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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 28th 2025 has been entered.
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 1-8, 11, and 13-14 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 “allowing creeping waves to be trapped” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the creeping waves are the same as the electromagnetic waves, a subset of the electromagnetic waves, or supposed to be new waves entirety. Based on the specifications it seems when the electromagnetic wave hits the decoupling device some of the waves are not caught in the cavities and travel parallel to the surface, between frames and cells, and thus become creeping waves. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret claim 1 to mean “allowing creeping waves, of the electromagnetic waves, to be trapped” to bring the claim more in line with what is taught in the specifications and drawings.
Claims 2-8, 11, and 13-14 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1
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) 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyrouz et al. (US 10985455B2) in view of Li et al. (IDS Reference CN 114421181A) and Noda et al. (JP 2000353610 A).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, Keyrouz et al. discloses an antenna system (Antenna device 11; Paragraph 21 and figure 3b of Keyrouz et al.) comprising:
at least one elementary antenna (One of the antenna elements of 17A-C, 18A-C, and 19A-C; Paragraph 21 and figure 3b of Keyrouz et al.);
a metal plane provided around said at least one elementary antenna (Antenna elements are placed on the ground plane 13 such that it is around each antenna element wherein the ground plane is a conductive metal sheet; Paragraph 21 and 34 and figure 3b of Keyrouz et al.); and
a decoupling device arranged on said metal plane, comprising a plurality of cells arranged in an array, each cell comprising, stacked along a direction normal to the metal plane (Decoupling device in the form of a plurality of EBG components 14A or 14B are arranged on the metal plane of ground 13 and comprises an array of cells stacked along a direction normal to the metal plane; Paragraph 9, 21-23 and figure 3b and 5 of Keyrouz et al.);
Keyrouz et al. fails to disclose the decoupling device being of a three-dimensional electromagnetic absorption structure comprising:
a base; and
a raised wall on top of said base,
wherein the raised wall is shaped to form a recessed pattern for trapping electromagnetic waves, the recessed pattern comprising a plurality of frames one inside the other, wherein at least one frame of the plurality of frames is provided with at least one lug, the at least one lug extending laterally away from the at least one frame, parallel to the metal plane and cooperating with an adjacent frame of the same cell or of an adjacent cell, in order to close, at least partially, a channel extending parallel to the metal plane between the at least one frame and the adjacent frame, allowing creeping waves to be trapped.
However, Li et al. does disclose a decoupling device being of a three-dimensional electromagnetic absorption structure comprising (Wave absorbing structure comprises raised wall creates a 3D absorbing structure; Pg. 6, Paragraph 5 and figure 1 of Li);
a base (Wave absorbing panel 1; Pg. 6, Paragraph 5 and figure 1 of Li et al.); and
a raised wall on top of said base, wherein the raised wall is shaped to form a recessed pattern for trapping electromagnetic waves, the recessed pattern comprising a plurality of frames one inside the other (Absorbing walls 21 form a raised structure and comprise wave absorbing cavities 3 that with the walls form a recessed pattern such that it would absorb and in turn trap waves wherein these raised walls serve to form a plurality of frames; Pg. 3 and Pg. 6, paragraph 6 as well as figure 1 and 3 of Li et al.).
Noda et al. further discloses wherein at least one frame of the plurality of frames is provided with at least one lug, the at least one lug extending laterally away from the at least one frame, parallel to the metal plane and cooperating with an adjacent frame of the same cell or of an adjacent cell, in order to close, at least partially, a channel extending parallel to the metal plane between the at least one frame and the adjacent frame, allowing creeping waves to be trapped (Electromagnetic wave absorbing structure 11 comprises square shaped frames 13 formed from a raised wall structure such that they help absorb electromagnetic waves wherein rib structures 15 serve as lugs that extend laterally away from the frames to cooperate with an adjacent frame such that a gap between two frames 13, which would serve as a channel, is at least partially closed and the closure takes the form of multiple wall like structures formed by the plurality of ribs that would help trap creeping waves since the ones not caught by portion 13 would be stuck in the smaller cavities formed between ribs and would bounce around trapped while losing energy and be absorbed, furthermore the lugs and the channels are parallel to a metal plane formed by a metal reflector on the base of the wave absorbing structure 11; Paragraph 8-15 and figure 7-8 of Noda et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. to have a decoupling device being of a three-dimensional electromagnetic absorption structure comprising: a base, and a raised wall on top of said base, wherein the raised wall is shaped to form a recessed pattern for trapping electromagnetic waves, the recessed pattern comprising a plurality of frames one inside the other as taught by Li et al. to improve the wave absorbing capabilities of the decoupling device through the use of said wave absorbing structure (Pg. 3, Last Paragraph of Li et al.).
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. and Li et al. to have at least one frame of the plurality of frames is provided with at least one lug, the at least one lug extending laterally away from the at least one frame, parallel to the metal plane and cooperating with an adjacent frame of the same cell or of an adjacent cell, in order to close, at least partially, a channel extending parallel to the metal plane between the at least one frame and the adjacent frame, allowing creeping waves to be trapped as taught by Noda et al. since cavities formed help absorb electromagnetic waves (Paragraph 13 of Noda et al.) and the lug portions connecting the frames would also form additional smaller cavities that would also help absorb electromagnetic waves.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
515
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
614
871
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Keyrouz et al. fails to disclose wherein the recessed pattern includes an outer frame and an inner frame, the outer frame having a shape selected from among a square, a rectangle, a ring or a polygon, and the inner frame having a shape selected from a square, a rectangle, a ring or a polygon.
However, Li et al. does disclose the recessed pattern includes an outer frame and an inner frame, the outer frame having a shape selected from among a square, a rectangle, a ring or a polygon, and the inner frame having a shape selected from a square, a rectangle, a ring or a polygon (Outer frame comprises a polygon shape in the form of a hexagon and inner frame comprises a circle shape however shape of walls be changed as needed; Pg. 4 and Pg. 6, Paragraph 7 and figure 1 of Li et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. to have the recessed pattern includes an outer frame and an inner frame, the outer frame having a shape selected from among a square, a rectangle, a ring or a polygon, and the inner frame having a shape selected from a square, a rectangle, a ring or a polygon as taught by Li to improve the wave absorbing capabilities of the decoupling device (Pg. 3, Last Paragraph of Li et al.).
Regarding Claim 3, Keyrouz et al. fails to disclose a side of the base is approximately .5λ0 a thickness of the base is approximately 0.01λ0 an extension, characteristic of the raised wall is approximately 0.42λ0 a thickness of the raised wall is approximately 0.1λ0 a width of the raised wall is between 0.0425λ0 and 0.027λ0 where λ0 is a wavelength in vacuum for a minimum frequency from which an absorptivity of the decoupling device is greater than or equal to 0.9.
Although Li et al. fails to explicitly disclose a side of the base is approximately .5λ0 a thickness of the base is approximately 0.01λ0 an extension, characteristic of the raised wall is approximately 0.42λ0 a thickness of the raised wall is approximately 0.1λ0 a width of the raised wall is between 0.0425λ0 and 0.027λ0 where λ0 is a wavelength in vacuum for a minimum frequency from which an absorptivity of the decoupling device is greater than or equal to 0.9. Li does disclose a side of the base and a thickness of the base (Thickness of plate 1 is labeled as d and it would comprise a side length; Pg. 4, Paragraph 1 of Li et al.), an extension, characteristic of the raised wall, a thickness of the raised wall, and a width of the raised wall (Shape and size of the walls can be set and different from each other; Pg. 6, Paragraph 5 of Li et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. to have a side of the base is approximately .5λ0 a thickness of the base is approximately 0.01λ0 an extension, characteristic of the raised wall is approximately 0.42λ0 a thickness of the raised wall is approximately 0.1λ0 a width of the raised wall is between 0.0425λ0 and 0.027λ0 where λ0 is a wavelength in vacuum for a minimum frequency from which an absorptivity of the decoupling device is greater than or equal to 0.9 since 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) and 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would stem from the fact that the size, thickness, and other parameters of the wave absorbing structure can be changed depending on needed requirements to improve applicability of the application (Pg. 5, Paragraph 9 of Li).
Regarding Claim 4, Keyrouz et al. fails to explicitly disclose the material of said base and/or said raised wall is a thermoplastic with additive.
However, Li et al. does disclose the material of said base and/or said raised wall is a thermoplastic with additive (Material used is a polymer matrix mix serving as a thermoplastic with an additive like carbon black or other combinations; Pg. 7, Paragraph 4 of Li).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. to have the material of said base and/or said raised wall is a thermoplastic as taught by Li et al. with additive to improve the wave absorbing capabilities of the decoupling device (Pg. 3, Last Paragraph of Li et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Keyrouz et al. fails to explicitly disclose the material of said base and/or said raised wall is a statically dissipative thermoplastic.
However, Li et al. does disclose the material of said base and/or said raised wall is a statically dissipative thermoplastic (Carbon black with a polymer mix can serve to be a statically dissipative thermoplastic and it is the0 material used for base and wall; Pg. 7, Paragraph 4 of Li et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. to have the material of said base and/or said raised wall is a statically dissipative thermoplastic as taught by Li to improve the wave absorbing capabilities of the decoupling device (Pg. 3, Last Paragraph of Li et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Keyrouz et al. further discloses the cells are identical to each other (Conductive tiles 26A-C in their substrates form the cell structure and they are identical to each other; Paragraph 22 and figure 3b-4 of Keyrouz et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Keyrouz et al. further discloses said decoupling device is arranged between two elementary antennas for attenuation of a coupling between the two elementary antennas, or around one elementary antenna for attenuation of a coupling between the elementary antenna and said metal plane (Elementary Antennas 17A-C and 18A-C may be arranged with decoupling devices 14A and 14B between them to preserve isolation between antennas; Paragraph 4 and 21 as well as figure 3 of Keyrouz et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Keyrouz et al. further discloses wherein the elementary antenna is a horn antenna, a Vivaldi antenna, or a wide frequency band planar antenna (Elementary antenna 17A-C and 18A-C may be slot antennas designed to operate at various regions of the electromagnetic spectrum thus serving as wide frequency band planar antennas; Paragraph 21 and 37 as well as figure 3b of Keyrouz et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyrouz et al. (US 10985455B2), Li et al. (IDS Reference CN 114421181A) and Noda et al. (JP 2000353610 A) in view of Martel et al. (IDS Reference US 20170365931A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Keyrouz et al. , Li et al., and Noda et al. fails to disclose said metal plane is provided with a recess for receiving said decoupling device.
However, Martel et al. does disclose a metal plane is provided with a recess for receiving said decoupling device (Antenna device with antennas 17 comprises a high impedance surface device 1 that comprises a cavity which can be an integral part of the ground plane 16 thus ground plane has a cavity, serving as a recess, for receiving and implementing device 1; Paragraph 41 and 58-60 as well as figure 1 of Martel et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al. , Li et al., and Noda et al. to have said metal plane is provided with a recess for receiving said decoupling device as taught by Martel et al. to control the frequencies absorbed and those let through (Paragraph 75 of Martel et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
239
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyrouz et al. (US 10985455B2), Li et al. (IDS Reference CN 114421181A) and Noda et al. (JP 2000353610 A) in view of Kotsuka et al. (US 6057796 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Keyrouz et al., Li et al., and Noda et al. fails to disclose a recessed portion of one cell of said decoupling device is filled with a complementary material.
However, Kotsuka et al. does disclose a recessed portion of one cell of said decoupling device is filled with a complementary material (Electromagnetic wave absorber 11 comprises multiple cells with recessed portions in the form of holes 21 that may be filled with a dielectric material like carbon graphite wherein the wave absorbing structure may also comprise a carbon graphite constitution; Paragraph 15-33 and figure 6-7 of Kotsuka et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al., Li et al., and Noda et al. to have a recessed portion of one cell of said decoupling device is filled with a complementary material as taught by Kotsuka et al. to improve the matching characteristics of the absorber (Paragraph 30-33 of Kotsuka et al.) which in turn helps maximize absorption.
PNG
media_image5.png
549
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyrouz et al. (US 10985455B2), Li et al. (IDS Reference CN 114421181A) and Noda et al. (JP 2000353610 A) in view of Saroka et al. (US 10231641B2).
Regarding Claim 14, Keyrouz et al., Li et al., and Noda et al. fails to disclose the elementary antenna is a spiral, a sinuous, or a log-periodic antenna.
However, Saroka et al. does disclose the elementary antenna is a spiral, a sinuous, or a log-periodic antenna (Spiral EM Probe 300 comprises a spiral antenna having an absorbing layer 92 where spiral antenna serves as an elementary antennas; Paragraph 29 and 55 as well as figure 1 and 2c of Saroka et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Keyrouz et al., Li et al., and Noda et al. to have the elementary antenna is a spiral, a sinuous, or a log-periodic antenna as taught by Saroka et al. so the antenna will have equal portions and equal loss of energy across its shape (Paragraph 41 of Saroka et al.) and different antennas offer different radiation characteristics.
PNG
media_image6.png
479
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20240305015 A1 (FORMAGGI; Marco) relates to a configuration of a waveguide array with an array of horn antennas that includes a EBG structure.
JP 2000277972 A (NODA KENICHI) disclose an wave absorbing structure wherein between frames is a wave absorbing portion line 87 that partially closes a channel and would help trap/absorb creeping waves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Dameon E Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845