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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, for completeness of response, the examiner responds to Applicants’ arguments that the cited references Foo fail to teach in part, wherein the first liquid crystal layer is configured for frequency modulation and relay, while the second liquid crystal layer is configured for phase adjustment and beam scanning," as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 17.
The examiner disagrees and contends that regarding the recitations that an element is “configured for” performing 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.).
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 1-3, 5-8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo (US PGPUB 2018/0316090 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 20220094056 A1) hereinafter known as Yang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Foo discloses (Fig. 3-6) An antenna (100), comprising: a first substrate (120); a phased array antenna layer (202) located on one side of the first substrate (120); a conductive layer (218 of 202(j)) located on a side of the phased array antenna layer facing away from the first substrate and including a plurality of conductive electrodes (218 of 202(j)); a first liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(j)) located on a side of the conductive layer (218 of 202(j)) facing away from the phased array antenna layer (202); and a first antenna layer (118) located on a side of the first liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(j)) facing away from the phased array antenna layer and including a plurality of first radiators (118), wherein the phased array antenna layer includes:
a second phase-shifting electrode layer (layer of 230 of 202(1)) located on one side of the first substrate and including a plurality of second phase-shifting electrodes (230 of 202(1)); a second liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(1)) located on a side of the second phase-shifting electrode layer facing away from the first substrate;
a second substrate (250 of 202(1)) located on a side of the second liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(1)) facing away from the first substrate; and a ground electrode layer (218 of 202(2)) located on a side of the second substrate (250 of 202(1)) facing the first substrate and including a plurality of slits (218 slits), wherein the first liquid crystal layer is configured for frequency modulation and relay ([0043]), while the second liquid crystal layer is configured for phase adjustment and beam scanning ([0043]).
Foo does not teach wherein the conductive layer is adjacent to the second substrate and located on a side of the second substrate facing away from the first substrate.
Yang et al teaches an antenna assembly wherein the conductive layer(222, Figs 5, 6) is adjacent to the second substrate(200, Figs 5, 6) and located on a side of the second substrate facing away from the first substrate(100, Figs 5, 6, para. 0108).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the arrangement wherein the conductive layer is adjacent to the second substrate and located on a side of the second substrate facing away from the first substrate as taught by Yang et al in the antenna assembly of Foo so as to allow clear signal transmission and reducing interference therein.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitations herein that an element is “configured for” performing 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 2, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) wherein: the conductive layer (218 of 202(j)) includes a first phase-shifting electrode layer (218 of 202(j)) and a conductive electrode of the plurality of conductive electrodes includes a first phase-shifting electrode (218 of 202(j)); or the conductive layer includes a second antenna layer and the conductive electrode includes a second radiator.
Regarding claim 3, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) wherein: the first phase shifting electrode (218 of 202(j)) is a linear structure; or the second radiator is a block structure.
Regarding claim 5, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) wherein: a first projection of a first radiator (118) of the plurality of first radiators on the first substrate (120) is at least partially overlapped with a second projection of a first conductive electrode (218 of 202(j)) of a plurality of first electrodes on the first substrate; and a second projection of a conductive electrode (218 of 202(j)) of the plurality of conductive electrodes on the first substrate (120) is at least partially overlapped with a third projection of a second phase-shifting electrode (230 of 202(1)) of the plurality of second phase-shifting electrodes on the first substrate (120).
Regarding claim 6, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) wherein: a second projection of a conductive electrode (218 of 202(j)) of the plurality of conductive electrodes on the first substrate is at least partially overlapped with a fourth projection of a slit (slit of 218 of 212(1)) of the plurality of slits of the ground electrode layer on the first substrate (120); and a third projection of a second phase-shifting electrode (230 of 202(1)) of the plurality of second phase-shifting electrodes on the first substrate (120) is at least partially overlapped with the fourth projection of the slit (slit of 218 of 212(1)) of the plurality of slits of the ground electrode layer on the first substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) wherein: the conductive layer (218 of 202(j)) includes a first phase-shifting electrode layer (218 of 202(j)); and a conductive electrode of the plurality of conductive electrodes includes a first phase-shifting electrode (218 of 202(j)).
Regarding claim 8, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) wherein: a width of a first phase-shifting electrode (218 of 202(j)) is same as a width of the second phase-shifting electrode (230 of 202(1)) of the plurality of second phase-shifting electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, Foo further discloses (Fig. 3-6) comprising: a plurality of antenna units (110), wherein each of the plurality of antenna units includes one second phase-shifting electrode, two conductive electrodes and two first radiators, or each of the plurality of antenna units includes one second phase-shifting electrode (230 of 202(1)), one conductive electrode (218) and one first radiator (118).
Regarding claim 17, Foo discloses (Fig. 3-6) An electronic device (100), comprising: an antenna (100), including: a first substrate (120); a phased array antenna layer (202) located on one side of the first substrate (120); a conductive layer (218 of 202(j)) located on a side of the phased array antenna layer facing away from the first substrate and including a plurality of conductive electrodes (218 of 202(j)); a first liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(j)) located on a side of the conductive layer (218 of 202(j)) away from the phased array antenna
layer (202); and a first antenna layer (118) located on a side of the first liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(j)) facing away from the phased array antenna layer and including a plurality of first radiators (118), wherein the phased array antenna layer includes: a second phase-shifting electrode layer (layer of 230 of 202(1)) located on one side of the first substrate and including a plurality of second phase-shifting electrodes (230 of 202(1)); a second liquid crystal layer (246 of 202(1)) located on a side of the second phase-shifting electrode layer facing away from the first substrate; a second substrate (250 of 202(1)) located on a side of the second liquid crystal
layer (246 of 202(1)) facing away from the first substrate; and a ground electrode layer (218 of 202(2)) located on a side of the second substrate (250 of 202(1)) facing the first substrate and including a plurality of slits (218 slits), wherein the first liquid crystal layer is configured for frequency modulation and relay ([0043]), while the second liquid crystal layer is configured for phase adjustment and beam scanning ([0043]).
Foo does not teach wherein the conductive layer is adjacent to the second substrate and located on a side of the second substrate facing away from the first substrate.
Yang et al teaches an antenna assembly wherein the conductive layer(222, Figs 5, 6) is adjacent to the second substrate(200, Figs 5, 6) and located on a side of the second substrate facing away from the first substrate(100, Figs 5, 6, para. 0108).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the arrangement wherein the conductive layer is adjacent to the second substrate and located on a side of the second substrate facing away from the first substrate as taught by Yang et al in the antenna assembly of Foo so as to allow clear signal transmission and reducing interference therein.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitations herein that an element is “configured for” performing 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.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo in view of Yang et al and further in view of Yuan et al. (CN 106374170 A), hereinafter known as Yuan.
Regarding claim 9, Foo and Yang et al as modified, does not specifically teach further comprising: a first driving IC connected to a first radiator and the first phase-shifting electrode and configured to form a first driving voltage difference between the first phase-shifting electrode and the first radiator based on a first mapping curve, wherein the first mapping curve is a mapping curve between a first target phase and the first driving voltage difference; and a second driving IC connected to a second phase-shifting electrode and a ground electrode and configured to form a second driving voltage difference between the second phase-shifting electrode and the ground electrode based on a second mapping curve, wherein the second mapping curve is a mapping curve between a second target phase and the second driving voltage difference.
However, Yuan teaches (Fig. 1 and 5) a first driving IC (top A) connected to a first radiator and the first phase-shifting electrode and configured to form a first driving voltage difference between the first phase shifting electrode and the first radiator based on a first mapping curve (Fig. 5), wherein the first mapping curve is a mapping curve between a first target phase and the first driving voltage difference (Fig. 5); and a second driving IC (bottom A) connected to the second phase-shifting electrode and the ground electrode and configured to form a second driving voltage difference between a second phase-shifting electrode and a
ground electrode based on a second mapping curve (Fig. 5), wherein the second mapping curve is a mapping curve between a second target phase and the second driving voltage difference (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Yuan to include “a first driving IC connected to a first radiator and the first phase-shifting electrode and configured to form a first driving voltage difference between the first phase-shifting electrode and the first radiator based on a first mapping curve, wherein the first mapping curve is a mapping curve between a first target phase and the first driving voltage difference; and a second driving IC connected to a second phase-shifting electrode and a ground electrode and configured to form a second driving voltage difference between the second phase-shifting electrode and the ground electrode based on a second mapping curve, wherein the second mapping curve is a mapping curve between a second target phase and the second driving voltage difference,” as taught by Yuan, for the purpose of achieving a desired phase (see also [0024] of machine translation, previously submitted).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo in view of Yang et al in further view of Hsieh et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0243974 A1), hereinafter known as Hsieh.
Regarding claim 10, Foo and Yang et al as modified, does not specifically teach wherein: the conductive layer includes a second antenna layer; and a conductive electrode of the plurality of conductive electrodes includes a second radiator.
However, Hsieh teaches (Fig. 2) the conductive layer includes a second antenna layer (120); and a conductive electrode of the plurality of conductive electrodes includes a second radiator (120).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Hsieh to include “the conductive layer includes a second antenna layer; and the conductive electrode includes a second radiator,” as taught by Hsieh, for the purpose of improving efficiency (see also [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, Foo further teaches (Fig. 6) further comprising: and a fourth driving IC (260) connected to a second phase-shifting electrode (230 of 202(1)) and the ground electrode layer (218) and configured to form a fourth driving voltage difference ([0042]) between the second phase-shifting electrode (230 of 202(1)) and the ground electrode layer (218) based on a fourth mapping curve ([0048]), wherein the fourth mapping curve is a mapping curve between a target phase and the fourth driving voltage difference ([0048]).
But Foo and Yang as modified, does not specifically teach a third driving IC connected to a first radiator of the plurality of first radiators and the second radiator and configured to form a third driving voltage difference between the second radiator and the first radiator based on a third mapping curve, wherein the third mapping curve is a mapping curve between a target frequency and the third driving voltage difference.
However, Hsieh teaches (Fig. 7 and 10) a third driving IC (102) connected to a first radiator of the plurality of first radiators(110) and the second radiator (120) and configured to form a third driving voltage difference between the second radiator and the first radiator based on a third mapping curve (Fig. 10), wherein the third mapping curve is a mapping curve between a target frequency and the third driving voltage difference (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Hsieh to include “a third driving IC connected to a first radiator of the plurality of first radiators and the second radiator and configured to form a third driving voltage difference between the second radiator and the first radiator based on a third mapping curve, wherein the third mapping curve is a mapping curve between a target frequency and the third driving voltage difference,” as taught by Hsieh, for the purpose of reducing power consumption (see also [0048]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo in view of Yang et al in further view of Bresciani et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0099990 A1), hereinafter known as Bresciani.
Regarding claim 13, Foo and Yang et al does not specifically teach wherein: the first antenna layer includes at least two areas of first radiators, and a spacing between two adjacent first radiators in the first antenna layer includes at least two sizes.
However, Bresciani teaches (Fig. 3) wherein: the first antenna layer includes at least two areas of first radiators (7, 8), and a spacing between two adjacent first radiators (7, 8) in the first antenna layer includes at least two sizes.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Bresciani to include “wherein: the first antenna layer includes at least two areas of first radiators, and a spacing between two adjacent first radiators in the first antenna layer includes at least two sizes,” as taught by Bresciani, for the purpose of achieving a desired phase adjustment (see also [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Foo does not specifically teach wherein: the first antenna layer includes at least two types of antenna areas; each of the at least two types of antenna areas includes multiple first radiators; an area of a first radiator of the multiple first radiators and a spacing of the multiple first radiators in each of the at least two types of antenna areas are different from other types of antenna areas; and in the first antenna layer, in a clockwise direction, according to an arrangement order of the at least two types of antenna areas, the area of the first radiator gradually increases or decreases.
However, Bresciani teaches (Fig. 3) wherein: the first antenna layer includes at least two types of antenna areas (7, 8); each of the at least two types of antenna areas includes multiple first radiators (7, 8); an area of a first radiator of the multiple first radiators and a spacing of the multiple first radiators in each of the at least two types of antenna areas are different from other types of antenna areas (7, 8); and in the first antenna layer, in a clockwise direction, according to an arrangement order of the at least two types of antenna areas, the area of the first radiator gradually increases or decreases (7, 8 areas change in a clockwise direction).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Bresciani to include “wherein: the first antenna layer includes at least two types of antenna areas; each of the at least two types of antenna areas includes multiple first radiators; an area of a first radiator of the multiple first radiators and a spacing of the multiple first radiators in each of the at least two types of antenna areas are different from other types of antenna areas; and in the first antenna layer, in a clockwise direction, according to an arrangement order of the at least two types of antenna areas, the area of the first radiator gradually increases or decreases,” as taught by Bresciani, for the purpose of achieving a desired phase adjustment (see also [0030] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Foo does not specifically teach wherein: in the first antenna layer, in the clockwise direction, according to the arrangement order of the at least two types of antenna areas, a spacing of two adjacent first radiators of the multiple first radiators gradually increases or decreases.
However, Bresciani teaches (Fig. 3) wherein: in the first antenna layer, in the clockwise direction, according to the arrangement order of the at least two types of antenna areas, a spacing of two adjacent first radiators of the multiple first radiators gradually increases or decreases (7, 8 areas change in a clockwise direction which changes the spacing of adjacent radiators).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Bresciani to include “wherein: in the first antenna layer, in the clockwise direction, according to the arrangement order of the at least two types of antenna areas, a spacing of two adjacent first radiators of the multiple first radiators gradually increases or decreases,” as taught by Bresciani, for the purpose of achieving a desired phase adjustment (see also [0030] and [0057]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo in view of Yang et al in further view of Xi et al. (US Patent No. 11069976 B1), hereinafter known as Xi.
Regarding claim 16, Foo and Yang et al as modified does not specifically teach further comprising: a third substrate located on a side of the first antenna layer facing away from the first liquid crystal layer, wherein the first substrate and/or the third substrate are flexible substrates.
However, Xi teaches (Fig. 8) a third substrate (70) located on a side of the first antenna layer facing away from the first liquid crystal layer (12), wherein the first substrate and/or the third substrate are flexible substrates (col. 6, line 50).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna of Foo and Yang et al with Xi to include “a third substrate located on a side of the first antenna layer facing away from the first liquid crystal layer, wherein the first substrate and/or the third substrate are flexible substrates,” as taught by Xi, for the purpose of controlling the antenna (see also col. 11, lines 50-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed on the PTOL-892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicants, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights