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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17th 2025 has been entered.
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, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 20200119453A1) in view of Marumoto et al. (JP 2001007628 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Takayama et al. discloses an antenna device (Antenna Module as seen in figure 5A of Takayama et al.) comprising:
a first substrate including a ground and lying along a first plane (Substrate 100 with portions 100a and 100b which include ground 90G/91G and portion 100a lies along a first plane and ; Paragraphs 66-67 and figure 4 of Takayama et al.); and
a second substrate mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane, (Dielectric layers 14 and 15 serve as secondary substrates and are mounted on the substrate 100 however only dielectric layer 14 is mounted on a second plane that is parallel to the first plane of portion 100a ; Paragraph 50-70 and figure 5A of Takayama et al.), wherein the second substrate includes
a dielectric substrate (Dielectric layers 14 and 15; Paragraphs 50-70 and figure 5A of Takayama et al.), and
a plurality of antenna elements each of which is configured to radiate a radio wave whose polarization direction is a first direction (Both secondary substrates include patch antenna elements 10a-d, 15a-d, 20a-d, and 25a-d which are configured to radiate in two polarizations directions including a first horizontal direction; Paragraphs 50-70 and 122 to 124 as well as figures 5A and figure 8 of Takayama et al.), and
the plurality of antenna elements are arranged along the first direction on the dielectric substrate on each of the plurality of second substrates (Patch antenna structures are disposed in a horizontal direction on both of the substrates 14 and 15 as seen in figure 5a of Takayama et al.).
Takayama et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and arranged in a grid pattern along the second plane.
However, Marumoto et al. does disclose a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and arranged in a grid pattern along the second plane (Phased array antenna 1 comprises a phased antenna 1 comprising a first substrate 120 upon which modules 110 are placed wherein the modules include a plurality of secondary substrates 112b which are placed in a grid pattern of 3 columns and 3 rows wherein said secondary substrates 112b comprise radiating elements 112; Paragraph 17-30 and figure 1-3 of Marumoto 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 Takayama et al. to have a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and arranged in a grid pattern along the second plane as taught by Marumoto et al. 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 stems from wanting multiple substrates to implement multiple antennas wherein said antennas can be electrically connected and if one antenna structure is defective the entire array can still operate effectively (Paragraph 10-20 of Marumoto et al.).
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_image1.png
404
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
495
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Takayama et al. further discloses an antenna module comprising: the antenna device and a feed circuit that is configured to supply a radio frequency signal to the plurality of antenna elements (Antenna device is an formed as an antenna module and a RFIC circuit 400 is used to supply a radio frequency wave to the plurality of antenna units; Paragraph 102-107 and figure 6a-b of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Regarding Claim 8, Takayama et al. further discloses comprising a base band circuit configured to generate a base band signal and to provide the base band signal to the feed circuit (A base band circuit BBIC 600 generates a base band signal that is provided to the feed circuit; Paragraph 105-109 and figure 6a-6b of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Regarding Claim 9, Takayama et al. further discloses the feed circuit is configured to upconvert the base band signal received from the base band circuit to the radio frequency signal (The base band signal can be up-converted by a feed circuit; Paragraph 105-109 of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Furthermore regarding the term “grid pattern”, due to the absence of a special definition for said term in the specifications, the examiner notes the term “grid pattern” will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and will be interpreted as a pattern comprising at least two rows and two columns of second substrates. This means a minimum of a 2x2 arrangement of secondary substrates or possibly more which brings said limitation more in line with what is taught in figures 3-4.
Regarding Claim 10, Takayama et al. further discloses wherein the feed circuit includes at least a low noise amplifier (The RFIC can include a low-noise amplifier; Paragraph 161 of Takayama et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Takayama et al. further discloses a reception circuit configured to receive radio signals received by the plurality of antenna elements (RFIC 400 can also serve as a reception system for receiving radio waves form the plurality of radio signals; Paragraph 26 and 105 of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Regarding Claim 13, Takayama et al. further discloses a communication device on which the antenna module is mounted (Communication device 200 may have the antenna module mounted on it; Paragraph 28-30 and Figure 6b of Takayama et al.).
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 20200119453A1) in view of Marumoto et al. (JP 2001007628 A) and Mizumura et al. (JP 2006121406A).
Regarding Claim 2, Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose when a wavelength of the radio wave in free space is denoted as λ, a shortest distance between each of the plurality of antenna elements and an end surface of the dielectric substrate in the first direction is λ/8 or greater on each of the plurality of second substrates.
Although Mizumura et al. fails to explicitly disclose a shortest distance is λ/8 or greater. Mizumura et al. does disclose when a wavelength of the radio wave in free space is denoted as λ, a shortest distance between each of the plurality of antenna elements and an end surface of the dielectric substrate in the first direction on each of the plurality of second substrates (Patch antenna structures 3 and 5 are disposed on dielectric structures 1 and 7 and are configured the same wherein the center of the patch antenna is spaced apart from the end surface of the dielectric by λ/8 in a first direction and thus the distance from the edge of the patch would be smaller than λ/8; Paragraph 1-12 and figure 2 of Mizumura 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 Takayama et al. to have 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 Takayama et al. so when a wavelength of the radio wave in free space is denoted as λ, a shortest distance between each of the plurality of antenna elements and an end surface of the dielectric substrate in the first direction is λ/8 or greater on each of the plurality of second substrates as taught by Mizumura et al. and Marumoto et al. since 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 stems from the fact that the placement location of the antenna on the substrate affects the antennas radiation characteristics and coupling between elements (Paragraph 3 of Mizumura et al.).
PNG
media_image3.png
671
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a shortest distance between each of the plurality of antenna elements and an end surface of the dielectric substrate in the first direction is λ/4 or less on each of the plurality of second substrates.
Although Mizumura et al. fails to explicitly disclose a shortest distance is λ/4 or less. Mizumura et al. does disclose wherein a shortest distance between each of the plurality of antenna elements and an end surface of the dielectric substrate in the first direction on each of the plurality of second substrates. (Patch antenna structures 3 and 5 are disposed on dielectric structures 1 and 7 and are configured the same wherein the center of the patch antenna is spaced apart from the end surface of the dielectric by λ/8 in a first direction and thus the distance from the edge of the patch would be smaller than λ/8; Paragraph 1-12 and figure 2 of Mizumura 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 Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. so wherein a shortest distance between each of the plurality of antenna elements and an end surface of the dielectric substrate in the first direction is λ/4 or less on each of the plurality of second substrates as taught by Mizumura et al. since 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 stems from the fact that the placement location of the antenna on the substrate affects the antennas radiation characteristics and coupling between elements (Paragraph 3 of Mizumura et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Takayama et al. further discloses wherein each of the plurality of antenna elements radiates a radio wave whose polarization direction is a second direction, the second direction being different from the first direction, in addition to the radio wave whose polarization direction is the first direction (Patch antenna elements are designed to have a second polarization in a second direction aka a vertical direction; Paragraphs 121-124 and figure 8 of Takayama et al.), and
the plurality of antenna elements are arranged along the first direction and the second direction on the dielectric substrate on each of the plurality of second substrates (Dielectric layer 14 and 15 includes patch antennas arranged in a second vertical direction wherein more columns of patch elements may be added thus extending the structure further in the vertical direction; Paragraphs 50-70 and 97 as well as figure 5a of Takayama et al.) , and radiation of the radio waves in the first direction is performed using a first feeding point and radiation of the radio waves in the second direction using a second feeding point (Waves radiated from a first feed 12a form a first polarized wave in the Y-axis direction and waves radiated form a second feed 13 a second polarization wave in the Z-axis direction; Paragraph 120-123 and figure 8 of Takayama et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the shortest distance in the first direction and a shortest distance in the second direction between each of the plurality of antenna elements and the end surface of the dielectric substrate are both λ/8 or greater on each of the plurality of second substrates.
Although Mizumura et al. fails to explicitly disclose the shortest distance is λ/8 or greater. Mizumura et al. does disclose the shortest distance in the first direction and a shortest distance in the second direction between each of the plurality of antenna elements and the end surface of the dielectric substrate on each of the plurality of second substrates (Patch antenna structures 3 and 5 are disposed on dielectric structures 1 and 7 and are configured the same wherein the center of the patch antenna is spaced apart from the end surface of the dielectric by λ/8 in a first direction and thus the distance from the edge of the patch would be smaller than λ/8, furthermore the antenna is also spaced apart in a second direction in the same way; Paragraph 1-12 and figure 2 of Mizumura 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 Takayama et al. to have 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 Mizumura et al. and Marumoto et al. to have the shortest distance in the first direction and a shortest distance in the second direction between each of the plurality of antenna elements and the end surface of the dielectric substrate are both λ/8 or greater on each of the plurality of second substrates as taught by Mizumura et al. since 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 stems from the fact that the placement location of the antenna on the substrate affects the antennas radiation characteristics and coupling between elements (Paragraph 3 of Mizumura et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Takayama et al. further discloses wherein a number of pieces of antenna elements arranged along the first direction and a number of pieces of antenna elements arranged along the second direction are the same on each of the plurality of second substrates (Each of the antenna structure on the dielectric layers 14/15 includes 4 antennas disposed in each column and only 2 columns on top of each other however, it is taught that more columns may be added such that we can have a 4x4 configuration wherein the antenna in the first and second directions match; Abstract and Paragraph 97 as well as figure 5a of Takayama et al.).
Claim(s) 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (US 20200119453A1) in view of Park et al. (US 11431107 B2) and Ueda (WO 2019102869A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the reception circuit includes a plurality of switches to switch the plurality of antenna elements from transmission to reception.
However, Ueda does disclose the reception circuit includes a plurality of switches to switch the plurality of antenna elements from transmission to reception (RFIC includes circuit components forming a receiver circuit and further comprises switches 22a-22d that switch the plurality of antenna elements for reception and transmission; Pg. 2-3 and figure 1 and 2 of Ueda).
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 Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. to have the reception circuit includes a plurality of switches to switch the plurality of antenna elements from transmission to reception as taught by Ueda to allow the use of correct circuitry to operate the antenna as reception and transmission elements (Pg. 2-3 of Ueda).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
839
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Takayama et al. discloses an antenna device (Antenna Module as seen in figure 5A of Takayama et al.) comprising:
a first substrate including a ground and lying along a first plane (Substrate 100 with portions 100a and 100b which include ground 90G/91G and portion 100a lies along a first plane and ; Paragraphs 66-67 and figure 4 of Takayama et al.); and
a second substrate mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane , (Dielectric layers 14 and 15 serve as secondary substrates and are mounted on the substrate 100 however only dielectric layer 14 is mounted on a second plane that is parallel to the first plane of portion 100a ; Paragraph 50-70 and figure 5A of Takayama et al.), wherein the second substrate includes
a dielectric substrate (Dielectric layers 14 and 15; Paragraphs 50-70 and figure 5A of Takayama et al.), and
a plurality of antenna elements each of which is configured to radiate a radio wave whose polarization direction (Both secondary substrates include patch antenna elements 10a-d, 15a-d, 20a-d, and 25a-d which are configured to radiate in two polarizations directions; Paragraphs 50-70 and 122 to 124 as well as figures 5A and figure 8 of Takayama et al.), and
the plurality of antenna elements are arranged along the first direction on the dielectric substrate on each of the plurality of second substrates (Patch antenna structures are disposed in a horizontal direction on both of the substrates 14 and 15 as seen in figure 5a of Takayama et al.).
Takayama et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and arranged in a grid pattern along the second plane, and a plurality of antenna elements each of which is configured to radiate a radio wave whose polarization direction is a direction inclined with respect to a first direction. Takayama et al. does suggest a plurality of second substrates (Dielectric layers 14 and 15 serve as secondary substrates and are mounted on the substrate 100 and comprise the same components; Paragraph 50-70 and figure 5A of Takayama et al.) that include a dielectric and a plurality of antenna elements each of which is configured to radiate a radio wave whose polarization direction is a first direction and the plurality of antenna elements are arranged along the first direction on the dielectric substrate on each of the plurality of second substrates.
However, Marumoto et al. does disclose a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and arranged in a grid pattern along the second plane (Phased array antenna 1 comprises a phased antenna 1 comprising a first substrate 120 upon which modules 110 are placed wherein the modules include a plurality of secondary substrates 112b which are placed in a grid pattern of 3 columns and 3 rows wherein said secondary substrates 112b comprise radiating elements 112; Paragraph 17-30 and figure 1-3 of Marumoto 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 Takayama et al. to have a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane and arranged in a grid pattern along the second plane as taught by Marumoto et al. 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 stems from wanting multiple substrates to implement multiple antennas wherein said antennas can be electrically connected and if one antenna structure is defective the entire array can still operate effectively (Paragraph 10-20 of Marumoto et al.).
Ueda further discloses a plurality of antenna elements each of which is configured to radiate a radio wave whose polarization direction is a direction inclined with respect to a first direction (Antenna elements 12 are arranged equal intervals in a first X-direction and can radiate with a polarization at a 45 degree angle aka an angle inclined to the direction with respect to the first direction; Pg. 5-6 and figure 2 of Ueda).
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 Takayama et al. to have a plurality of second substrates mounted on the first substrate along a second plane that is parallel to the first plane as taught by Marumoto et al. 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 stems from wanting multiple substrates to implement multiple antennas wherein said antennas can be electrically connected and if one antenna structure is defective the entire array can still operate effectively (Paragraph 10-20 of Marumoto 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 Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. to have the reception circuit includes a plurality of antenna elements each of which is configured to radiate a radio wave whose polarization direction is a direction inclined with respect to a first direction as taught by Ueda to allow the use of correct circuitry to allow the antenna elements to radiate waves with multiple polarizations and improve isolation between antenna elements (Pg. 10-11 of Ueda).
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.).
Furthermore regarding the term “grid pattern”, due to the absence of a special definition for said term in the specifications, the examiner notes the term “grid pattern” will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and will be interpreted as a pattern comprising at least two rows and two columns of second substrates. This means a minimum of a 2x2 arrangement of secondary substrates or possibly more which brings said limitation more in line with what is taught in figures 3-4.
Regarding Claim 15, Takayama et al. further discloses an antenna module comprising:
the antenna device and a feed circuit that is configured to supply a radio frequency signal to the plurality of antenna elements (Antenna device is an formed as an antenna module and a RFIC circuit 400 is used to supply a radio frequency wave to the plurality of antenna units; Paragraph 102-107 and figure 6a-b of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Regarding Claim 16, Takayama et al. further discloses a communication device on which the antenna module is mounted (Communication device 200 may have the antenna module mounted on it; Paragraph 28-30 and Figure 6b of Takayama et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Takayama et al. further discloses the feed circuit is configured to upconvert the base band signal received from the base band circuit to the radio frequency signal (The base band signal can be up-converted by a feed circuit; Paragraph 105-109 of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Regarding Claim 18, Takayama et al. further discloses the feed circuit is configured to upconvert the base band signal received from the base band circuit to the radio frequency signal (The base band signal can be up-converted by a feed circuit; Paragraph 105-109 of Takayama et al.).
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.).
Regarding Claim 19, Takayama et al. further discloses wherein the feed circuit includes at least a low noise amplifier (The RFIC can include a low-noise amplifier; Paragraph 161 of Takayama et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Takayama et al. and Marumoto et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the reception circuit includes a plurality of switches to switch the plurality of antenna elements from transmission to reception.
However, Ueda does disclose the reception circuit includes a plurality of switches to switch the plurality of antenna elements from transmission to reception (RFIC includes circuit components forming a receiver circuit and further comprises switches 22a-22d that switch the plurality of antenna elements for reception and transmission; Pg. 2-3 and figure 1 and 2 of Ueda).
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 Takayama et al. to have the reception circuit includes a plurality of switches to switch the plurality of antenna elements from transmission to reception as taught by Ueda to allow the use of correct circuitry to operate the antenna as reception and transmission elements (Pg. 2-3 of Ueda).
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.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20210028559 A1 (HWANG; Chieh-Tsao et al.) discloses a Patch antenna array wherein the patch antenna are configured for dual-polarizations.
US 12155120 B2 (Hwang; Chieh-Tsao et al.) discloses a Patch antenna array wherein the patch antennas are configured for dual-polarizations.
US 20200412025 A1 (OSHIMA; Naoki) discloses patch antenna structures capable of providing a polarization at an inclined angle.
US 11431107 B2 (Park; Ju Hyoung et al.) discloses an antenna structure wherein secondary substrates comprising radiating elements are placed on a first bigger substrate.
US 10714838 B2 (Kitamura; Yoichi et al.) discloses an antenna structure with a first substrate upon which secondary substrates are placed upon and parallel to the first substrate.
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