContent: textbox (Y)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
601
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
595
853
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Puzella discloses wherein the cavities (36a-36n, fig. 1) have a rectangular shape with sides of length a and b, and wherein a ≈ b (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Puzella discloses wherein the first dielectric has a first dielectric constant K1 (para [0048]: dielectric constant of 68 and 76 are 10.2 and 4.5) and the second dielectric has a second dielectric constant K2 (dielectric constant of air is 1, page 2 of NPL “Relative Permittivity - the Dielectric Constant”), and wherein the first dielectric constant K1 is different from the second dielectric constant K2 (para [0048] and NPL, page 2).
Regarding claim 7, Puzella discloses wherein the ground plane (64/20, figs. 1-2) comprises at least one of the aperture slots (66) for each of the cavity resonator radiators (36a-36n).
Regarding claim 8, Puzella discloses wherein the at least one aperture slots (66, figs. 1-3) located in the ground plane (64) for each of the cavity resonator radiators further comprises a first aperture slot and a second aperture slot for each of the cavity resonator radiators (66a-66d).
Regarding claim 9, Puzella discloses wherein the first aperture slot (66a, 66d, fig. 3) is oriented perpendicular to the second aperture slot (66b, 66c).
Regarding claim 10, Puzella discloses wherein the first aperture slot intersects the second aperture slot (figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 17, Puzella discloses the following:
a method of forming an antenna device, the method comprising:
forming a first component (20, 22, figs. 1-2) comprising a substrate (68, 44e, 76) having antenna feedlines (72) within a first dielectric (68, 44e, 76, para [0038, [0046]), and a ground plane (64, para [0047]) comprising aperture slots (66) disposed on the first dielectric (68, 44e, 76), wherein the antenna feedlines (72/82a-82d, 83a-83d, figs. 2-3) and the ground plane (64) extends parallel to each other (fig. 2), wherein the antenna feedlines (72, 83a-83d) extend in a first direction (direction X, figs 2-3), wherein the aperture slot (66) extends a first distance in a second direction (direction Y, figs. 2-3), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (figs. 2-3), such that, only a portion of the aperture slot (66) overlaps with the antenna feedlines (72, 83a-83d, figs. 2-3);
forming a second component (18) comprising a metallic grid (18, fig. 1, para [0027]) having a plurality of cavities (56/36a-36n, figs. 1-2) filled with a second dielectric (although Puzella is silent about the second dielectric, but 56/36a-36n are cavities, it is implied that the cavities 56/36a-36n are filled with air which is a dielectric material) to provide an array of cavity resonator radiators (para [0029]); and
joining the first component to the second component (figs. 1-2) such that the aperture slots (66) are present between the antenna feedlines (72, 83a-83d) and the cavity resonator radiators (56/36a-36n) to form the antenna device.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of … – “[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).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella as applied to claims 1-2 above.
Regarding claim 3, although Puzella does not explicitly disclose wherein a = b, Puzella discloses that the dimension of the cavities 36a-36n is determined by the height Hlower of the lower sidewalls 38 (para [0028]).
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 length a and length b of the cavities taught in Puzella so that a = b 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 and bandwidth (Puzella, para [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, although Puzella does not explicitly disclose wherein sidewalls of each of the plurality of cavities have a spacing of λ/2, Puzella discloses that the dimension of the cavities is determined by the size and spacing of the lower patches 32/34 and the height Hlower of the lower sidewalls 38 (para [0028]) and the dimension of the lower patches 32 is a function of frequency (para [0025]) and to optimize coupling and maximize bandwidth (para [0044]).
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 spacing of the sidewalls of each of the plurality of cavities taught in Puzella to be λ/2 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, optimize coupling and maximize bandwidth (Puzella, para [0025], [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, although Puzella does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of cavities has a height h of λ/4, Puzella discloses that adjustment of the height of the lower sidewalls 38 of cavities 36a-36n influences the coupling between the lower patches 32 and slots 66 thereby controlling a lower resonant frequency of the egg-crate radiator passband and the overall bandwidth (para [0029]).
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 height of the cavities taught in Puzella to be λ/4 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 and bandwidth (Puzella, para [0029]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Akhtar et al, WO-2023215995-A1 (herein Akhtar).
Regarding claim 11, Puzella does not disclose wherein a portion of the second dielectric extends over a top of the metallic grid.
Akhtar suggests the grid dielectric resonator antennas (1100, fig. 7) comprising dielectric (1132) wherein a portion of the dielectric (1132) extends over a top of the metallic grid (1128, fig. 7, para [39]).
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 portion of the second dielectric of the antenna device taught in Puzella to extend over a top of the metallic grid as suggested in Akhtar as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the relative permittivity of the dielectric to produce an artificial dielectric material in order to achieve desired radiating characteristics (Akhtar, para [40]).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and in view of Liu, US-20120188138-A1.
Regarding claim 12, although Puzella does not disclose wherein the antenna feedlines are connected to at least one signal port comprising a beamforming integrated circuit, Puzella discloses there would be vias 74 connecting the antenna feedlines 72 to a stripline transmission line layers below the ground plane layer 78 (para [0038], [0042]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there would a signal port connected to the antenna feedlines in order to feed the signals to the antenna feedlines.
Liu discloses wherein the antenna feedlines (509, fig. 6 in an array 704 of fig. 7) are connected to at least one signal port comprising a beamforming integrated circuit (600).
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 beamforming integrated circuit as disclosed in Liu to the antenna device taught in Puzella as claimed for the purpose of providing signals to the antenna feedlines in order to perform wireless communication.
Regarding claim 18, although Puzella does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising: connecting at least one signal port to the antenna feedlines, Puzella discloses there would be vias 74 connecting the antenna feedlines 72 to a stripline transmission line layers below the ground plane layer 78 (para [0038], [0042]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there would a signal port connected to the antenna feedlines in order to feed the signals to the antenna feedlines.
Liu applied as a teaching reference discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: connecting at least one signal port to the antenna feedlines (fig. 6, para [0034]: a signal port from the IC 600 connects with the antenna feedlines 509 through the contact pad 609).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the antenna feedlines taught in Puzella to one signal port taught in Liu as claimed for the purpose of proving the signals to the antenna feedlines in order to perform wireless communication.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Liu et al, US-20210044011-A1 (hereinafter Liu’011).
Regarding claim 13, Puzella does not disclose wherein the metallic grid comprises a plurality of metal through vias in the second dielectric arranged side-by-side in a grid pattern.
Liu’011 suggests wherein the metallic grid (figs. 3-6) comprises a plurality of metal through vias in the second dielectric arranged side-by-side in a grid pattern (para [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a plurality of metal through vias in a grid pattern as suggested in Liu’011 to the antenna device taught in Puzella as claimed for the purpose of reducing the cost of material and weight of the metallic grid in the antenna device.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella, US-20030067410-A1 in view of Baks et al, US-20180159203-A1 (hereinafter Baks).
Regarding claim 14, Puzella discloses the following:
an antenna device, comprising:
a first component (20, 22, figs. 1-2) comprising a substrate (68, 44e, 76) having antenna feedlines (72) within a first dielectric (68, 44e, 76, para [0038, [0046]) and a ground plane (64, para [0047]) comprising aperture slots (66) disposed on the first dielectric (68, 44e, 76), wherein the antenna feedlines (72/82a-82d, 83a-83d, figs. 2-3) and the ground plane (64) extends parallel to each other (fig. 2);
a second component (18), coupled to the first component (20, 22), comprising a metallic grid (18, fig. 1, para [0027]) having a plurality of cavities (56/36a-36n, figs. 1-2) filled with a second dielectric (although Puzella is silent about the second dielectric, but 56/36a-36n are cavities, it is implied that the cavities 56/36a-36n are filled with air which is a dielectric material) to provide an array of cavity resonator radiators for the antenna device (para [0029]),
wherein the antenna feedlines comprise first antenna feedlines (82a-82d, 83a-83d) and second antenna feedlines (82a-82d, 83a-83d) for dual-polarization (para [0046])
Puzella does not disclose wherein the first antenna feedlines includes at least two first arms that extends parallel to the ground plane, wherein the second antenna feedlines includes at least two second arms that extends parallel to the ground plane, wherein the two first arms extend perpendicular to the two second arms, and wherein the first antenna feedlines and the second antenna feedlines are located in different layers.
Baks suggests wherein the first antenna feedlines includes at least two first arms (114-1, fig. 2A) that extends parallel to the ground plane (142, fig. 1), wherein the second antenna feedlines includes at least two second arms (112-1) that extends parallel to the ground plane (142), wherein the two first arms extend perpendicular to the two second arms (fig. 2A), and wherein the first antenna feedlines and the second antenna feedlines are located in different layers (fig. 1: layers M6 and M4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second antenna feedlines as suggested in Baks to the antenna device taught in Puzella as claimed for the purpose of providing horizontal and vertical polarization signals to the antenna device (Baks, para [0024]).
Regarding claim 15, Puzella does not disclose wherein the first antenna feedlines are located above the aperture slots, and wherein the second antenna feedlines are located below the aperture slots.
Baks discloses wherein the first antenna feedlines (114-1, fig. 1) are located above the aperture slots (142A), and wherein the second antenna feedlines (112-1) are located below the aperture slots (142A).
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 first and second antenna feedlines to be above and below the aperture slots as taught in Baks to the antenna device taught in Puzella for the purpose of separating the signals on the first and second antenna feedlines in order to prevent interference between the two different signals.
Regarding claim 16, Puzella discloses wherein the aperture slots in ground plane comprises a first aperture slot (66a, 66d, figs. 1, 3) and a second aperture slot (66b, 66c) for each of the cavity resonator radiators (36a-36n), with the first aperture slot being oriented perpendicular to the second aperture slot, and wherein the first aperture slot intersects the second aperture slot (figs. 1, 3).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puzella as applied to claim 17 above, and in view of Pandey et al, US-20230078966-A1 (hereinafter Pandey).
Regarding claim 19, Puzella does not disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising: forming the metallic grid having the plurality of cavities filled with the second dielectric using a process selected from the group consisting of: three-dimensional (3D) printing, metal stamping, laser cutting, and combinations thereof.
Pandey suggests the second component 300 having the plurality of cavities filled with the second dielectric 312 is a dielectric resonator antenna (para [0046]) and the method comprising: forming the metallic grid having the plurality of cavities filled with the second dielectric using a process selected from the group consisting of: three-dimensional (3D) printing (para [0052]), metal stamping, laser cutting, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of 3D printing suggested in Pandey to form the antenna device taught in Puzella as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process and being flexible to change the design depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 20, Puzella does not disclose the method of claim 17, further comprising: forming the metallic grid having the plurality of cavities filled with the second dielectric using mixed metal and dielectric 3D printing.
Pandey suggests the second component 300 having the plurality of cavities filled with the second dielectric 312 is a dielectric resonator antenna (para [0046]) and the method comprising: forming the metallic grid having the plurality of cavities filled with the second dielectric using mixed metal and dielectric 3D printing (para [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use mixed metal and dielectric 3D printing suggested in Pandey to form the antenna device taught in Puzella as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process and being flexible to change the design depending on the requirements of the application.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Chen et al, CN-102570013-A, figs. 2, 10A could read on claim 1
Maruyama et al, JP-2013179440-A, fig. 1 could read on claim 1
Han et al, US-20110248891-A1, figs.8-10 could read on claim 1
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 N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845