DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/02/2026. In virtue of the amendment:
Claims 1-25 are pending in the instant application.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
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 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1-25 is made in view of SUDO (U.S. Pub. 2012/0229356 A1).
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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the third side portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear because “a third side portion” is not previously cited in claim 23 or claim 25.
Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (U.S. Pub. 2021/0013610) in view of SUDO (U.S. Pub. 2012/0229356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses an antenna device (Figs. 1-4g) comprising:
a ground plate (G0, Figs. 1a-1b);
a patterned radiating layer (r[1]-r[4], Figs. 1a-1b), arranged above the ground plate (G0); and
a wall structure (g[1]-g[4] & p[1]-p[4], Figs. 1a-1b, 2b, 4a), formed above the ground plate (G0),
wherein, on a first reference plane (x-plane, Figs. 1a-1b) substantially parallel with the ground plate (G0), a projection of the wall structure (g[1]-g[4] & p[1]-p[4]) overlaps a projection of the patterned radiating layer (r[1]-r[4]) (Figs. 1a-1b, 1e-1f, 4a), and, with respect to a first reference axis (y-plane, Figs. 1a-1b) substantially perpendicular to the ground plate (G0), an upper surface of the wall structure (g[1]-g[4] & p[1]-p[4]) is lower than the patterned radiating layer (r[1]-r[4]) (Figs. 1a-1b, 4a).
Chiang does not teach the wall structure isolated from the patterned radiation player.
However, as evidenced by SUDO, providing the wall structure (the plural vias 10 form a conductive wall surface 11, Figs. 1-4, par [0043]) isolated from the patterned radiation player (4, Figs. 1-4) is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to employ the antenna device of Chiang with the wall structure and connection as taught by SUDO in order to form the antenna device for transmitting and/or receiving the signal with the conductive wall that capable of reflecting a high frequency signal radiated from the radiation element.
Regarding claim 2, Chiang/SUDO discloses the antenna device wherein the wall structure (g[1]-g[4] & p[1]-p[4]) is formed on an upper surface of the ground plate (G0) (Figs. 1a-1b of Chiang).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang/SUDO discloses the antenna device wherein a projection of the upper surface of the wall structure (g[1]-g[4] & p[1]-p[4]) overlaps the projection of the patterned radiating layer (r[1]-r[4]) (Figs. 1a-1b of Chiang).
Regarding claim 5, Chiang/SUDO discloses the antenna device wherein the patterned radiating layer comprises: a first radiating plate (r[1]) and a second radiating plate (r[3]), forming a first dipole antenna extending along a first reference direction (Figs. 1a-1b of Chiang), wherein the wall structure forms a cavity which substantially surrounds the first dipole antenna (Figs. 1a-1b, 1e-1f of Chiang).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang/SUDO discloses the antenna device wherein the patterned radiating layer further comprises: a third radiating plate (r[2]) and a fourth radiating plate (r[4]), forming a second dipole antenna extending along a second reference direction (Figs. 1a-1b of Chiang) substantially orthogonal to the first reference direction, wherein the cavity formed by the wall structure substantially surrounds the second dipole antenna (Figs. 1a-1b, 1e-1f of Chiang).
Regarding claim 7, Chiang/SUDO discloses the antenna device further comprising: a plurality of parasitic plates (p[1]-p[4], Figs. 1a-1b, 1e-1f, 4a of Chiang), arranged above the wall structure (g[1]-g[4] & p[1]-p[4]), wherein a projection of the wall structure overlaps projections of the parasitic plates on the first reference plane, and projections of the parasitic plates substantially surround the projection of the patterned radiating layer (Figs. 1a-1b, 1e-1f, 4a of Chiang).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-25 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, and overcome the 112 rejection as set forth above.
Inquiry
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1832. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached on 571-272-8048. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2800.
/JIMMY T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights