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)(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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ghosh et al (US 2023/0361469).
Regarding claim 1, Ghosh discloses in Figure 1, an antenna assembly comprising:
a conductive ground plane (10);
a lower layer (5, 11) of dielectric material above the conductive ground plane (9);
an upper layer (4) of dielectric material above the lower layer of dielectric material (5, 11),
wherein at least one of the lower (5, 11) or upper (4) layers of dielectric material comprise dielectric foam (“roha cell dielectric layers (5, 6)”, see par. 0051);
a conductive feed line (7) embedded within the lower layer (5, 11) of dielectric material between at least a section (5) of the lower layer of dielectric material and the upper layer (4) of dielectric material; and
a conductive patch (3) above the upper layer of dielectric material, wherein the conductive patch is configured for electromagnetic coupling with the conductive feed line (7).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Ghosh discloses in Figure 1,
wherein the lower layer (5, 6) of dielectric material is a first lower layer (6) of dielectric material, and wherein the antenna assembly further comprises: a second lower layer (5) of dielectric material above the first lower layer (6) of dielectric material,
such that the conductive feed line (7) is between the first (6) and second (5) lower layers of dielectric material, and
the upper layer (4) of dielectric material is above the second lower layer (5) of dielectric material.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 7, Ghosh discloses in Figure 2,
wherein the conductive feed line is a first conductive feed line (7, left side of 8), and a second conductive feed (7, right side of 8) line between at least another section of the lower layer of dielectric material and the upper layer of dielectric material.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Ghosh in Figure 1,
wherein coupling from the conductive patch (7) to the conductive feed line (7) is free of solder joints.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamogawa et al (US 6,384,785) in view of Chen (CN 105305037).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, as applied to claims 1 and 4, Kamogawa discloses in Figure 13B, an antenna assembly comprising:
a conductive ground plane (11);
a lower layer (1) of dielectric material above the conductive ground plane (11);
an upper layer (2) of dielectric material above the lower layer of dielectric material (1),
wherein at least one of the lower (2) or upper (1) layers of dielectric material comprise dielectric foam;
a conductive feed line (13) embedded within the lower layer (1) of dielectric material between at least a section of the lower layer (1) of dielectric material and the upper layer (2) of dielectric material; and
a conductive patch (12) above the upper layer (2) of dielectric material, wherein the conductive patch (12) is configured for electromagnetic coupling with the conductive feed line (13);
wherein a dielectric constant of the lower layer (1) of dielectric material is at least 25% more than a dielectric constant of the upper layer (2) of dielectric material (see col. 8, lines 49-53).
Kamogawa is silent at least more than 25%. However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to select or set the dielectric constant of the lower layer being more than 25% of the upper layer based on particular application or environment of use to optimize the radiation characteristic for the antenna assembly, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Note that, Kamogawa is silent on wherein the upper layer of dielectric material comprising dielectric foam.
Chen discloses in Figure 1, wherein the upper layer (4)of dielectric material comprising dielectric foam (see page 2 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to select the material of the upper layer being dielectric foam, since selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al (US 2023/0361469) in view of Komura (US 2025/0260169).
Regarding claim 6, Ghosh discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for a shorting structure between the conductive ground plane and the conductive patch, wherein the shorting structure is monolithic and continuous with each of the conductive ground plane and the conductive patch.
Komura discloses in Figure 4, a shorting structure (VG, see par. 0047) between the conductive
ground plane (GND) and the conductive patch (121), wherein the shorting structure (VG) is monolithic
and continuous with each of the conductive ground plane (GND) and the conductive patch (121).
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 assembly of Kamogawa and Chen with the antenna assembly having a shorting structure as taught by Komura to improve isolation between feed lines. Therefore, to employ having the shorting structure as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Conclusion
8. 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
Prosecution Insights