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 amendments filed on November 19th 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3,7-9,11-12 and 17-18 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 12th 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the three 90-degree curves as recited in claim 2 (Figure 1 seems to show only two 90-degree curves) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 – line 15 – “a conductive isolation boundary having a same shape as the center conductor” should be corrected to “a conductive isolation boundary having the same shape as the central conductor”
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
The term “wherein the conductive isolation boundary has the same dimensions as the center conductor” is indefinite. As noted in the remarks a conductive isolation boundary would have to form a boundary between two slots in order to separate them. However it is unclear as to how the conductive isolation boundary does this. The current amended claim 1 does not recite the central conductor separating the slots and as such the conductive isolation boundary having the same dimensions as the central conductor would also not separate the slots. For the purposes of examination, the examiner as best understood, will interpret the limitation as “wherein the conductive isolation boundary has the same dimensions as the center conductor wherein the center conductor separates the two tapered slots and forms a boundary between them” to bring the claim more line with that is taught in the specifications, drawings, and remarks.
Claim 6 and 7 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 5.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh et al. (NPL from IDS submitted on 11-9-23) in view of Liu’ 025 et al. (CN 111555025 A) and Wang et al. (CN 105576380A).
Regarding Claim 1, Chieh et al. discloses a wideband dual-mode antenna (Dual-mode Vivaldi antenna as seen in figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.) comprising:
a dielectric substrate (Antenna resides on a dielectric substrate material rogers 4350B; Pg.1-2 and figure 1 of Chieh et al.);
a conductive layer disposed on a first face of the dielectric substrate (First face of the substrate includes the antenna structure disposed on it which would be made from conductive material and thus serves as a conductive layer; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1 of Chieh et al.);
two tapered slots formed in the conductive layer so as to define a linear center conductor formed in the conductive layer, wherein the tapered slots narrow to slot-lines having uniform width that are terminated by respective baluns at a feed end of the wideband dual-mode antenna (Two tapered slots are separated by a linear center conductor wherein tapered slots narrow to two slot lines, that have uniform width, that terminate at two baluns at the feed end with said structure being formed in the conductive layer; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.); and
two feeds configured to feed the two tapered slots at the feed end (Two microstrip conductor serve as feeds that are connected to a hybrid coupler to feed the tapered slots such that they can from tapered slot antennas at the feed end; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.);
wherein the two slot-lines follow paths that, at the feed end, transition from being parallel to the center conductor (Slot lines transition from being parallel to a center conductor as seen in figure 1 of Chieh et al.)
Chieh et al. fails to explicitly disclose slot lines following meandering paths that curve away from, and then back towards, the center conductor and two feeds disposed on a second face of the dielectric substrate.
However, Liu’ 025 et al. does disclose slot-lines follow paths that, at the feed end, transition from being parallel to the center conductor to following meandering paths that curve away from, and then back towards, the center conductor (Antenna includes two slot lines defined by portions n1-b1 and n2-b2 wherein slot lines curve away, b1 and b2, and then back towards a center line C1, forming a horn shaped gap between lines, wherein a portion 222 of the microstrip conductor 2 residing on line C1 can serve as a center conductor; Pg. 5-7 and figure 4-5 of Liu’ 025 et al.).
Wang et al. further discloses two feeds disposed on a second face of the dielectric substrate. (Dielectric plate comprises a metal layer with an antenna unit on an upper first surface and a feeding unit comprising 2 microstrip conductors, serving as feeds, on a bottom second surface of the dielectric; Pg. 2-3 and figure 1a-b of Wang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. to have the two slot-lines follow paths that, at the feed end, transition from being parallel to the center conductor to following meandering paths that curve away from, and then back towards, the center conductor as taught by Liu’ 025 et al. since the shape of the slot lines affects the transmission of electromagnetic waves and guides the radiation to the radiating elements (Pg. 6 of Liu’ 025 et al.) which would affect overall radiation.
It would have also been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. and Liu’ 025 et al. to have the two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face as taught by Wang et al. to feed the slot lines of the Vivaldi antenna through vias (Pg. 3 of Wang et al.) which would improve isolation between elements.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
558
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh et al. (NPL from IDS submitted on 11-9-23) in view of Liu’ 025 et al. (CN 111555025 A), Wang et al. (CN 105576380A), and Liu’ 722 et al. (CN 211045722 U).
Regarding Claim 2, Although, Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. fails to disclose wherein each meandering path includes three 90- degree curves. Liu’ 025 et al. does disclose wherein each meandering path includes three curves (Slot line path of the radiating element includes a first curve between s1 and a1, a second curve at B1 position and a third curve following that where we can see each curve is between 0 to 90 degrees; Pg. 5-7 and figure 4-5 of Liu’ 025 et al.).
However, Liu’ 722 et al. does disclose meandering paths with 90-degree curves (Vivaldi antenna structure comprises equal width slot lines that follow a path from c1 to a1 wherein said path is a meandering path that includes three 90 degree curves with a first curve being between b1 and h1, a second curve between h1 and g1, and a third curve being between g1 and a1 wherein the second slot line comprises a matching arrangement; Pg. 3-5 and figure 5-6 of Liu’722 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. to have each meandering path includes three 90- degree curves as taught by Liu’ 025 et al. and Liu’ 722 et al. 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 would stem from the fact that the curve angle would determine the shape of the lines which in turns affects the transmission of electromagnetic waves and guides the radiation to the radiating elements (Pg. 6 of Liu’ 025 et al.) which would affect overall radiation.
PNG
media_image4.png
607
695
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh et al. (NPL from IDS submitted on 11-9-23) in view of Liu’ 025 et al. (CN 111555025 A), Wang et al. (CN 105576380A), and Gunnels (US 11855345 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. fails to disclose a conductive isolation boundary disposed on a second face of the dielectric substrate and electrically connected to the center conductor.
However, Gunnels does discloses a conductive isolation boundary disposed on a second face of the dielectric substrate and electrically connected to the center conductor (Conductive strip 124 is disposed on a second side of a dielectric substrate and is electrically connected to a conductive support 149 on the antenna side of the substrate through vias 148 wherein strip 24 serves to improve capacitance between radiators to lower reflection, S-parameters, and in turn improve isolation between elements wherein 24 serves as a boundary between the 2 elements; Paragraph 30-46 and 60 as well as figure 5-8 of Gunnels)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. to have a conductive isolation boundary disposed on a second face of the dielectric substrate and electrically connected to the center conductor as taught by Gunnels to improve the overall radiation of the antenna (Paragraph 38 and 60 of Gunnels).
PNG
media_image5.png
507
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. fail to disclose wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the center conductor by at least one via in the dielectric substrate.
However, Gunnels does disclose wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the center conductor by at least one via in the dielectric substrate (Metal strip 24 can be connected to conductive support 149 through a plurality of vias 148 wherein 149 can serve as a center conductor; Paragraph 30-45 and figure 8a-b of Gunnels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. to have the conductive isolation boundary be electrically connected to the center conductor by at least one via in the dielectric substrate as taught by Gunnels to connect the electrical components of the antenna (Figure 44 of Gunnels).
Regarding Claim 6, Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. fail to disclose wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the center conductor by a plurality of evenly-spaced vias in the dielectric substrate.
However, Gunnels does discloses wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the center conductor by a plurality of evenly-spaced vias in the dielectric substrate (Metal strip 24 can be connected to conductive support 149 through a plurality of vias 148 wherein these vias are evenly spaced; Paragraph 30-45 and figure 8a-b of Gunnels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. to have the conductive isolation boundary be electrically connected to the center conductor by a plurality of evenly-spaced vias in the dielectric substrate as taught by Gunnels to connect the electrical components of the antenna (Figure 44 of Gunnels).
Regarding Claim 7, Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. fail to disclose wherein the conductive isolation boundary is made of, and the vias are filled with, a conductive material.
However, Gunnels does disclose wherein the conductive isolation boundary is made of, and the vias are filled with, a conductive material (Metal strip 24 can be made from a conductive material like copper and through holes 148 may be filled with conductive materials; Paragraph 37-44 and 57 as well as figure 8a-b of Gunnels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Liu’ 025 et al., and Wang et al. to have the conductive isolation boundary be made of, and the vias are filled with, a conductive material as taught by Gunnels to facilitate respective electrical connections (Paragraph 58 of Gunnels.).
Regarding Claim 13, Chieh et al. further discloses wherein the slot-lines, at the feed end, transition from paths that are parallel to the center line (Slot lines transition from being parallel to a center conductor as seen in figure 1 of Chieh et al.).
Chieh et al., Wang et al., and Gunnels fails to explicitly disclose the slot-lines, at the feed end, transition from paths that are parallel to the center line to meandering paths that curve away from the center line
However Liu’ 025 et al. does disclose the slot-lines, at the feed end, transition from paths that are parallel to the center line to meandering paths that curve away from the center line (Antenna includes two slot lines defined by portions n1-b1 and n2-b2 wherein slot lines curve away, b1 and b2, and then back towards a center line C1, forming a horn shaped gap between lines, wherein a portion 222 of the microstrip conductor 2 residing on line C1 can serve as a center conductor; Pg. 5-7 and figure 4-5 of Liu’ 025 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. to have the slot-lines, at the feed end, transition from paths that are parallel to the center line to meandering paths that curve away from the center line as taught by Liu’ 025 et al. since the shape of the slot lines affects the transmission of electromagnetic waves and guides the radiation to the radiating elements (Pg. 6 of Liu’ 025 et al.) which would affect overall radiation.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh et al. (NPL from IDS submitted on 11-9-23) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105576380A) and Gunnels (US 11855345 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, Chieh et al. does disclose a wideband dual-mode antenna (Dual-mode Vivaldi antenna as seen in figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.) comprising:
a dielectric substrate having first and second faces, wherein the first and second faces are opposite to each other (Antenna resides on a dielectric substrate material rogers 4350B which has a first and second side; Pg.1-2 and figure 1 of Chieh et al.);
a conductive layer disposed on the first face (First face of the substrate includes the antenna structure disposed on it which would be made from conductive material and thus serves as a conductive layer; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1 of Chieh et al.);
two tapered slots formed in the conductive layer, wherein each tapered slot tapers from a mouth at an aperture end to a slot-line having a uniform width at a feed end (Two tapered slots are separated by a linear center conductor wherein tapered slots narrow to two slot lines, that have uniform width, that terminate at two baluns at the feed end with said structure being formed in the conductive layer; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.);
a center conductor formed in the conductive layer so as to separate the two tapered slots such that the center conductor defines an edge of each of the two tapered slots (Two tapered slots are separated by a linear center conductor wherein tapered slots narrow to two slot lines that terminate at two baluns at the feed end wherein tapered slots is from a mount to an aperture end wherein the edges of the slot is defined by the center conductor; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.);
two micro-strip conductors disposed to feed the two tapered slots to form two tapered slot antennas (Two microstrip conductors are connected to a hybrid coupler to feed the tapered slots such that they can from tapered slot antennas; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.).
Chieh et al. fails to disclose the two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face and a conductive isolation boundary disposed on the second face opposite, and aligned with, the center conductor and electrically connected to the center conductor through a series of vias in the dielectric substrate.
However, Wang et al. does disclose two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face (Dielectric plate comprises a metal layer with an antenna unit on an upper first surface and a feeding unit comprising 2 microstrip conductors on a bottom second surface of the dielectric; Pg. 2-3 and figure 1a-b of Wang et al.).
Gunnels further discloses a conductive isolation boundary disposed on the second face opposite, and aligned with, the center conductor and electrically connected to the center conductor through a series of vias in the dielectric substrate(Conductive strip 24 is disposed on a second side of a dielectric substrate and is electrically connected to a conductive support 149 on the antenna side of the substrate through a series of vias 148 wherein strip 24 serves to improve capacitance between radiators to lower reflection, S-parameters, and in turn improve isolation between elements wherein 24 serves as a boundary between the 2 elements wherein 148 and 24 are aligned with each other; Paragraph 30-46 and 60 as well as figure 5-8 of Gunnels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. to have the two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face as taught by Wang et al. to feed the slot lines of the Vivaldi antenna through vias (Pg. 3 of Wang et al.) which would improve isolation between elements. It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. and Wang et al. to have a conductive isolation boundary disposed on the second face opposite, and aligned with, the center conductor and electrically connected to the center conductor through a series of vias in the dielectric substrate as taught by Gunnels to improve the overall radiation of the antenna (Paragraph 38 and 60 of Gunnels).
Regarding Claim 10, Chieh et al. further discloses wherein the center conductor is aligned with a center line of the wideband dual-mode antenna. (Center conductor would aligned with a center line of the dual mode antenna since it is in the center as seen in figure 1 of Chieh et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Chieh et al. further disclose a 90-degree hybrid coupler connected to the microstrip conductors such that the tapered slot antennas generate two orthogonal radiation patterns, such that one of the two tapered slot antennas operates in a common mode and the other tapered slot antenna operates in a differential mode (Two tapered slot antenna operates in a common mode and in an out of phase differential mode wherein these patterns are generated by a 90 degree hybrid coupler connected to the microstrip conductors; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1a-b of Chieh et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Chieh et al. discloses a wideband dual-mode antenna (Dual-mode Vivaldi antenna as seen in figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.) comprising:
a dielectric substrate having first and second faces, wherein the first and second faces are opposite to each other (Antenna resides on a dielectric substrate material rogers 4350B which has a first and second side; Pg.1-2 and figure 1 of Chieh et al.);
a conductive layer disposed on the first face (First face of the substrate includes the antenna structure disposed on it which would be made from conductive material and thus serves as a conductive layer; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1 of Chieh et al.);
a first slot formed in the conductive layer, wherein the first slop tapers from a first mouth at an aperture end to a first uniform-width slot-line at a first distance from the first mouth (Two tapered slots are separated by a linear center conductor wherein tapered slots narrow to two slot lines that terminate at two baluns at the feed end wherein tapered slots is from a mount to an aperture end wherein first and second slots taper from a first and second mouth at the aperture ends to a first and second uniform width slot line at a first and second distance from the mouths; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.);
a second slot formed in the conductive layer so as to define a center conductor in the conductive layer that separates the first and second slots, wherein the center conductor is rectangular from the first and second mouths to the first distance, wherein the second slot tapers from a second mouth at the aperture end to a second uniform-width slot-line at the first distance (Two tapered slots are separated by a linear center conductor and define it wherein the center conductor is rectangular form the first and second mouths to a first distance; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.);
two micro-strip conductors disposed to feed the first and second slots to form first and second tapered slot antennas (Two microstrip conductors are connected to a hybrid coupler to feed the tapered slots such that they can from tapered slot antennas; Pg. 1-2 and figure 1-2 of Chieh et al.).
Chieh et al. fails to disclose the two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face and a conductive isolation boundary having a same shape as the center conductor disposed on the second face so as to align with the center conductor, wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the conductive layer through the dielectric substrate.
However, Wang et al. does disclose two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face (Dielectric plate comprises a metal layer with an antenna unit on an upper first surface and a feeding unit comprising 2 microstrip conductors on a bottom second surface of the dielectric; Pg. 2-3 and figure 1a-b of Wang et al.).
Gunnels further discloses a conductive isolation boundary having a same shape as the center conductor disposed on the second face so as to align with the center conductor, wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the conductive layer through the dielectric substrate (Conductive strip 24 is disposed on a second side of a dielectric substrate and is electrically connected to a conductive layer through a conductive support 149 on the antenna side of the substrate through a series of vias 148 wherein strip 24 serves to improve capacitance between radiators to lower reflection, S-parameters, and in turn improve isolation between elements wherein 24 serves as a boundary between the 2 elements and conductive strip 24 has the same shape as conductive support 149 as well as being aligned with it; Paragraph 30-46 and 60 as well as figure 5-8 of Gunnels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. to have the two micro-strip conductors disposed on the second face as taught by Wang et al. to feed the slot lines of the Vivaldi antenna through vias (Pg. 3 of Wang et al.) which would improve isolation between elements.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al. and Wang et al. to have a conductive isolation boundary having a same shape as the center conductor disposed on the second face so as to align with the center conductor, wherein the conductive isolation boundary is electrically connected to the conductive layer through the dielectric substrate as taught by Gunnels to improve the overall radiation of the antenna (Paragraph 38 and 60 of Gunnels).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh et al. (NPL from IDS submitted on 11-9-23) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105576380A), Gunnels (US 11855345 B2), Liu’ 025 et al. (CN 111555025 A) , and Liu’ 722 et al. (CN 211045722 U).
Regarding Claim 11, Chieh et al. further discloses wherein the two slot-lines follow paths that, at the feed end, transition from being parallel to the center line to following 90-degree curve. (Slot line transition from being parallel to the center conductor to following a first 90 degree curve as seen in figure 1 of Chieh et al.).
Chieh et al., Wang et al, and Gunnels fails to explicitly disclose the two slot-lines follow paths that, at the feed end, transition from being parallel to the center line to following three 90-degree curve
Although, Liu’ 025 et al. does not explicitly disclose three 90- degree curves. Liu’ 025 et al. does disclose wherein each meandering path includes three curves (Slot line path of the radiating element includes a first curve between s1 and a1, a second curve at B1 position and a third curve following that where we can see each curve is between 0 to 90 degrees; Pg. 5-7 and figure 4-5 of Liu’ 025 et al.).
However, Liu’ 722 et al. does disclose paths with 90-degree curves (Vivaldi antenna structure comprises equal width slot lines that follow a path from c1 to a1 wherein said path is a meandering path that includes three 90 degree curves with a first curve being between b1 and h1, a second curve between h1 and g1, and a third curve being between g1 and a1 wherein the second slot line comprises a matching arrangement; Pg. 3-5 and figure 5-6 of Liu’ 722 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Wang et al., and Gunnels et al. to have the two slot-lines follow paths that, at the feed end, transition from being parallel to the center line to following three 90-degree curves as taught by Liu’ 025 et al. and Liu’ 722 et al. 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 would stem from the fact that the curve angle would determine the shape of the lines which in turns affects the transmission of electromagnetic waves and guides the radiation to the radiating elements (Pg. 6 of Liu’ 025 et al.) which would affect overall radiation.
Regarding Claim 12, Chieh et al. further discloses wherein each of the two slot-lines terminate in a respective circular balun (Two Slot lines terminate in respective two circular baluns as seen in figure 1 of Chieh et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Chieh et al., Wang et al. and Gunnels fail to disclose wherein each meandering path includes three 90- degree curves.
Although, Liu’ 025 et al. does not explicitly disclose three 90- degree curves. Liu’ 025 et al. does disclose wherein each meandering path includes three curves (Slot line path of the radiating element includes a first curve between s1 and a1, a second curve at B1 position and a third curve following that where we can see each curve is between 0 to 90 degrees; Pg. 5-7 and figure 4-5 of Liu’ 025 et al.).
However, Liu’ 722 et al. does disclose meandering paths with 90-degree curves (Vivaldi antenna structure comprises equal width slot lines that follow a path from c1 to a1 wherein said path is a meandering path that includes three 90 degree curves with a first curve being between b1 and h1, a second curve between h1 and g1, and a third curve being between g1 and a1 wherein the second slot line comprises a matching arrangement; Pg. 3-5 and figure 5-6 of Liu’ 722 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Chieh et al., Wang et al., and Gunnels et al. to have each meandering path includes three 90- degree curves as taught by Liu’ 025 et al. and Liu’ 722 et al. 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 would stem from the fact that the curve angle would determine the shape of the lines which in turns affects the transmission of electromagnetic waves and guides the radiation to the radiating elements (Pg. 6 of Liu’ 025 et al.) which would affect overall radiation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the conductive isolation boundary has the same dimensions as the center conductor such that the conductive isolation boundary does not overlap either of the two tapered slot” as recited in claim 9 and “wherein the first and second uniform-width slot-lines transition from parallel paths between the first distance and a second distance from the first and second mouths to meandering paths that curve away from, and then back towards, each other between the second distance and a third distance from the first and second mouths, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance and the third distance is greater than the second distance.” as recited in claim 17.
Chieh et al., Wang et al., Gunnels, Liu’ 025 et al. , and Liu’ 722 et al. are cited as teaching some of the elements of the claimed invention including a wideband dual-mode antenna comprising a dielectric substrate, a conductive layer, a first tapered slot, a second tapered slot, a center linear conductor, two microstrip conductors, a conductive isolation boundary, and conductive vias.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 16 and as such can be allowable for the given reasons above.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 has been rejected as being obvious in view of the paper "A Wideband Phased Array Antenna with Grating Lobe Cancellation" by Jia-Chi Samuel Chieh (Chieh) in view of Chinese patent 111555025A by Liu et al. (Liu). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection because not all of the claimed elements are taught or suggested by the cited references either alone or in combination. For example, Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited references do not teach or suggest that the slot-lines "transition from being parallel to the center conductor to following meandering paths that curve away from, and then back towards, the center conductor." Chieh teaches slot-lines that curve away from the center line, but they do not curve back towards the center conductor, as required by claim 1.
The Liu reference teaches a tapered slot antenna where the tapered slot section (or horn-shaped gap) transitions to, what Liu identifies as, the second strip-shaped gap (a rectangular gap defined by parallel groove lines), which then transitions to the second fan-shaped gap, which then transitions to the first long-strip shaped gap (having the same width as the second long-strip-shaped gap), which then transitions to the first fan-shaped gap. (See Liu Fig. 3, 4, and 5) The Office Action interprets one side of the slot-line profile of Liu 's alternating-rectangular-fan-shaped slot as meeting the claimed limitation of a slot-line that follows a meandering path that curves away from, and then back towards, the center conductor. Applicant respectfully points out that Liu's horn-shaped gap, rectangular-shaped gaps, and fan-shaped gaps are all centered on Liu's centerline C1-C2, and Liu's complete slot never curves away from Liu 's centerline (as shown in Liu Fig. 4). On the other hand, the Chieh reference shows a slot-line that curves away from a centerline, but does not curve back towards it.
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th 2025 in regards to claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Chieh et al. and Liu et al. fail to teach the limitations "transition from being parallel to the center conductor to following meandering paths that curve away from, and then back towards, the center conductor." and “slot-lines having uniform width”.
Regarding claim 1, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Liu's complete slot never curves away from Liu 's centerline (as shown in Liu Fig. 4)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim language never states that the complete slite line has to curve away and giving the BRI, as long as a part of the line curves away and back towards, the limitation is met. However, even taking the applicants arguments, the examiner notes that wile the slots line of Liu et al. are indeed centered around the centerline C1, the applicant own invention is structured the same way. The applicants slotlines are described as being parallel to a center conductor to curving away and then back towards said center conductor. However said center conductor is placed on a central line of the invention, the same as Liu et al. As such the slot line path of Liu et al. which shows the line parallel and then curving away and then back towards the center line (and its center conductor) does meet the claim limitation. Furthermore both the main reference Chieh et al. and Liu et al. show slot lines comprising a width that stays uniform with the width being interpreted as the actual width of the line portion.
“With respect to claim 3, the Office Action maintains that Gunnels teaches a conductive isolation boundary (conductive strip 124) disposed on a second face of the dielectric substrate and electrically connected to the center conductor (conductive support 149). However, the Office Action already equated Chieh's center conductor, shown in Chieh Fig. 1-2, to the claimed linear center conductor. These two structures referenced by the Office Action are very different. To explain, the two sides of Chieh 's center conductor each define an edge of two different tapered slots (i.e., Chieh's center conductor forms a boundary between two slots-each defined by one curved edge and a straight edge of the center conductor). Gunnels' conductive support 149 on the other hand is never described or shown as defining an edge of a slot. Gunnels’ slot 134 is defined by the two radiating elements 126 and 128. (See Gunnels Fig. 8A.)”
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th 2025 in regards to claims 3 and 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Chieh et al. and Gunnels. fail to teach the limitations " a conductive isolation boundary”.
Regarding claim 3 specifically, the examiner would like to note that said claim depends form amended claim 1 which no longer recites that the slot are separated from the linear conductors or that said conductor defines an edge of each of the two tapered slots. Said claim only requires two tapered slots defining a linear conductor and said conductor being connected to an electrical isolation boundary, which is taught by Gunnels. However, the examiner notes that Liu et al. also teaches said limitation. The conductive strip 24 is placed between the elements 22 inside the slot gap 34 between said elements. In doing so it ends up defining two slots formed on either side of said strip and specifically defines the edge of each slot.
“Claims 8-10 and 15-17 have been rejected as being obvious in light of Chieh, in view of Gunnels, and further in view of Chinese patent 105576380A by Wang et al. (Wang). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the following reasons. The Office Action maintains that it would have been obvious to modify the antenna taught by Chieh and Wang to "have a conductive isolation boundary...as taught by Gunnels." The Office Action equates Gunnels' conductive strip 24 with the claimed conductive isolation boundary. However, Gunnels' conductive strip 24 is not equivalent to the claimed conductive isolation boundary for at least three reasons …. Positioning a conductive element over an empty slot as taught by Gunnels and positioning it over a center conductor as taught by Chieh are very different arrangements. The Office Action has not provided a valid reason that would motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to take Gunnels' conductive strip, that is taught as being positioned over an empty slot, and move it outside the slot to cover a radiative element like Chieh's center conductor. Second, the Office Action doesn't explain how Gunnels' conductive strip, modified to be disposed opposite Chieh's center conductor, could possibly extend to Chieh's cutout region as taught by Gunnels. Further, claim 8 is currently amended to clarify that the center conductor is formed in the conductive layer so as to separate the two tapered slots such that the center conductor defines an edge of each of the two tapered slots”
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th 2025 in regards to claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Chieh et al. and Gunnels fail to teach the limitations " such that the center conductor defines an edge of each of the two tapered slots”.
Regarding claim 8, the examiner notes that the conductive strip 24 is not just positioned over an empty slot, but rather on the other side of it is the conductive support 148 which serves as a center conductor. As such Gunnels conductive strip 24 is positioned over the center conductor and is aligned with it as the amended claim now requires. These two arrangements are arranged along the center line the same way as the center conductor and isolation boundary are in the applicants own invention. Furthermore regarding the strip extending from the cutoff region the examiner notes that Gunnels teaches that it “can” extend form the cutoff region and not that it must. Furthermore Gunnels discloses an arrangement wherein an aperture is at an end 246 such that the strip would not need to extend into the cutoff region (Paragraph 56 and figure 11 of Gunnels). However, the examiner also notes that the prior art is only relied upon to teach a conductive isolation boundary that is aligned with a center conductor which only requires them to be in the same direction, and does not necessarily read as them having the same size. As such Gunnels still meets the claim requirement as recited in claim 8.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 14, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
WO 2024141984 A1 (ABRAMOVICH AMIR et al.) further discloses a reconfigurable antenna reflector with a curved ground plane and actuator’s that control the distance between the ground and the reflector.
US 20200303828 A1 (Urzhumov; Yaroslav A.) further discloses a metasurface with a capacitive surface serving as a ground plane which can be curved by a piston.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Dameon E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845