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
Claims 47-50 and 52 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
The traversal is on the following ground(s):
The applicant argues that the International Searching Authority did not raise a unity of invention concern in the international application, so therefore there should not be one. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Just because the international authority did not make a lack of unity restriction does not mean there isn’t one or that one should not be made.
The applicant also argues that the search required for group II would extend into the search required for group I, and vice versa, due to some overlap in the dependent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. "Unity of invention has to be considered in the first place only in relation to the independent claims in an international application and not the dependent claims." MPEP 1850 II. There would still be lack of unity between the independent claims. One is an antenna while the other is a transition arrangement, both of which would require different search strategies, the searching of different terms, and a different determination of allowability which would be a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 states “two rides” on line 3 instead of “two ridges”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 36 is 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 36 states “comprising a plurality of slot layer apertures being respective slots”. This does not make sense grammatically and makes it unclear what is being claimed. It will be construed as “comprising a plurality of slot layer apertures having respective slots” for the purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stevenson et al. (US 2015/0222021, hereby referred as Stevenson).
Regarding claim 1, Stevenson teaches the following:
an antenna arrangement having a layered configuration comprising.
a slot layer (element 830, figures 8) comprising one or more slot layer apertures (elements 812, figures 8), and
a distribution layer facing the slot layer, wherein the distribution layer is arranged to distribute two radio frequency, RF, signals to the one or more slot layer apertures (as shown in figures 8 and their descriptions), the distribution layer comprising a distribution layer feed (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; not explicitly shown in figures 8, but shown as element 205 in figures 2-4, and 7) and at least one first waveguide (element 840, figures 8) arranged to guide the RF signals between the distribution layer feed and the one or more slot layer apertures (elements 812, figures 8),
wherein the first waveguide is a dual mode ridge waveguide comprising two parallel ridges (elements 820A and 820B, figures 8) arranged on the distribution layer and along the first waveguide (element 840, figures 8), wherein the two ridges are arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes (as shown in figures 8 and their descriptions).
Regarding claim 4, Stevenson as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein at least one slot layer aperture (elements 812, figures 8) is a dual mode aperture (as shown in figures 8 and their descriptions).
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
comprising at least two slot layer apertures separated from each other by half a guide wavelength (“he first half 286 of the array of tunable slots may be spaced from the second half 287 of the array of tunable slots by λ/2, represented by dimension 286, where λ is a wavelength of feed wave 205”, paragraphs [0031] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 41, Stevenson teaches the following:
a dual mode ridge waveguide for guiding a radio frequency, RF, signal, where the dual mode ridge waveguide comprising two parallel ridges (elements 820A and 820B, figures 8) arranged on one waveguide wall (element 845, figures 8) and along the waveguide (element 840, figures 8), wherein the two ridges are arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes (as shown in figures 8 and their descriptions).
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, 4, 7, 13, 24, 33, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirino et al. (US 2020/0212594) in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2015/0222021, hereby referred as Stevenson).
Regarding claim 1, Kirino teaches the following:
an antenna arrangement having a layered configuration comprising.
a slot layer (layer of element 110 where elements 112 are, figures 17) comprising one or more slot layer apertures (elements 112, figures 17), and
a distribution layer (the combination of elements 120 and 130, and the elements placed on them, figures 17) facing the slot layer, wherein the distribution layer is arranged to distribute radio frequency, RF, signals to the one or more slot layer apertures (figures 17 and their descriptions), the distribution layer comprising a distribution layer feed (elements 130, 122L, 124L, figures 17) and at least one first waveguide (elements 120, 122U, 124U, figures 17) arranged to guide the RF signals between the distribution layer feed and the one or more slot layer apertures (figures 17 and their descriptions),
wherein the first waveguide is a dual mode ridge waveguide comprising two parallel ridges (elements 122U, figures 17) arranged on the distribution layer and along the first waveguide, wherein the two ridges are arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes.
Kirino does not explicitly teach wherein the distribution layer is arranged to distribute two radio frequency, RF, signals, and wherein the two ridges are arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes.
However, Kirino does suggest there are more than two modes and two signals since in figures 5, it shows that the slot layer apertures (elements 112) have both horizontal and vertical apertures. This is known in the antenna art to allow for different polarized signals to pass through, and suggests that more than two modes and signals can be used.
Stevenson suggests the teachings of wherein the first waveguide is a dual mode ridge waveguide comprising two parallel ridges (elements 820A and 820B, figures 8) arranged on the distribution layer and along the first waveguide (element 840, figures 8), wherein the two ridges are arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes (as shown in figures 8 and their descriptions). Stevenson teaches using multiple radio frequency, RF, signals and being dual polarized (paragraphs [0058]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the distribution layer of Kirino to distribute two radio frequency signals and for the two ridges to be arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes as suggested by the teachings of Kirino, Stevenson, and known in the antenna art in order to allow for dual polarization to occur which can provide improved signal reliability and reduced interference.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein at least one slot layer aperture is a dual mode aperture (Kirino, figures 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 4 teaches the following:
comprising a plurality of dual mode apertures (Kirino, figures 5 and 17), wherein each dual mode comprises three elongated arm sections symmetrically arranged with respect to a center of the aperture, and wherein at least two of the dual mode apertures are arranged mirrored with respect to each other along the first waveguide (Kirino, as shown in figures 5).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 1 teaches the following:
comprising a second waveguide (Kirino, the left half of figures 17B-C) arranged extending in the same direction as the first waveguide (Kirino, the right half of figures 17B-C), wherein the distribution layer feed (Kirino, elements 130, 122L, 124L, figures 17) is arranged between the first and the second waveguides (Kirino, as shown in figures 17), and wherein the second waveguide is a dual mode ridge waveguide comprising two parallel ridges (Kirino, the two left 122U, figure 17B-C) arranged on the distribution layer and along the second waveguide, wherein the two ridges are arranged in proximity to each other to support two modes (as explained in claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 1 teaches the following:
further comprising an aperture layer (Kirino, layer of element 110 where elements 114 are, figures 17), the aperture layer comprising one or more aperture layer apertures (Kirino, elements 114, figures 17), wherein the one or more slot layer apertures are arranged to couple to the one or more aperture layer apertures via a mode matching structure (Kirino, the horn shape, as shown in figures 17).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 24 teaches the following:
wherein the mode matching structure, slot layer apertures, and aperture layer apertures are at least partly surrounded by an electromagnetic bandgap, EBG, structure (Kirino, elements 124, figures 17).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 1 teaches the following:
An array antenna comprising a plurality of the antenna arrangement (Kirino, as shown in figure 17) according to claim 1 (as explained in claim 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirino et al. (US 2020/0212594) in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2015/0222021, hereby referred as Stevenson), and further in view of Josefsson (US 5541612).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kirino and Stevenson as in claim 1 teaches the following:
comprising at least two slot layer apertures being respective slots (Kirino, elements 112, figures 17), wherein the two slots are arranged to couple to respective modes of the dual mode ridge waveguide (as explained in claim 1).
The combination of Kirino and Stevenson does not teach wherein one of the two respective slots is arranged extending along the first waveguide and the other slot is arranged extending orthogonal with respect to the first waveguide.
Josefsson suggests the teachings of comprising at least two slot layer apertures being respective slots (elements 26-27, figures 5), wherein the two slots are arranged to couple to respective modes of the dual mode ridge waveguide (figure 5 and its description);
wherein one of the two respective slots (elements 26, figure 5) is arranged extending along the first waveguide (element 22, figure 5) and the other slot (elements 27, figure 5) is arranged extending orthogonal with respect to the first waveguide (as shown in figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have one of the two respective slots of the combination of Kirino and Stevenson to be arranged extending along the first waveguide and the other slot is arranged extending orthogonal with respect to the first waveguide as suggested by the teachings of Josefsson in order to provide polarization diversity and reduce any interference or noise between the signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 14-15, 18-19, 25, 32, 35, 43 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.
Claim 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The rejections made in the International Search Opinion using Bagheri et al. (A ±45◦ Dual-Polarized Antenna for 5G mmWave Applications Based on Gap Waveguide Technology), Kirino et al. (US 2020/0212594) would apply to the current claims. Goebel (US 2022/0209423), Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0260137), Lynch (US 2021/0296781), Lu (CN 104518289), and others also teach an antenna arrangement having a dual mode ridge waveguide with slotted apertures and may be used to reject the current rejected claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights