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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 2 & 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0036428.
Regarding Claim 1, Ueda et al. teaches an antenna device (Figs. 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 6A, 6B, 9B, 10A-E) comprising:
a plurality of first antenna electrodes (20/201 Figs. 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 6A, 6B Par. 0035) corresponding to a first frequency (39 GHz Par. 0044, 0045); and
a plurality of second antenna electrodes (20/202 Figs. 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 6A, 6B Par. 0035) corresponding to a second frequency lower than the first frequency (28 GHz Par. 0044, 0045),
wherein each of the first antenna electrodes is disposed at a different one of lattice points at an interval of a half wavelength of the first frequency (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B Par. 0045), and each of the second antenna electrodes is disposed at a different one of lattice points at an interval (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B).
Ueda et al. does not explicitly teach an interval represented by the formula {(n·d)2+(m·d)2}1/2, where d is the half wavelength of the first frequency, and n and m are positive integers.
However, Ueda et al. teaches “The pitch in a 45° oblique direction becomes ((21/2)/2)Px” (Par. 0033) which is equal to 0.707 which is the same interval as {(n·d)2+(m·d)2}1/2 when n and m are equal to 1.
In this particular case, setting the interval between antenna elements is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ueda et al. to expand beamforming and suppress side lobes (Par. 0045).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the interval of the second antenna electrodes to be represented by the formula based on the teachings of Ueda et al. as a result effect in order to improve antenna performance by expanding beamforming and suppressing side lobes.
Regarding Claim 2, Ueda et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the second antenna electrodes overlaps with a different one of the first antenna electrodes in plan view. (Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B)
Regarding Claim 4, Ueda et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the second antenna electrodes is disposed at a center of an area surrounded by four first antenna electrodes of the first antenna electrodes, the four first antenna electrodes being adjacent to a corresponding one of the second antenna electrodes (Fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 5, Ueda et al. as modified teaches wherein a frequency ratio of the first frequency to the second frequency is approximately 4:3 (ratio of 39 GHz to 28 GHz is 4:2.87 which is approximately 4:3).
Regarding Claim 6, Ueda et al. as modified teaches wherein n and m are each 1 (implicit as shown in claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 7, Ueda et al. as modified teaches wherein a frequency ratio of the first frequency to the second frequency is approximately 4:1.8 (ratio of 60 GHz to 28 GHz is 4:1.866 which is approximately 4:1.8 Par. 0127).
Regarding Claim 8, Ueda et al. as modified teaches wherein n is 2, and m is 1 (implicit when frequency is 60 GHz from Par. 0127 as shown in claim 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0036428 and Yamagajo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0333407 (cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 3, Ueda et al. as modified teaches the antenna device according to claim 2 as shown in the rejection above.
Ueda et al. does not explicitly teach wherein each of the second antenna electrodes includes a coupling adjustment element that suppresses a spurious operation at the first frequency.
However, Yamagajo et al. teaches a coupling adjustment element that suppresses a spurious operation at the first frequency (slit in the antenna Figs. 19, 20 Par. 0083, 0084).
In this particular case, providing antenna elements with a coupling adjustment element such as slits that suppresses a spurious operation at the first frequency is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Yamagajo et al. to improve the antenna gain (Par. 0083, 0084).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide each of the second antenna electrodes of Ueda et al. to include a coupling adjustment element that suppresses a spurious operation at the first frequency based on the teachings of Yamagajo et al. as a result effect in order to improve the antenna gain.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “the second antenna electrodes are closer to the first surface than the second surface; a first substrate disposed closer to the second surface of the antenna substrate than the first surface of the antenna substrate, the first substrate having a surface and another surface, the surface of the first substrate and the another surface of the first substrate being disposed in such a manner that the antenna substrate is closer to the surface of the first substrate than the another surface of the first substrate, the first substrate corresponding to the first frequency and the second frequency; a second substrate disposed closer to the another surface of the first substrate than the surface of the first substrate, the second substrate having a surface and another surface, the surface of the second substrate and the another surface of the second substrate being disposed in such a manner that the first substrate is closer to the surface of the second substrate than the another surface of the second substrate, the second substrate corresponding to the second frequency; a first interposer disposed between the antenna substrate and the first substrate, the first interposer including a coaxial transmission line to transmit a signal corresponding to the first frequency and a signal corresponding to the second frequency; a second interposer disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, the second interposer including a coaxial transmission line to transmit a signal corresponding to the second frequency; a first circuit disposed on the another surface of the first substrate, the first circuit being configured to process a signal corresponding to the first frequency; and a second circuit disposed on the another surface of the second substrate, the second circuit being configured to process a signal corresponding to the second frequency” in the arrangement as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “a plurality of third antenna electrodes corresponding to a third frequency lower than the second frequency, the third antenna electrodes each being disposed at different one of lattice points at an interval of an integral multiple of the half wavelength of the first frequency” in the arrangement as required by the claim. Claims 11-16 directly or indirectly depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights