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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to claims 1-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 and 15 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 7 recites “The antenna of claim 1 wherein the dielectric has a relative permittivity of greater than two”, however claim 1 already recites “the stubs are encased in a dielectric material that has a relative permittivity of greater than two”.
Claim 15 rejected for its dependance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 18-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (X. Ding, Z. Zhao, Y. Yang, Z. Nie and Q. H. Liu, "A Compact Unidirectional Ultra-Wideband Circularly Polarized Antenna Based on Crossed Tapered Slot Radiation Elements," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 7353-7358, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2867059.; hereinafter Ding) in view of Li et al. (CN109193110A; hereinafter Li) and Fabrega Sanchez et al. (US20240429607; hereinafter Fabrega Sanchez).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ding (figs. 5A and 9) discloses “An antenna (fig. 5A) comprising: a base (fig. 5b) with a first side and a second side, the base having a first shape and a geometric central point; a set of N radiators (tapered fins) on the first side of the base, each of the N radiators lying in a respective plane substantially perpendicular to the base (see fig. 5A) are arranged in a rotation manner about the geometric central point, wherein each of the N radiators has a second shape; wherein each of the N radiators has a stub (5mm stubs) attached thereto along the first side of the base, the stubs acting as secondary radiators for improving circular polarization purity and the bandwidth of the antenna; a set of N feed points (ports) having, each of the N feed points having a first electrical connection connected to one of the set of N radiators, spaced at a distance away from the geometric central point, with each of the N feed points having a second electrical connection connected to the second side of the base, wherein each of the N feed points has a difference in phase of its input signal relative to an adjacent feed point's input signal, the difference in phase being an angle to the adjacent radiator for generating circularly polarized radiation (see fig. 5A); and wherein the N radiators and the stubs are encased in a dielectric material (encased in air)”.
Ding does not disclose “a dielectric material that has a relative permittivity of greater than two and extends from the first side of the base to a top of the N radiators”.
However, Fabrega Sanchez teaches “a dielectric material that has a relative permittivity of greater than two and extends from the first side of the base to a top of the N radiators (Fig. 6/7 dielectric 710 and 920 (¶[0041]; In this example, each of the antenna elements 911-913 is disposed in a dielectric material 920 with a dielectric constant of about 9.4 (e.g., an LTCC (Low-Temperature Cofired Ceramic) or mSAP (Modified Semi Additive Process) material))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fabrega Sanchez and make Ding’s antenna with a dielectric material that has a relative permittivity of greater than two and extends from the first side of the base to a top of the N radiators, in order to support the antenna structure and modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 1 wherein the stubs are short-circuited (fig. 2D)”.
Regarding claim 3, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 1 wherein the first shape and a parallel cross-section of the dielectric material encasing the N radiators and the stubs are identical (fig. 5A)”.
Regarding claim 4, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 3 wherein the first shape and the dielectric material have their extents containing fully the radiators and stubs (fig. 5A)”.
Regarding claim 7, Ding discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the dielectric has a relative permittivity of greater than two”.
However, Fabrega Sanchez teaches encasing an antenna structure in a dielectric material wherein the dielectric has a relative permittivity of greater than two (¶[0041]; In this example, each of the antenna elements 911-913 is disposed in a dielectric material 920 with a dielectric constant of about 9.4 (e.g., an LTCC (Low-Temperature Cofired Ceramic) or mSAP (Modified Semi Additive Process) material)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fabrega Sanchez and make Ding’s antenna wherein the dielectric has a relative permittivity of greater than two, in order to support the antenna structure and modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 7 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the dielectric material is a ceramic”.
However, Fabrega Sanchez teaches encasing an antenna structure in a dielectric material wherein the dielectric material is a ceramic (¶[0041]; In this example, each of the antenna elements 911-913 is disposed in a dielectric material 920 with a dielectric constant of about 9.4 (e.g., an LTCC (Low-Temperature Cofired Ceramic) or mSAP (Modified Semi Additive Process) material)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fabrega Sanchez and make Ding’s antenna wherein the dielectric material is a ceramic, in order to support the antenna structure and modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 8 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the ceramic is a variant capable of being additively manufactured”.
However, Fabrega Sanchez teaches “wherein the ceramic is a variant capable of being additively manufactured (¶[0041]; In this example, each of the antenna elements 911-913 is disposed in a dielectric material 920 with a dielectric constant of about 9.4 (e.g., an LTCC (Low-Temperature Cofired Ceramic) or mSAP (Modified Semi Additive Process) material))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fabrega Sanchez and make Ding’s antenna wherein the ceramic is a variant capable of being additively manufactured, in order to more efficiently manufacture the antenna.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 9 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the ceramic is a ceramic infused thermoplastic”.
However, Fabrega Sanchez teaches “wherein the ceramic is a ceramic infused thermoplastic (¶[0041]; In this example, each of the antenna elements 911-913 is disposed in a dielectric material 920 with a dielectric constant of about 9.4 (e.g., an LTCC (Low-Temperature Cofired Ceramic) or mSAP (Modified Semi Additive Process) material))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fabrega Sanchez and make Ding’s antenna wherein the ceramic is a ceramic infused thermoplastic, in order to support the antenna structure and modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 18, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 1 wherein the second side of the base is metalized to act as a ground plane (fig. 5B shows base with metallization)”.
Regarding claim 19, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 1 wherein the N radiators create a quasi-traveling wave, having sub-wavelength, with respect to a lowest frequency of operation, dimension along an axis perpendicular to the top side of the base (Abstract; With the proposed structure, a compact volume of 0.33λ × 0.33λ × 0.3λ is obtained, where λ is the free-space wavelength at the lowest frequency)”.
Regarding claim 20, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 1 wherein the antenna has a fractional bandwidth of at least 20%, thereby qualifying the antenna as ultra-wideband (fig. 6)”.
Regarding claim 22, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 1 wherein extents of the base and a cross-section of the dielectric material encasing the N radiators and the stubs are within sub-wavelength with respect to a lowest frequency of operation (see measurements in fig. 5A)”.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Fabrega Sanchez in view of Li et al. (CN109193110A; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 5, Ding discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the second shapes are equation-based exponential tapers originating from a predefined point on the base and tapering exponentially away from the geometric central point towards straight edges along the planes substantially perpendicular to the base”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the second shapes are equation-based exponential tapers originating from a predefined point on the base and tapering exponentially away from the geometric central point towards straight edges along the planes substantially perpendicular to the base (fins 2)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Ding’s antenna wherein the second shapes are equation-based exponential tapers originating from a predefined point on the base and tapering exponentially away from the geometric central point towards straight edges along the planes substantially perpendicular to the base, in order to get the desired radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 6, Ding discloses “The antenna of claim 5 wherein a height of the second shapes is a sub- wavelength with respect to a lowest frequency of operation (Abstract; With the proposed structure, a compact volume of 0.33λ × 0.33λ × 0.3λ is obtained, where λ is the free-space wavelength at the lowest frequency)”.
Claims 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Fabrega Sanchez, further in view of Caratelli et al. (US20170222321; hereinafter Caratelli).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 7 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the dielectric material is a fluid substrate contained in a dielectric shell”.
However, Caratelli teaches “wherein the dielectric material is a fluid substrate contained in a dielectric shell (¶[0032]; In this context, in some embodiments one can apply a spacer structure comprising a shell which is at least partially made of at least one glass, crystal, and/or at least one polymer enclosing at least one inner space which is at least partially filled with a fluid, preferably air or demineralised water (acting as dielectric))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Caratelli and make Ding’s antenna wherein the dielectric material is a fluid substrate contained in a dielectric shell, in order to modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 7 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the fluid substrate is dielectric”.
However, Caratelli teaches “wherein the fluid substrate is dielectric (¶[0032]; In this context, in some embodiments one can apply a spacer structure comprising a shell which is at least partially made of at least one glass, crystal, and/or at least one polymer enclosing at least one inner space which is at least partially filled with a fluid, preferably air or demineralised water (acting as dielectric))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Caratelli and make Ding’s antenna wherein the fluid substrate is dielectric, in order to modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 7 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the dielectric material is a combination of one or more solid substrates and one or more liquid substrates”.
However, Caratelli teaches “wherein the dielectric material is a combination of one or more solid substrates and one or more liquid substrates (¶[0032]; Advantageously, the patch antenna according to the invention comprises a spacer structure that comprises a substrate comprising at least one dielectric substrate layer, said substrate being positioned in between the ground plane and the at least one patch. Such a structural built-up is most convenient in terms of producing the patch antenna, as well as in terms of durability and miniaturization of the patch antenna. In a particular advantageous embodiment, the dielectric substrate layer makes part of a printed circuit board (PCB), having the same advantages as above. The dielectric spacer structure, and in particular the at least one substrate layer, may also be made of a other dielectric materials such of glass, in particular Pyrex® (a clear, low-thermal-expansion borosilicate glass commercially available from Corning Incorporated), crystal, silica (silicon dioxide), ferroelectric dielectric materials, liquid crystals, at least one polymer, in particular polyvinylchloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS), polyimide (PI), a bioplastic (a plastic derived from renewable biomass sources, such as vegetable fats and oils, corn starch, pea starch or microbiota), or fluoroplastics; and/or a metal oxide, in particular titanium oxide, aluminium oxide, barium oxide, or strontium oxide. In particular, the application will commonly be prepared both from a financial point of view and from a design point of view. Polymers are relatively cheap, and moreover easy to shape using conventional moulding, extrusion and/or thermoforming techniques, and can even be shaped by way of 3D printing which provides a significant freedom of design. In this context, in some embodiments one can apply a spacer structure comprising a shell which is at least partially made of at least one glass, crystal, and/or at least one polymer enclosing at least one inner space which is at least partially filled with a fluid, preferably air or demineralised water (acting as dielectric). The application of air and water will reduce the quantity of other materials used which will further reduce the cost price of the spacer structure and therefore of the antenna according to the invention. It is also imaginable that at least a part of the spacer structure has a substantially U-shaped structure for supporting the ground plane and carrying the at least one patch, wherein an air gap is situated in between the ground plane and the at least one patch. The presence of merely air would also work as dielectric. In case an intermediate substrate would be used as part of the spacer structure, said substrate being situated in between the ground plane and the at least one patch, said substrate could consist of a laminate of multiple substrate layers, such as a core layer, an absorber layer, a reflective layer, etc. By composing the substrate of multiple layers, the overall properties could be optimized more easily)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Caratelli and make Ding’s antenna wherein the dielectric material is a combination of one or more solid substrates and one or more liquid substrates, in order to modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna and have more control over those properties.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Fabrega Sanchez, and Caratelli, further in view of Rawnick et al. (US20050017905; hereinafter Rawnick).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 11 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the fluid substrate is partially conductive”.
However, Rawnick teaches “wherein the fluid substrate is partially conductive (¶[0008-0009]; The invention concerns an antenna system with dynamically adjustable ground plane spacing. The system includes at least one antenna radiating element and a first conductive ground plane spaced from radiating element. The first conductive ground plane is comprised of a dielectric structure containing a conductive fluid. The conductive fluid can be disposed within a cavity defined within the dielectric structure. The dielectric structure can be formed as a continuous sheet between the antenna radiating elements and the second conductive ground plane. The conductive fluid can be disposed within one or more large cavities contained within the dielectric structure or can be disposed within a network of channels defined within the dielectric structure)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Rawnick and make Ding’s antenna wherein the fluid substrate is partially conductive, in order to modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ding discloses the antenna of claim 11 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the fluid substrate has solutes dissolved in the liquid to alter its electrical properties”.
However, Rawnick teaches “wherein the fluid substrate has solutes dissolved in the liquid to alter its electrical properties (¶[0008-0009]; The invention concerns an antenna system with dynamically adjustable ground plane spacing. The system includes at least one antenna radiating element and a first conductive ground plane spaced from radiating element. The first conductive ground plane is comprised of a dielectric structure containing a conductive fluid. The conductive fluid can be disposed within a cavity defined within the dielectric structure. The dielectric structure can be formed as a continuous sheet between the antenna radiating elements and the second conductive ground plane. The conductive fluid can be disposed within one or more large cavities contained within the dielectric structure or can be disposed within a network of channels defined within the dielectric structure)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Rawnick and make Ding’s antenna wherein the fluid substrate has solutes dissolved in the liquid to alter its electrical properties, in order to modify the electromagnetic properties of the antenna.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Fabrega Sanchez, further in view of Kikin et al. (US8106846; hereinafter Kikin).
Regarding claim 16, Ding discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the stubs are arranged in a clockwise direction of each of the N radiators to cause the antenna to have improved left hand circular polarization purity and bandwidth”.
However, Rawnick teaches “wherein the stubs are arranged in a clockwise direction of each of the N radiators to cause the antenna to have improved left hand circular polarization purity and bandwidth (Col. 8 Line 36; In another possible embodiment of a Left Hand Circular Polarized (LHCP) antenna, the side radiating elements 7 may be tilted in the clockwise direction and the feeding circuit 8 may provide four signals, which are equal by amplitude and have relative phases 0.degree., -90.degree., -180.degree., -270.degree. distributed between the side radiating elements 7 in the counter clockwise direction)(see definitions of left and right hand polarization in col. 8 line 24; This would be in a counter clockwise direction creating a Right Hand Circular Polarization (RHCP) if the viewer is looking into the positive boresight direction (direction of propagation) Z)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kikin and make Ding’s antenna wherein the stubs are arranged in a clockwise direction of each of the N radiators to cause the antenna to have improved left hand circular polarization purity and bandwidth, in order to properly polarize the antenna.
Regarding claim 17, Ding discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the stubs are arranged in a counterclockwise direction of each of the N radiators to cause the antenna to have improved right hand circular polarization purity and bandwidth”.
However, Rawnick teaches “wherein the stubs are arranged in a counterclockwise direction of each of the N radiators to cause the antenna to have improved right hand circular polarization purity and bandwidth (Col. 8 Line 19; To compensate the cross polarized component of radiation and to concentrate most of the radiated energy into the positive boresight direction Z, each side radiating element 7 may be tilted relative to a line perpendicular to the feeding circuit plane XY in a direction opposite to a rotation of the electrical component of a field radiated by the antenna. This would be in a counter clockwise direction creating a Right Hand Circular Polarization (RHCP) if the viewer is looking into the positive boresight direction (direction of propagation) Z. The angle of the tilt in FIG. 6 is about 45.degree. relative to the XY plane, and may be from about 5.degree. to about 85.degree)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kikin and make Ding’s antenna wherein the stubs are arranged in a counterclockwise direction of each of the N radiators to cause the antenna to have improved right hand circular polarization purity and bandwidth, in order to properly polarize the antenna.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Fabrega Sanchez, further in view of Crouch et al. (US20180159237; hereinafter Crouch).
Regarding claim 21, Ding discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Ding does not disclose “wherein the dielectric and N radiators are additively manufactured”.
However, Crouch teaches “wherein the dielectric and N radiators are additively manufactured (¶[0069]; In some embodiments, each of fins 12a, 12b, 14a, 14b fins may be fabricated using an additive manufacturing technique such as Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) from high-strength polymers such as carbon-loaded nylon (e.g., Nytek 1200 CF), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polyetherketoneketone (PEKK). It should be appreciated that the dimensions and properties of tapered slot antenna 10 and each of first and second antenna elements 12, 14, and fins 12a, 12b, 14a, 14b can be scaled accordingly to meet requirements of a particular application)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Crouch and make Ding’s antenna wherein the dielectric and N radiators are additively manufactured, in order to more efficiently manufacture the antenna systems.
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 AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights