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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 9-26 and 32-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 2nd 2025. Elected claims 1-8, 27-31, and 37-39 are being examined on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on December 17th 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-8,27-31 and 37-39 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 1st 2025.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini et al. (US 10886625 B2) in view of Emerick et al. (US 10084231 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Franzini et al. discloses phased array antenna (Phased array antenna like 1720 as seen in figures 1-20 of Franzini et al.); comprising:
a base plate (Base plate 1716 used for a single unit cell or all of them; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.); and
a plurality of unit cells (Plurality of unit cells 1700 as seen in figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.), wherein each unit cell comprises:
a signal ear that extends outwardly from a first side of the base plate, the signal ear comprising a post wherein the post is electrically isolated from the base plate (Signal ear 1704 extends from a first side of the base plate and comprises posts 1710 and 1712 wherein post 1712 can be inserted into an airgap 1714 in the base plate so it is isolated and not touch the base plate; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.); and
a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a feed line connected to the post (Signal ear post may be connected to a feed line through a PCB connection wherein the post can be connected to an elastomeric conductor 2208 /1422 which in turn connects to a first PCB 1424 which comprises its own connector that would connect to a feed line to form the feeding structure; Paragraph 68, 127-132, and 176-170 as well as figure 14-22 of Franzini et al.).
Franzini et al. fails to explicitly disclose the signal ear comprises a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate and a feed line directly connected to the post.
However, Emerick et al. does disclose a signal ear comprises a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate and a feed line directly connected to the post (Phased array comprises a central post structure in the form of interconnect 8-2 that extends all the way through a metal plate 2-1 beyond a second side and has an end that can be directly soldered to the output lead a Power amplifier circuit board comprising a wire network which with the lead would serve as a feed line that couples the signal to the antenna; Paragraph 3-4 and 38-50 as well as figure 1-8 of Emerick 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 Franzini et al. to have a signal ear comprising a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate and a feed line directly connected to the post such that the post can be connected to a feed of PCB to feed signals to the antenna structure (Paragraph 3-4 and 38-50 as well as figure 1-8 of Emerick et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
509
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Franzini et al. further discloses wherein the post extends through an airgap or a dielectric material disposed within the base plate (Post like 1712 can extend through an airgap 1714 which may be filled with a dielectric material like Teflon; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al ).
Regarding Claim 3, Franzini et al. further discloses comprising a ground ear that extends outwardly from the first side of the base plate, the ground ear comprising a post connected to the base plate (Unit cells 1700 can comprise a ground ear 1702 with can include two posts 1706 an 1708; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini et al. (US 10886625 B2) in view of Emerick et al. (US 10084231 B2) and Sanchez et al. (US 20240429619 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the post is directly connected to the first PCB by extending the post through a through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the PCB to a second side of the PCB and soldering the post to a catch pad on the second side of the PCB.
However, Sanchez et al. does disclose wherein the post is directly connected to the first PCB by extending the post through a through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the PCB to a second side of the PCB and soldering the post to a catch pad on the second side of the PCB (Radiating elements in the form of monolith elements 110 comprise a base frame 161 of base 160 which comprises an extended through pin 168 or connectors 153 that can serve as a post wherein said posts extends from one side of the PCB 120 through to the other side, through a hole, and soldered to said side using things like solder pads 124; Paragraph 109 to 139 and figure 12-18 of Sanchez 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 Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. to have post be directly connected to the first PCB by extending the post through a through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the PCB to a second side of the PCB and soldering the post to a catch pad on the second side of the PCB as taught by Sanchez et al. to connect the radiating element to feed structures and ground structures on the other side of the PCB through use of the posts (Paragraph 109-124 of Sanchez et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
531
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the through-hole is electrically connected to the feed line.
However, Sanchez et al. does disclose wherein the through-hole is electrically connected to the feed line (Feed lines 144 connect to the posts extending through the respective holes such that the feed lines would be in electrical contact with the holes; Paragraph 109 to 139 and figure 12-18 of Sanchez 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 Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. to have the through-hole be electrically connected to the feed line as taught by Sanchez et al. to connect the radiating element to feed structures and ground structures on the other side of the PCB through use of the posts (Paragraph 109-124 of Sanchez et al.).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini et al. (US 10886625 B2) in view of Emerick et al. (US 10084231 B2), Sanchez et al. (US 20240429619 A1) and Maruhashi et al. (US 6674347 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Franzini et al., Emerick et al., and Sanchez et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the feed line is electrically isolated from a conductive surface on the second side of the PCB comprising the feed line.
However, Maruhashi et al. does disclose wherein the feed line is electrically isolated from a conductive surface on the second side of the PCB comprising the feed line (A signal conductor 7 is disposed on a side of a substrate 3 that may be a PCB where said signal conductor is spaced apart and thus isolated form a conductive surface on the same side in the form of ground layer 8 forming a coplanar waveguide line; Paragraph 4-15 and figure 1 of 1-2 of Maruhashi 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 Franzini et al., Emerick et al., and Sanchez et al. to have the feed line be electrically isolated from a conductive surface on the second side of the PCB comprising the feed line as taught by Maruhashi et al. to suppress the leakage of the signal (Paragraph 11 of Maruhashi et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
389
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini et al. (US 10886625 B2) in view of Emerick et al. (US 10084231 B2) and McGrath (US 20170256848 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. fail to disclose wherein the first PCB comprises a plurality of grounding vias, wherein the plurality of grounding vias are electrically connected to the base plate to provide a path to the ground.
However, McGrath does disclose wherein the first PCB comprises a plurality of grounding vias, wherein the plurality of grounding vias are electrically connected to the base plate to provide a path to the ground (Base plate comprises a insulating layer 380 with a top surface metallization layer 204 which can serve as a base plate upon which radiating elements like pyramids 104 may be disposed and the base further comprises a insulating layer 360b which may be a PCB that comprises vias in the form of cage posts 400/502 that serve to connect the ground plane 240a to the top metallization layer 204 and thus to the base plate, which in turn provides a path to the ground; Paragraph 27-47 and figure 2-6 of McGrath).
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 Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. to have the first PCB comprises a plurality of grounding vias, wherein the plurality of grounding vias are electrically connected to the base plate to provide a path to the ground as taught by McGrath to connect the top metallization layer and thus the antenna elements to the ground and serve as a shield (Paragraph 30-43 of McGrath).
PNG
media_image6.png
473
519
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. fail to disclose wherein the plurality of grounding vias form an electromagnetic shield around the post.
However, McGrath does disclose wherein the plurality of grounding vias form an electromagnetic shield around the post (Plurality of grounding vias 400 serve as cage posts 502 to from a cage around an conductors 220 that serve as posts wherein said cage would serve as an outer conductor element to shield the posts 220; Paragraph 30-43 and figure 3-5 of McGrath).
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 Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. to have the plurality of grounding vias form an electromagnetic shield around the post as taught by McGrath so that the vias can form an electromagnetic shield for the post (Paragraph 43 of McGrath) and block outside interference.
Claim(s) 27-28 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini et al. (US 10886625 B2) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20220328968 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Franzini et al. discloses phased array antenna (Phased array antenna like 1720 as seen in figures 1-20 of Franzini et al.); comprising:
a base plate configured to provide a path to ground (Base plate 1716 used for a single unit cell or all of them and can be connected to a coaxial cable or a PCB to provide a path to the ground; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.); and
a plurality of unit cells, wherein a first unit cell comprises a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear (Signal ear 1704 extends from a fist side of the base plate and cell can be configured to comprise a second signal ear like 2006 in figure 20 or ears like 1114b in figure 11 wherein this second ear can adjacent to the first ear due to unit cell including multiple signal ears; Paragraph 104-108 and 138-170 as well as figure 11 and 17-22 of Franzini et al.), and
wherein the first signal ear comprises a first post electrically isolated from the base plate and second signal ear comprises a second post electrically isolated from the base plate (Signal ears can have posts like 1712 that extend into an airgap such that they are isolated from the base plate and in figure 20 we can see both ears 2010 and 2006 comprise post extending into an airgap in the base plate; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.).
Franzini et al fails to explicitly disclose a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair.
However, Johnson et al. does disclose a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair (Phase array antenna includes an antenna elements with first and second arms 14a and 14b serving as a first and second signal ear that be connected to feedlines 20a/20b which are connected to a balanced feed such that they are fed parts of a differential signal to operate as a differential pair to generate a signal; Paragraph 13-17 and 29-56 as well as figure 1-5 of Johnson 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 Franzini et al. to have a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair as taught by Johnson et al. to improve the bandwidth and compatibility of the array (Paragraph 56 of Johnson et al.) and reduce unwanted radiation.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image7.png
511
525
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
523
661
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, Although, Franzini et al. does not explicitly disclose second signal ear is connected to a second feed line by a contact between the second post and the second feed line. Franzini et al. does discloses wherein the first signal ear is connected to a first feed line by a contact between the first post and the first feed line, and wherein the second signal ear is connected to a second feed line and suggest the second signal ear is connected to a second feed line by a contact between the second post and the second feed line. (Signal ear post may be connected to a feed line through a PCB connection wherein the post can be connected to an elastomeric conductor 2208 /1422 which in turn connects to a first PCB 1424 which comprises its own connector that would connect to a feed line to form the feeding structure and figure 2c and 8c disclose unit cells with multiple signal ears and each of these ears can be connected to their own feed line and a second ear 2006 comprises its own isolated post which suggest it can be connected to a PCB with a feed ; Paragraph 68, 127-132, and 176-170 as well as figure 14-22 of Franzini et al.).
However, 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 Franzini et al. to have the second signal ear is connected to a second feed line by a contact between the second post and the second feed line since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). The motivation would stem from wanting to connect a feed source to the second signal ear through the use of its second post such that it can radiate.
Regarding Claim 37, Franzini et al. further discloses wherein the base plate comprises a plurality of airgaps disposed within the base plate (Radiating unit cells like 1700/2000 may comprise post which are disposed in airgaps and may further be used in an array of radiating elements like 1720 which would comprise a base plate with a plurality of airgaps; ; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al.).
Regarding Claim 38, Franzini et al. further discloses wherein the first post is disposed within a first airgap of the plurality of airgaps and the second post is disposed within a second airgap of the plurality of airgaps (Antenna unit cell 2000 as shows a first signal ear 2010 with a first post inside a first airgap of the baseplate and a second signal ear 2006 with a second post in a second airgap of the unit cell as seen in figure 20; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al).
Regarding Claim 39, Franzini et al. further discloses wherein the first signal ear comprises a third post connected to the base plate and the second signal ear comprises a fourth post connected to the base plate (A first signal ear like 1704 can include a third post like 1714 and we can see the second signal ear 2006 includes a fourth signal post next to its post extending into the airgap; Paragraph 138-170 and figure 17-22 of Franzini et al ).
Claim(s) 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini et al. (US 10886625 B2) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20220328968 A1) and Sanchez et al. (US 20240429619 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Franzini et al. as and Johnson et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second feed line are provided on a first PCB.
However, Sanchez et al. does disclose wherein the first and second feed line are provided on a first PCB (Radiating elements in the form of monolith elements 110 comprise a base frame 161 of base 160 which comprises an extended through pin 168 or connectors 153 that can serve as a post wherein said posts extends from one side of the PCB 120 through to the other side, through a hole, and soldered to said side using things like solder pads 124 wherein the bottom side of this first PCB 120 can include multiple feed lines 144; Paragraph 109 to 139 and figure 10 and 15 of Sanchez 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 Franzini et al. and Emerick et al. and Johnson et al. to have the first and second feed line be provided on a first PCB as taught by Sanchez et al. to connect the radiating elements to the feed lines through the first PCB such that they can radiate.
Regarding Claim 30, Franzini et al. as and Johnson et al. fail to wherein the first post is connected to the first feed line by extending the first post through a first through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the first PCB to a second side of the first PCB and soldering the first post to a first catch pad electrically connected to the first feed line on the second side of the first PCB.
However, Sanchez et al. does disclose wherein the first post is connected to the first feed line by extending the first post through a first through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the first PCB to a second side of the first PCB and soldering the first post to a first catch pad electrically connected to the first feed line on the second side of the first PCB (Radiating elements in the form of monolith elements 110 comprise a base frame 161 of base 160 which comprises an extended through pin 168 or connectors 153 that can serve as a post wherein said posts extends from one side of the PCB 120 through to the other side, through a hole, and soldered to said side using things like solder pads 124; Paragraph 109 to 139 and figure 12-18 of Sanchez 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 Franzini et al. and Johnson et al. to have the first post is connected to the first feed line by extending the first post through a first through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the first PCB to a second side of the first PCB and soldering the first post to a first catch pad electrically connected to the first feed line on the second side of the first PCB as taught by Sanchez et al. to connect the radiating element to feed structures and ground structures on the other side of the PCB through use of the posts (Paragraph 109-124 of Sanchez et al.).
Regarding Claim 31, Franzini et al. as and Johnson et al. fail to wherein the second post is connected to the second feed line by extending the second post through a second through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the first PCB to a second side of the first PCB and soldering the second post to the second catch pad electrically connected to the second feed line on the second side of the first PCB.
However, Sanchez et al. does disclose wherein the second post is connected to the second feed line by extending the second post through a second through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the first PCB to a second side of the first PCB and soldering the second post to the second catch pad electrically connected to the second feed line on the second side of the first PCB. (Radiating elements may have an adjacent monolith which may serve as a second signal ear in a radiator unit cell with the first wherein this second ear can have a post like 153 that extends into the PCB and connects to a second one of lines 144 through the use of a solder pad wherein it would go through the PCB in a second through hole Paragraph 104 to 139 and figure 12-18 of Sanchez 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 Franzini et al. and Johnson et al. to have the second post is connected to the second feed line by extending the second post through a second through-hole of the first PCB from a first side of the first PCB to a second side of the first PCB and soldering the second post to the second catch pad electrically connected to the second feed line on the second side of the first PCB. as taught by Sanchez et al. to connect the radiating element to feed structures and ground structures on the other side of the PCB through use of the posts (Paragraph 109-124 of Sanchez et al.).
Response to Arguments
“Claim 1 recites "the signal ear comprising a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate... and a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a feed line directly connected to the post." That is, the signal ear includes a post, that post of the signal ear passes through the metal base plate, and the PCB feed line is directly connected to that same post of the signal ear. For example, the specification states "[e]xisting phased array antennas implement a variety of interconnect configurations for connecting signal ears to transmission feed lines" and "such existing interconnect configurations require substantial manual assembly." (Specification as filed, [0005].) In contrast, a "connectorless interface between the signals ears and the feed network can provide faster assembly and more compact design." (Id., [0006].) For example, "the posts of the signal ears extend through the base plate and are directly soldered to pads of the PCB, which eliminates the need to attach connectors to the posts of the signal ears. This connectorless arrangement between the signals ears and the feed network provides faster assembly and more compact design of the phased array antenna." (Id., [0063].)
Both Franzini and Emerick fail to teach or suggest "the signal ear comprising a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate... and a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a feed line directly connected to the post," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action acknowledges that Franzini fails to disclose "the signal ear comprises a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate and a feed line directly connected to the post." (Office Action, 4.)
Emerick fails to cure this deficiency. The Office Action maps Emerick's interconnect 8-2 to the recited post of the signal ear. However, Emerick's "metallic interconnect 8-2, surrounded by an insulting dielectric cover or simply bare, is used to connect the output lead of the PA to the input lead of the antenna." (Emerick, 6:55-67.) That is, the interconnect 8-2 is not a part of the signal ear, but is a feedthrough embedded in the metal plate that functions as a connector between the antenna and the PA. As shown in FIG. 8 of Emerick, interconnect 8-2 is clearly a feedthrough connector, not a part of the antenna. Thus, Emerick fails to teach or suggest "the signal ear comprising a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate."
Further, Emerick fails to teach or suggest "a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a feed line directly connected to the post," as recited in claim 1. Emerick' s printed wire board (PWB) is connected to the antenna via interconnect 8-2, which is an intervening connector assembly. Emerick's PWB is not directly connected to any part of the antenna, let alone a post of the antenna that extends through a base plate. Thus, Emerick fails to teach or suggest "the signal ear comprising a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate... and a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a feed line directly connected to the post," as recited in claim 1.”
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th 2025 in regards to claims 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Emerick fails to cure the deficiency “the signal ear comprising a post that extends through the base plate beyond a second side of the base plate... and a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a feed line directly connected to the post,”.
Emrick teaches that the metal interconnect 8-2 can be directly soldered to the antenna elements input (Paragraph 45 of Emerick et al.) and as such it would become one singular element where the interconnect is a part of the antenna now. As such Emerick does disclose a post that extends through a PCB and connected to a feedline. Furthermore the examiner also notes that applicants own invention discloses that the signal ear and thus its post can be made from a multitude of methods including soldering yet they are still considered a singular element (Paragraph 56-57 of Specifications).
Finally, the examiner notes that even aside from Emerick, making two parts like a signal ear and a post integral is known in the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951) and reference Sanchez et al. (US 20240429619A1) also discloses a signal ear with a post element directly as a singular unit passing through a PCB.
“The Office Action acknowledges that Franzini fails to disclose "a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair," and thus relies on Johnson. (Office Action, 12.) However, Johnson also fails to teach or suggest "a plurality of unit cells, wherein a first unit cell comprises a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair, and wherein the first signal ear comprises a first post electrically isolated from the base plate and second signal ear comprises a second post electrically isolated from the base plate," as recited in claim 27.
In Johnson, each radiating arm is deliberately connected to the ground plane through a
conductive shorting structure. As shown in Johnson's FIG. 1, each dipole arm includes a shorting arm (e.g., shorting arms 34A and 34B) having a first end connected to the dipole and a second end "in electrical connection with the common ground plane." (Johnson, [0033].) Johnson further explains that these shorting arms "short at least some of the differential signal from the dipole... to the ground plane," forming part of the common-mode mitigation path that is essential to the operation of Johnson's balanced differential feed. (Johnson, [0055].) Johnson does not disclose any structure that electrically isolates the feed posts, feedlines, or arms from the ground plane. To the contrary, the feedlines 20A and 20B are continuously electrically connected to the dipoles, which themselves are connected to the ground plane via the shorting arms. Johnson's design therefore relies on an intentional, conductive path to ground, and lacks any disclosure of a post that is electrically isolated from the base plate. Thus, Johnson fails to teach or suggest "a plurality of unit cells, wherein a first unit cell comprises a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair, and wherein the first signal ear comprises a first post electrically isolated from the base plate and second signal ear comprises a second post electrically isolated from the base plate," as recited in claim 27.
Even assuming Franzini and Johnson each teach certain individual elements of claim 27 (which is not conceded), a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the two references in the manner proposed in the Office Action. The Office Action suggests that the differential feed of Johnson could be imported into Franzini "to improve the bandwidth and compatibility of the array" and "reduce unwanted radiation," citing Johnson. (Office Action, 12.) However, Johnson's improvements arise from its balanced differential feed with conductive shorting arms to the ground plane, which is central to its common-mode mitigation approach. Franzini, by contrast, consistently employs a single-ended architecture in which each polarization uses one isolated signal ear and one ground ear that is electrically coupled to the base plate. The architectures in the two references therefore serve different design goals and operate according to incompatible principles.
Finally, even if Franzini and Johnson were combined, the resulting structure would still not meet the limitations of claim 27. While certain embodiments of Franzini disclose isolated posts, Franzini does not disclose those isolated posts operating together as a differential pair. Although Johnson teaches that two arms can operate together as a differential pair, nothing in Johnson suggests that two radiating ears drawn from different polarization paths (such as the two signal ears in Franzini's FIG. 11) could be repurposed to operate cooperatively as a differential pair, and Franzini provides no indication that these ears can be driven together. Likewise, combining Johnson with the single-signal-ear unit cells of Franzini FIGS. 17 or 20 would not supply the missing second isolated post, because those embodiments each include only one isolated signal ear per unit cell and the remaining ears are ground ears electrically coupled to the base plate. Combining Franzini and Johnson would not produce "a first unit cell compris[ing] a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair, and wherein the first signal ear comprises a first post electrically isolated from the base plate and second signal ear comprises a second post electrically isolated from the base plate," as recited in claim 27.”
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th 2025 in regards to claims 27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Franzini and Johnson fails to disclose “a plurality of unit cells, wherein a first unit cell comprises a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair, and wherein the first signal ear comprises a first post electrically isolated from the base plate and second signal ear comprises a second post electrically isolated from the base plate,".
Regarding the embodiments of figure 20, the examiner notes that while each ear may be from a separate unit cell, they can couple together and function together thus operating as if in one unit cell. However, even if examiner respectfully agrees with the applicants argument regarding figure 20, as noted by the applicant, the embodiment of Franzini figure 11 does disclose a single unit cell that comprises a first and second signal ear that are adjacent to each other wherein said post of said ears can be configured to pass through air gaps and be isolated. Franzini fails to teach a first signal ear and a second signal ear adjacent to the first signal ear for generating a signal based on a differential signal pair, and as such Johnson is relied upon to teach said component.
Regarding the shorting arms of Johnson, the examiner notes that Franzini is relied upon to teach the isolated post and Johnson is merely there to teach the differential feeding. Furthermore, the shorting arms of Johnson are merely there for comment-mode mitigation which just helps remove noise improving the differential signal transmission, however the differential signal does not need shorting arms to be employed and the absence of such arms would not prevent the use of the differential signal. The applicant’s own invention in the form of differential phased array of figure 6 also comprises shorting arms 670 and 672. Furthermore, the benefit of improving the bandwidths stems from the use of the differential signals themselves.
Finally, regarding the applicants arguments of the signals ears of Franzini being configured for different polarizations paths, the examiner notes that the polarization does not prevent differential signals pair since that is based on the differential feeding method. The polarization is used for radiation filed orientation and is based on the direction that the signal ear is positioned (Like the ears of figure 11 of Franzini), while differential feeding just requires feeding the differential signals through the two feedlines to the signal ears. Both Franzini and Johnson teach the structure required to do so (two signal ears being fed that can be connected to their feedlines). Furthermore, Johnson also teaches working with antenna elements with different polarizations that are still being fed a differential signal (Paragraph 28 of Johnson), so one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the teachings of Johnson with the antenna structure of Franzini .Finally the examiner notes, the applicants own invention discloses comprising unit cells with two signal ears that can be polarized in different directions wherein phased arrays like those of figure 3-6 can be built with a single or double polarization and that claim 27 itself does not actually recite the polarization of the signal ears or that they have to have the same polarization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 11476557 B1 (Sharma; Satish K. et al.) discloses dipole antenna fins disposed on a base plate connected to a PCB wherein grounding vias are used to connect the ground plane to the metal base plate.
US 12021297 B2 (Öjefors) discloses dipole antennas disposed on a metal layer in a substrate that serves as a base plate wherein a plurality of grounding vias extend through a PCB below the base plate and form an electromagnetic shield.
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