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 .
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He et al (US 2021/0367358).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses in Figures 2-3, an antenna device comprising:
a ground plane (M4),
a flat-plate-shaped first feed element (110);
a flat-plate-shaped second feed element (120);
a first feed line (132) connected to the first feed element (110); and
a second feed line (136) connected to the second feed element (120), wherein the ground plane (M4), the first feed element (110), and the second feed element (120) are stacked in respective order and spaced apart from each other, and
at least part (part including pad 155) of the second feed line (136) is disposed in a same conductor layer as the ground plane (M4);
wherein the ground plane (M4) functions as a ground for the first feed element (110), and the at least part (155) of the second feed line (136) is disposed at a position that overlaps the first feed element (110) as the ground plane is viewed from a plan view.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, He discloses in Figure 2,
wherein a resonant frequency of the first feed element (110) is lower than a resonant frequency
of the second feed element (120).
Regarding claims 3-4, as applied to claims 1 and 2, He discloses in Figure 2,
wherein an area of the first feed element (110) is greater than an area of the second feed
element (120) in the plan view.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358) in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830).
Regarding claims 5-7, He discloses in Figures 1-3, an antenna device comprising:
a ground plane (M5, Figs. 2-3),
a flat-plate-shaped first feed element (110);
a flat-plate-shaped second feed element (120);
a first feed line (142, Figs. 2-3) connected to the first feed element (110); and
a second feed line (144, Figs. 2-3) connected to the second feed element (120), wherein the ground plane (M5), the first feed element (110), and the second feed element (120) are stacked in respective order and spaced apart from each other, and
at least part of the second feed line (144, Figs. 2-3) is disposed in a same conductor layer as the ground plane (M5);
the at least part of the second feed line (144) is disposed at a position that overlaps the first feed element (110) as the ground plane is viewed from a plan view;
wherein the second feed line (144) is connected to two second feed points (122, 124, Fig. 1) of the second feed element (120), and two straight lines (136, 138) respectively passing through a geometric center of the second feed element (120) and the two second feed points (122, 124) are perpendicular to each other;
wherein a resonant frequency (“24.25-29.5 GHz”, par. 0033) of the first feed element (110) is lower than a resonant frequency (“37-43.5 GHz”, see par. 0033) of the second feed element;
wherein an area of the first feed element (110) is greater than an area of the second feed
element (120) in the plan view.
He discloses in Figures 2-3, the ground layer (M4) functioning as ground for the first feed element (110) rather than (M5). However, such difference is not patentable merit.
It is a common practice and well known in the art that a ground plane is in same layer of a feed line can be used to provide a ground for an antenna element or a feed element. One of such examples is the teaching of Warnick discloses in Figure 3B, at least part of the second feed line (314) is disposed in a same conductor layer as the ground plane (306), wherein the ground plane (306) functions as a ground for the first feed element (206).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ground plane of He with the ground plane being function as ground for the first feed element as taught by Marwick to provide ground for feed element and reduce number of parts and cost based on particular application or environment of use. Therefore, to employ having the ground plane as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 5, He discloses in Figures 1-3,
wherein the second feed line (144, Figs. 2-3) comprising a conductive material that conveys radio-frequency signals to the two second feed points (122, 124, Fig. 1) with a phase difference of 90°
between a signal component present in the radio-frequency signals that has a frequency that is a
resonant frequency of the second feed element (see par. 0033, lines 27-32).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US
2021/0367358), hereinafter He’358 in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830) and further in view of He (US 2022/0031172), hereinafter “He’172”.
Regarding claim 9, He’358 and Marwick disclose every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 5, except for wherein the second feed line includes a 90° hybrid circuit having four ports, a radio-frequency signal is input to one port of the 90° hybrid circuit, and another two ports of the 90° hybrid circuit are respectively connected to the two second feed points.
He’172 discloses in Figure 5-1, wherein the second feed line includes a 90° hybrid circuit having
four ports, a radio-frequency signal is input to one port (310-1) of the 90° hybrid circuit, and another
two ports (310-2, 310-3) of the 90° hybrid circuit are respectively connected to the two second feed
points (312-1, 312-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the second feed line of He’385 with the second feed line including a 90° hybrid circuit as taught by He’172 to improve isolation between the two ports of the second feed
element. Therefore, to employ having the hybrid circuit as claimed invention would have been obvious
to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 5, He’172 discloses in Figures 4,
wherein the second feed line includes an annular-shaped transmission line (404) consisting of
two relatively thick transmission lines and two relatively thin transmission lines connected to each other
in an alternating manner, each of the two relatively thick transmission lines being thicker than either of
the two relatively thin transmission lines, at least one of the two relatively thick transmission lines being
disposed between a location where a radio-frequency signal is input 310-1) to the second feed line and a
location connected to one (310-2) of the two second feed points (310-2, 310-3), and at least one of the
relatively thin transmission lines is connected between the two feed points.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358)
in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830) and further in view of Nakagawa (JP 2005033353).
Regarding claim 11, He and Warnick disclose every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 5, except for the second feed line including a part where the second feed line branches, at a branching point, from one line and extends to the two second feed points, and a difference in electrical length from the branching point to the two second feed points is ¼ a wavelength of a radio-frequency signal having the resonant frequency of the second feed element. However, such difference is not new.
The technique of using different lengths of branches of a feed line to provide phase shift is well
known in the art. One of such examples is the teaching of Nakagawa discloses in Figure 3, the second
feed line including a part where the second feed line branches, at a branching point (A), from one line
and extends to the two second feed points (B, C), and a difference in electrical length from the
branching point to the two second feed points is ¼ a wavelength of a radio-frequency signal having the
resonant frequency of the second feed element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the second feed line of He with the second feed line as taught by Nakagawa to provide a phase difference between the two feed points
of feed element. Therefore, to employ having the second feed line as claimed invention would have
been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358) in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830) and further in view of Paulotto et al (US 2019/0020110).
Regarding claim 12, He discloses in Figures 1-3, wherein the first feed line (142, see Figs. 2-3) is connected to at least one first feed point (112) of the first feed element (110), and from the plan view, an angle between a straight line passing through a geometric center (160, Fig. 1) of the first feed element (110, Fig. 1) and the first feed point (132, Fig. 1) and a straight line passing through a geometric center (160, Fig. 1) of the second feed element (120, Fig. 1) and one (124, Fig. 1) of the second feed points (122, 124).
He does not disclose the angle being greater than or equal to 35° and less than or equal to 55°.
Paulotto discloses in Figure 9, an angle between a straight line passing through a geometric
center of the first feed element (104A) and the first feed point (96A-P2) and a straight line passing
through a geometric center of the second feed element (104B) and one (96B-P2) of the second feed points (96B-P1, 96B-P2) being greater than or equal to 35° and less than or equal to 55°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the feeding elements of He with the feeding elements having straight
lines forming an angle as taught by Paulotto to enhance the isolation between the feed points. Therefore, to employ having the angle as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in
the art.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 12, Paulotto discloses in Figure 9, wherein the first feed element (104A) includes another first feed point (96A-P1), and two straight lines respectively passing through the geometric center of the first feed element (104A) and the first feed point (96AP2) and the another first feed point (96A-P1) are perpendicular to each other.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358)
in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830), Nakagawa (JP 2005033353) and further in view of Paulotto et al (US 2019/0020110).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 11, He discloses in Figures 1-3,
wherein the first feed line (142, see Figs. 2-3) is connected to at least one first feed point (112)
of the first feed element (110), and from the plan view, an angle between a straight line passing through a geometric center (160, Fig. 1) of the first feed element (110, Fig. 1) and the first feed point (132, Fig. 1) and a straight line passing through a geometric center (160, Fig. 1) of the second feed element (120, Fig. 1) and one (124, Fig. 1) of the second feed points (122, 124).
He does not disclose the angle being greater than or equal to 35° and less than or equal to 55°.
Paulotto discloses in Figure 9, an angle between a straight line passing through a geometric
center of the first feed element (104A) and the first feed point (96A-P2) and a straight line passing
through a geometric center of the second feed element (104B) and one (96B-P2) of the second feed
points (96B-P1, 96B-P2) being greater than or equal to 35° and less than or equal to 55°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the feeding elements of He with the feeding elements having straight lines forming an angle as taught by Paulotto to enhance the isolation between the feed points.
Therefore, to employ having the angle as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358) in view Yamagajo (US 2015/0333407).
Regarding claims 15-17, He discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claims 1-3, except for a flat-plate-shaped third feed element that is spaced apart from the second feed element and partially overlaps the second feed element as viewed from the plan view; and a third
feed line connected to the third feed element.
Yamagajo discloses in Figure 27, a flat-plate-shaped third feed element (1) that is spaced apart
from the second feed element (2) and partially overlaps the second feed element (2) as viewed from the
plan view; and a third feed line (P1A) connected to the third feed element (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the antenna device of He with the antenna device having a third feed
element as taught by Yamagajo to add a third frequency band to the antenna device. Therefore, to
employ having the third feed element as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in
the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358)
in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830) and further in view of Yamagajo (US 2015/0333407).
Regarding claim 18, He discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 8, except for a flat-plate-shaped third feed element that is spaced apart from the second feed element and partially overlaps the second feed element as viewed from the plan view; and a third
feed line connected to the third feed element.
Yamagajo discloses in Figure 27, a flat-plate-shaped third feed element (1) that is spaced apart
from the second feed element (2) and partially overlaps the second feed element (2) as viewed from the
plan view; and a third feed line (P1A) connected to the third feed element (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the antenna device of He with the antenna device having a third feed
element as taught by Yamagajo to add a third frequency band to the antenna device. Therefore, to
employ having the third feed element as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in
the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358)
in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830), Nakagawa (JP 2005033353) and further in view of Yamagajo (US 2015/0333407).
Regarding claim 19, He discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim
11, except for a flat-plate-shaped third feed element that is spaced apart from the second feed element
and partially overlaps the second feed element as viewed from the plan view; and a third feed line
connected to the third feed element.
Yamagajo discloses in Figure 27, a flat-plate-shaped third feed element (1) that is spaced apart
from the second feed element (2) and partially overlaps the second feed element (2) as viewed from the
plan view; and a third feed line (P1A) connected to the third feed element (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the antenna device of He with the antenna device having a third feed
element as taught by Yamagajo to add a third frequency band to the antenna device. Therefore, to
employ having the third feed element as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in
the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (US 2021/0367358) in view of Warnick et al (US 20130187830), Paulotto et al (US 2019/0020110) and further in view of Yamagajo (US 2015/0333407).
Regarding claim 20, He and Paulotto disclose every feature of claimed invention as expressly
recited in claim 12, except for a flat-plate-shaped third feed element that is spaced apart from the
second feed element and partially overlaps the second feed element as viewed from the plan view; and
a third feed line connected to the third feed element.
Yamagajo discloses in Figure 27, a flat-plate-shaped third feed element (1) that is spaced apart
from the second feed element (2) and partially overlaps the second feed element (2) as viewed from the
plan view; and a third feed line (P1A) connected to the third feed element (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the antenna device of He with the antenna device having a third feed
element as taught by Yamagajo to add a third frequency band to the antenna device. Therefore, to employ having the third feed element as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in
the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Inquiry
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 CRUZ 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845