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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: the limitation “the fifth metal layer has a third opening” should be deleted, as it is included in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-15 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first opening and the second opening are both greater than the third opening”. However, it is not clear which dimensions of the first and second opening are greater than which dimension of the third opening, and therefore claim 1 is indefinite.
For examination purposes, the above limitation is interpreted as “and a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening are both greater than a width of the third opening”. This can be clearly seen in figs. 1A, 3A, and 4-7 of the instant Application.
Claims 2-5, 10, and 12-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
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, 12, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimersky (US 2018/0358701 – of record) in view of Kellerman et al. (US 2003/0146872; “Kellerman”)
Claim 1: Gimersky discloses (see fig. 4 below) “An antenna structure (antenna 100), comprising:
a first metal layer (¶75, Base 1 06 may serve as a ground plane. ¶54, “the base 106 may be an electrically conductive material such as copper, aluminum, etc”.);
a second metal layer (302a) disposed over the first metal layer (106), wherein the second metal layer forms a first antenna resonating element operating at a first band (¶89, driven patch 302a may be tuned to tuned to establish a desired operating frequency) and has a first opening (at 114); (¶55, “The antenna 100 may include a stack of radiating elements comprising at least a first radiating element 102 and a second radiating element 104. Each radiating element 102, 104 may comprise a suitable electrically conductive material such as copper, aluminum, etc., alloys of electrically conductive materials, and so on. In some embodiments, the radiating elements 102, 104 may be patch antennas (patches).”
a third metal layer (402a) disposed over the second metal layer (302a), wherein the third metal layer (402a) forms a second antenna resonating element operating at a second band different from the first band (¶92, “the driven patch 402a may be tuned to define a resonance frequency”; abstract, first and second frequency bands; ¶73, “due to the fact that the two operating frequency bands are not overlapping”);
a first transmission line (112) extending from the first metal layer (106) to the second metal layer (302a);
a second transmission line (124) extending from the first metal layer (106) through the first opening (at 114) to the third metal layer (402a);
a fourth metal layer (302b) disposed between the second metal layer (302a) and the third metal layer (402a), wherein the fourth metal layer forms a parasitic element for the first band (¶89, “The driven and parasitic patches 302 a, 302 b that comprise radiating element 102 may be tuned to define respective resonances of the electric currents on the surfaces of the patches 302 a, 302 b to establish a desired operating frequency band for radiating element 102”) and has a second opening (at 114), and the second transmission line (124) passes through the second opening (114) to the third metal layer (402a); and
a fifth metal layer (402b) disposed between the third metal layer (402a) and the fourth metal layer (302b), wherein the fifth metal layer forms a parasitic element or a reflector for the second band (¶92, “The driven and parasitic patches 402 a, 402 b that comprise radiating element 104 may be tuned to define respective resonance frequencies in the patches 402 a, 402 b that can establish a desired operating frequency band for radiating element 104),
wherein the fifth metal layer (402b) has a third opening (at 114)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
257
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gimersky does not disclose “a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening are both greater than a width of the third opening”.
Kellerman teaches a stacked patch antenna having respective operating bands arranged in a stack (abstract). Kellerman also teaches (fig. 1 below) the width of the first opening (first opening in radiating patch 109a) and the width of the second opening (second opening in radiating patch 107a) are both greater than the width of the third opening (third opening in radiating patch 105a).
PNG
media_image2.png
249
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Kellerman to the antenna structure of Gimersky wherein a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening are both greater than a width of the third opening. Doing so provides space for an outer conductor coaxial (111c) coaxial with an inner conductor 11a which allows the lower antennas (107, 109) to be well isolated from the two upper antennas (103, 105) (¶37 of Kellerman).
Claim 2: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky discloses (fig. 4) “wherein the first transmission line (112) has a first feed terminal (dot at end of 112) at one end close to the second metal layer (302a), and the second transmission line (124) has a second feed terminal (dot at end of 124) at one end close to the third metal layer (402a) (¶66, “Resonant frequency may also be established by the way the signal is applied to the radiating element. For example, if the direct metallic connection of the feed line (e.g., feed line 122) to the radiating element does not result in good input impedance match, the introduction of a small gap between the feed line and the radiating element (to introduce a capacitance), may be enough to achieve the desired impedance match of the antenna)”.
Claim 3: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 2.
Gimersky discloses (fig. 4 and ¶66) “wherein the first feed terminal (dot at end of 112) is in direct contact with the second metal layer (302a), and the second feed terminal (dot at end of 124) is in direct contact with the third metal layer (402a)”.
Claim 4: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 2.
Gimersky discloses (¶66) “wherein the second feed terminal (dot at end of 124) is coupled to the third metal layer (402a) by electric field coupling”.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose “wherein the third metal layer has an opening and the second feed terminal is disposed in the opening of the third metal layer”.
However, Gimersky teaches (¶66) “if the direct metallic connection of the feed line (e.g., feed line 122) to the radiating element does not result in good input impedance match, the introduction of a small gap between the feed line and the radiating element (to introduce a capacitance), may be enough to achieve the desired impedance match of the antenna; this is sometimes referred to as feeding by capacitive coupling”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman, wherein the second feed terminal is coupled to the third metal layer by electric field coupling, as taught by Gimersky. Doing so improves the impedance match of the feed line and the radiating elements (¶66 of Gimersky).
Claim 5: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment of fig. 4, “additional metal layers adjacent to the third metal layer”.
Gimersky discloses, in the embodiment of fig. 6, “additional metal layers (side walls of 606) adjacent to the third metal layer (402a) (¶103, “made of the same metal (e.g., aluminum) as the cup 606 and the radiating elements 602, 604”)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiment shown in fig. 3 with the embodiment shown in fig. 6, to include additional metal layers adjacent to the third metal layer, in the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman. Doing so provides a method of supporting the transmission lines, leading to a more robust antenna structure (¶98).
Claim 12: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky discloses (fig. 4) “wherein the second transmission line (124) passes through the third opening to the third metal layer (402a).”
Claim 16: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment of fig. 4, “additional metal layers adjacent to the fifth metal layer”.
Gimersky discloses, in the embodiment of fig. 6, “additional metal layers (side walls of 606) adjacent to the third metal layer (402b) (¶103, “made of the same metal (e.g., aluminum) as the cup 606 and the radiating elements 602, 604”)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiment shown in fig. 4 with the embodiment shown in fig. 6, to include additional metal layers adjacent to the fifth metal layer, in the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman. Doing so provides a method of supporting the transmission lines, leading to a more robust antenna structure (¶98).
Claim 19: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment shown in fig. 4, “wherein in a top view, the third metal layer is formed into a rectangle, a cross, or a shape formed by cutting out four corners of a rectangle”.
However, Gimersky teaches (¶55) “the radiating elements 102, 104 may be patch antennas (patches). The patches may be circular or elliptical in shape, square-shaped, rectangular, triangular, and in general may have any suitable shape”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein in a top view, the third metal layer is formed into a rectangle, as taught by Gimersky, in the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman. Doing so allows for easy manufacture, a low profile and compatibility with standard PCB processes.
Claim 20: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose “wherein the distance between the second metal layer and the third metal layer is smaller than 1/4 wavelength corresponding to a center frequency of the second band”.
However, Gimersky does teach (¶74) that the distance, d2, between radiating elements 102, 104 (which respectively include the second metal layer 302a and the third metal layer 402a) may be in a range of a quarter of a wavelength of the resonant frequency of radiating element 102 and a quarter wavelength of the resonant frequency of radiating element 104.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman, wherein the distance between the second metal layer and the third metal layer is smaller than 1/4 wavelength corresponding to a center frequency of the second band. Doing so allows the frequency of the antenna structure to be set in according to user requirements.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimersky in view of Kellerman, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0319364 – of record; hereinafter Yang).
Claim 17: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose “a ground layer disposed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer”.
Yang teaches (fig. 5) an additional ground layer (510) disposed between the first metal layer (first ground plane 502) and the second metal layer (radiator 550).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yang to the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman further including a ground layer disposed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer. Doing so allows the antenna structure to be manufactured using two PCBs (¶130 of Yang), leading to a more robust structure and reduction in noise.
Claim 18: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second metal layer and the third metal layer are rotated n degrees with respect to the first metal layer, and n is between 0 and 90”.
Yang teaches (figs. 5 & 6 below) a stacked patch antenna including both driven (655) and parasitic (670) patch radiators (metal layers). Fig. 6 shows the driven and parasitic patch radiators are rotated with respect to first (610) and second (617) ground planes, i.e., metal layers. Yang also teaches that some, or all, patch radiators may be rotated relative to the ground plane (abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yang to the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman, wherein the second metal layer and the third metal layer are rotated n degrees with respect to the first metal layer, and n is between 0 and 90. Doing so allows for the radiation pattern of the antenna structure to be optimized.
PNG
media_image3.png
199
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
290
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimersky in view of Kellerman.
Claim 1: Gimersky discloses (fig. 4) “An antenna structure (antenna 100), comprising:
a first metal layer (106);
a second metal layer (302a) disposed over the first metal layer (106), wherein the second metal layer forms a first antenna resonating element operating at a first band (¶89, driven patch 302a may be tuned to tuned to establish a desired operating frequency) and has a first opening (at 114); (¶55, “The antenna 100 may include a stack of radiating elements comprising at least a first radiating element 102 and a second radiating element 104. Each radiating element 102, 104 may comprise a suitable electrically conductive material such as copper, aluminum, etc., alloys of electrically conductive materials, and so on. In some embodiments, the radiating elements 102, 104 may be patch antennas (patches).”
a third metal layer (402a) disposed over the second metal layer (302a), wherein the third metal layer (402a) forms a second antenna resonating element operating at a second band different from the first band (¶92, “the driven patch 402a may be tuned to define a resonance frequency”; abstract, first and second frequency bands; ¶73, “due to the fact that the two operating frequency bands are not overlapping”);
a first transmission line (112) extending from the first metal layer (106) to the second metal layer (302a);
a second transmission line (124) extending from the first metal layer (106) through the first opening (at 114) to the third metal layer (402a);
a fourth metal layer (302b) disposed between the second metal layer (302a) and the third metal layer (402a), wherein the fourth metal layer forms a parasitic element for the first band (¶89, “The driven and parasitic patches 302 a, 302 b that comprise radiating element 102 may be tuned to define respective resonances of the electric currents on the surfaces of the patches 302 a, 302 b to establish a desired operating frequency band for radiating element 102”) and has a second opening (at 114), and the second transmission line (124) passes through the second opening (114) to the third metal layer (402a); and
a fifth metal layer (402b) disposed between the third metal layer (402a) and the fourth metal layer (302b), wherein the fifth metal layer forms a third antenna resonating element operating at a third band different from the second band (¶92, “The driven and parasitic patches 402 a, 402 b that comprise radiating element 104 may be tuned to define respective resonance frequencies in the patches 402 a, 402 b that can establish a desired operating frequency band for radiating element 104”. Therefore, the fifth metal layer forms a third antenna resonating element operating at a third band that is different from the second band), wherein the fifth metal layer (402b) has a third opening (at 114)”.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment of fig. 4, “a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening are both greater than a width of the third opening; the third antenna resonating element operating at a third band different from the first band” (that is, the band generated by second metal layer 302a).
However, Gimersky does teach (¶64) that the radiating element 102 is larger than radiating element 104, and so radiating element 102 will resonate at a lower resonant frequency than the resonant frequency of radiating element 104. Gimersky also teaches (¶64) that the resonant frequency of radiating element 102 depends on its distance from the first metal layer (106). Para. [0065] of Gimersky teaches that the resonant frequency may be established based on the location of the signal feed in the radiating element. Furthermore, Gimersky teaches, in the embodiment shown in fig. 6, that radiating element 602 is tuned to an operating frequency band in the range 1.145-1.304 GHz and the radiating element 604 is tuned to an operating frequency band in the range 1.550-1.601 GHz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the third band can be different from the first band.
Regarding the width of the openings, Kellerman teaches a stacked patch antenna having respective operating bands arranged in a stack (abstract). Kellerman also teaches (fig. 1) a width of the first opening (first opening in radiating patch 109a) and a width of the second opening (second opening in radiating patch 107a) are both greater than a width of the third opening (third opening in radiating patch 105a).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Kellerman to the antenna structure of Gimersky wherein a width of the first opening and a width of the second opening are both greater than a width of the third opening. Doing so provides space for an outer conductor coaxial (111c) coaxial with an inner conductor 11a which allows the lower antennas (107, 109) to be well isolated from the two upper antennas (103, 105) (¶37 of Kellerman).
Claim 10: the modified Gimersky discloses the antenna structure as claimed in claim 1.
Gimersky does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment of fig. 4, “wherein the first band is lower than the third band, and the third band is lower than the second band”.
However, Gimersky teaches (¶64 and ¶66) that the frequency bands depend on the size and position of the metal layers, and on the position of the signal feed in the radiating element. The fifth metal element 402b, which generates the third band, is smaller than the fourth 302b and second 302a metal layers, which generate the second band. Therefore, the first band is lower than the third band. Regarding the third band being lower than the second band, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the metal layers could be sized such that the third band is lower than the second band.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna structure of Gimersky in view of Kellerman, such that the third band is lower than the second band. Doing so allows for an antenna designer to obtain the desired gain and minor lobe suppression of the antenna structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 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: The pertinent prior art, as a whole, or in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the elements and features of the claimed invention(s) as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
For example, regarding claim 13, Gimersky does not teach, or suggest, the second transmission line is divided into a first portion and a second portion, the first portion extends from the first metal layer through the first opening to the second opening, and the second portion extends from the third opening to the third metal layer.
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to due to their dependency on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845