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 filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, regarding applicant’s argument that Petropoulos does not disclose a first multi-band antenna and a second multi-band antenna coupled to the same ground reference portion; since the claim does not explicitly require a direct electrical connection between them, the second multi-band antenna of Petropoulos is coupled to the same ground reference portion through base plate 112 as seen in Figs. 1 & 2. Thus the rejection is maintained.
Regarding argument that Petropoulos does not disclose a second low band radiation portion facing in a second direction, the second direction substantially opposite the first direction; as seen in the annotated Fig. 1 of Petropoulos below, the second direction substantially opposite the first direction. Thus the rejection is maintained. Additionally, regarding newly added claim 72, Ng et al. previously relied upon for claim 65 discloses operating at “frequencies of about 698 megahertz (MHz), 824 MHz, 894 MHz, 960 MHz” (Par. 0034) as shown in the rejection below. Furthermore, while not relied upon for this claim, Guntupalli et al. likewise discloses “a frequency range, i.e. 690 MHz to 960 MHz” (Par. 0060). Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
PNG
media_image1.png
968
1284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 52-59, 64, 66, 68 & 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petropoulos US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317428.
Regarding Claim 52, Petropoulos teaches an antenna system (Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a base (112 Figs. 1-2 Par. 0038);
a cover (116 Figs. 1-2 Par. 0040), the cover configured to be removably coupled to the base;
a ground reference portion (168 Fig. 3 Par. 0045) coupled to the base and positioned between the base and the cover (Figs. 1-5);
a first multi-band antenna (104A Figs. 1-5 Par. 0039) coupled to the ground reference portion (Figs. 1-5 Par. 0046), the first multi-band antenna comprising a first low band radiation portion facing in a first direction (Figs. 1-5 Par. 0030, 0039); and
a second multi-band antenna (104B Figs. 1-5 Par. 0039) coupled to the ground reference portion (Figs. 1-5 Par. 0046), the second multi-band antenna comprising a second low band radiation portion facing in a second direction, the second direction substantially opposite the first direction (Figs. 1-5 Par. 0030, 0039).
Regarding Claim 53, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first multi-band antenna comprises a first feeding portion (188 Fig. 4 Par. 0047), a first grounding portion (160 grounded to 168 through 180 Fig. 4 Par. 0046), and a first high band radiation portion (high band radiation portion implied from dual band operation Par. 0030), wherein the second multi-band antenna comprises a second feeding portion (188 Fig. 4 Par. 0047), a second grounding portion (160 grounded to 168 through 180 Fig. 4 Par. 0046), and a second high band radiation portion (high band radiation portion implied from dual band operation Par. 0030).
Regarding Claim 54, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first high band radiation portion comprises two arms coupled to a base of the first low band radiation portion (arms of 128 coupled to base 136 Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 55, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first high band radiation portion comprises a single arm coupled to a base of the first low band radiation portion (arm of 128 coupled to base 136 Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 56, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first high band radiation portion comprises a plurality of arms coupled to a base of the first low band radiation portion (arms of 128 coupled to base 136 Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 57, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first high band radiation portion comprises a plurality of arms of different lengths coupled to a base of the first low band radiation portion (arms 144 have different lengths than arms 156 or 132 coupled to base 136 as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 58, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first multi-band antenna comprises a first top low band radiation portion, the first top low band radiation portion being coplanar with the first low band radiation portion (132 coplanar with 148 Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 59, Petropoulos teaches wherein the first multi-band antenna comprises a first top low band radiation portion, the first top low band radiation portion being not-coplanar with the first low band radiation portion (132 not coplanar with 156 since 156 is higher as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 64, Petropoulos teaches wherein the ground reference portion comprises a plurality of coaxial inputs (coaxial cables 108 Figs. 1-5 Par. 0049) coupled to a plurality of microstrip transmission lines (188 Figs. 1-5 Par. 0035, 0047) embedded in the ground reference portion, wherein a first microstrip transmission line of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines extends to the first multi-band antenna and a second microstrip transmission line of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines extends to the second multi-band antenna (Par. 0035, 0047-0050).
Regarding Claim 66, Petropoulos teaches further comprising one or more multi-band WiFi antennas (104C Figs. 1-5 Par. 0030, 0039), wherein each of the one or more multi-band WiFi antennas are electrically coupled to at least one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 68, Petropoulos teaches further comprising a third multi-band antenna (104C Figs. 1-5 Par. 0030, 0039) and a fourth multi-band antenna (104D Figs. 1-5 Par. 0030, 0039) coupled to the ground reference portion, the third multi-band antenna comprising a third low band radiation portion facing in the first direction and the fourth multi-band antenna comprising a fourth low band radiation portion facing in the second direction (Figs. 1-5 Par. 0030, 0039).
Regarding Claim 69, Petropoulos teaches wherein the third multi-band antenna and the fourth multi-band antenna are substantially longitudinally aligned with the first multi-band antenna and the second multi-band antenna (Figs. 1, 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 60-63, 70 & 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petropoulos US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317428 and Guntupalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0223709.
Regarding Claim 60, Petropoulos teaches the antenna system of claim 59 as shown in the rejection above.
Petropoulos is silent on wherein the first low band radiation portion is formed on a first lower substrate and the first top low band radiation portion is formed on a top substrate, the top substrate at least partially supported by the first lower substrate.
However, Guntupalli et al. teaches a first radiator 104 made from a PCB and supported by another PCB of the lower radiator 106 through PCB 108 Fig. 1 Par. 0067-0068.
In this particular case, forming antenna elements on a substrate such as a PCB and utilizing the lower one to support the top one is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Guntupalli et al. due to being low weight, compact, cost efficient and easy to manufacture (Par. 0009).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the first low band radiation portion of Petropoulos on a first lower substrate and the first top low band radiation portion on a top substrate, and at least partially supported by the first lower substrate based on the teachings of Guntupalli et al. as a result effect in order to reduce weight, size, cost as well as the being easy to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 61, Petropoulos as modified teaches the antenna system of claim 60 as shown in the rejection above.
Petropoulos is silent on wherein the first lower substrate comprises one or more top projections, the one or more top projections configured to extend through one or more corresponding slots in the top substrate.
However, Guntupalli et al. teaches wherein the first lower substrate comprises one or more top projections (120 Fig. 1 Par. 0062), the one or more top projections configured to extend through one or more corresponding slots in the top substrate (slots in 104 corresponding to ends 120).
In this particular case, providing one or more top projections to extend through one or more corresponding slots in the top substrate is common and well known in the art as evident by Guntupalli et al. in order to provide support without using additional parts (Par. 0062).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the antenna system of Petropoulos with one or more top projections to extend through one or more corresponding slots in the top substrate based on the teachings of Guntupalli et al. as a result effect in order to provide support without using additional parts.
Regarding Claim 62, Petropoulos as modified teaches the antenna system of claim 60 as shown in the rejection above.
Petropoulos is silent on wherein the second multi-band antenna comprises a second top low band radiation portion, wherein the second low band radiation portion is formed on a second lower substrate and the second top low band radiation portion is formed on the top substrate, the top substrate at least partially supported by the second lower substrate.
However, Guntupalli et al. teaches a first radiator 104 made from a PCB and supported by another PCB of the lower radiator 106 through PCB 108 Fig. 1 Par. 0067-0068.
In this particular case, forming antenna elements on a substrate such as a PCB and utilizing the lower one to support the top one is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Guntupalli et al. due to being low weight, compact, cost efficient and easy to manufacture (Par. 0009).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a second top low band radiation portion of the second multi-band antenna of Petropoulos on a second lower substrate and the second top low band radiation portion on a top substrate, and at least partially supported by the second lower substrate based on the teachings of Guntupalli et al. as a result effect in order to reduce weight, size, cost as well as the being easy to manufacture.
Regarding Claim 63, Petropoulos as modified teaches wherein the first top low band radiation portion and the second top low band radiation portion both face in a third direction, the third direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal first and second directions as modified above and seen in Figs. 1-5 as modified with Guntupalli et al. Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 70, Petropoulos as modified teaches the antenna system of claim 60 as shown in the rejection above.
Petropoulos is silent on wherein the first grounding portion is formed on a first grounding substrate comprising one or more side projections, the one or more side projections configured to extend through one or more corresponding plated slots in the first lower substrate.
However, Guntupalli et al. teaches “the first balun 108 includes slots or cut-outs (not shown) configured to accommodate at least a connecting portion extending from each of the planar structures 114A-D, allowing snap-fit coupling therebetween. Alternatively, the planar structures 114A-D may include slots or cut-outs and the first balun 108 may include a complementary connecting portion extending to enable snap-fit coupling therebetween” Par. 0071.
In this particular case, providing antenna elements such as the first grounding portion on a substrate such as a PCB with one or more side projections configured to extend through one or more corresponding plated slots in the first lower substrate is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Guntupalli et al. due to the substrates being low weight, compact, cost efficient and easy to manufacture as well as to securely attach the substrates together without using additional parts (Par. 0009, 0062).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the first grounding portion of Petropoulos on a first grounding substrate comprising one or more side projections, and configured to extend through one or more corresponding plated slots in the first lower substrate based on the teachings of Guntupalli et al. as a result effect due to the substrates being low weight, compact, cost efficient and easy to manufacture and in order to securely attach the substrates together without using additional parts.
Regarding Claim 71, Petropoulos as modified teaches wherein the one or more plated slots and the one or more side projections are configured to provide a mechanical connection between the first grounding substrate and the first lower substrate and an electrical connection between the first grounding portion and the first multi-band antenna (implicit as modified in claim 70 above for support and electrical connection through the PCB).
Claims 65 & 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petropoulos US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317428 and Ng et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0172750.
Regarding Claim 65, Petropoulos teaches further comprising a plurality of coaxial connectors (190 Figs. 5, 6 Par. 0049).
Petropoulos is silent on wherein the ground reference portion comprises one or more reliefs positioned near the plurality of coaxial inputs, the one or more reliefs configured such that a conduction of heat during a soldering process of the plurality of coaxial connectors is inhibited.
However, Ng et al. teaches wherein the ground reference portion comprises one or more reliefs positioned near the plurality of coaxial inputs (opening in 112 Fig. 9 Par. 0046, 0062), the one or more reliefs configured such that a conduction of heat during a soldering process of the plurality of coaxial connectors is inhibited (implicit by virtue of the same structure capable of performing the same function).
In this particular case, providing one or more reliefs such as a slit, slot or cutout is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ng et al. to reduce issues during soldering (Par. 0041, 0046).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the ground reference portion of Petropoulos to comprise one or more reliefs positioned near the plurality of coaxial inputs based on the teachings of Ng et al. as a result effect in order to reduce issues during soldering such as conduction of heat during the soldering process.
Regarding Claim 72, Petropoulos as modified teaches on wherein the first low band radiation portion and the second low band radiation portion are configured for communication at frequencies (Par. 0036, 0050).
Petropoulos is silent on frequencies less than approximately 1 GHz.
However, Ng et al. teaches communication at frequencies less than approximately 1 GHz (“frequencies of about 698 megahertz (MHz), 824 MHz, 894 MHz, 960 MHz” Par. 0034).
In this particular case, operating at known frequency bands such as frequencies less than approximately 1 GHz is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ng et al. to operate in the LTE/4G band (Par. 0040).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the frequencies of the first low band radiation portion and the second low band radiation portion of Petropoulos to operate at frequencies less than approximately 1 GHz based on the teachings of Ng et al. as a result effect in order to operate in the LTE/4G band.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petropoulos US Patent Application Publication 2017/0317428 and Thiam et al. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0080323
Regarding Claim 67, Petropoulos teaches the antenna system of claim 64 as shown in the rejection above. Additionally, Petropoulos teaches “the multiband WiFi directional antenna may be configured to be operable in more or less than two frequency ranges or bands (e.g., broadband (wideband) covering several bands, etc.) and/or in one or more other frequency ranges or bands (e.g., one or more non-WiFi frequency ranges, etc.)” Par. 0030.
Petropoulos is silent on further comprising a GPS radiating devices electrically coupled to at least one of the plurality of microstrip transmission lines.
However, Thiam et al. teaches “first antenna module 106 is a satellite navigation antenna (e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna” (Figs. 1, 3 Par. 0040).
In this particular case, providing a GPS antenna is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Thiam et al. to provide wireless communication through a satellite navigation antenna for a Global Positioning System (GPS).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the antenna system of Petropoulos with a GPS radiating device coupled to one of the microstrip transmission lines based on the teachings of Thiam et al. as a result effect in order to provide wireless communication through a satellite navigation antenna for a Global Positioning System (GPS).
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 MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845