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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s pre-appeal brief conference request submitted on April 27, 2026. In virtue of this request, the final office action mailed on January 26, 2026 is hereby withdrawn and thus, claims 1-17 are now pending in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buralli et al. (US 5,576,718 of record).
With respect to claim 1, Buralli discloses in figures 1-2 a patch antenna array; comprising: a substrate (SD, e.g., a substrate); a ground plane (M, e.g., a ground layer) arranged on a first surface (I, e.g., a lower surface) of the substrate (see figure 2); and a plurality of patch elements (1-4, e.g., antenna patches) arranged in proximity to each other on an opposite, second surface (S, e.g., an upper surface) of the substrate (see figure 2); wherein: at least one of the plurality of patch elements (1, e.g., a first patch) has a rectangular shape (figure 1 shows the patch 1 has a rectangular shape) having a width (W1) and a height (L1), the height being different from the width (see figure 1); at least two of the plurality of patch elements (1, 3, e.g., parasitic patches) differ with respect to at least one of their respective widths and heights (figure 1 shows the first patch 1 being different with the patch 3 based on widths and heights); and each patch element of the plurality of patch elements is configured with a common resonance frequency (see column 6 in lines 38-40, e.g., “the parasitic patches are of a single type having a common resonant frequency”).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
245
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Buralli discloses that wherein each match element (2) of the patch antenna array has one feed point (5) and is configured as a single polarized patch element (see column 2 in lines 16-25), and the resonance frequency of each one of the single polarized patch elements is essentially the same (see figures 1 and 4-9).
With respect to claim 7, Buralli discloses that wherein the plurality of patch elements is arranged in a one-dimensional arrangement (see figure 1), wherein each patch element is spaced apart from each neighboring patch element (figure 1 shows the patch 1 and the patch are spaced apart) by a regular gap (figure 1 shows a gap between the two patches 1 and 2) based on a predefined center-to-center distance S (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, Buralli discloses that the plurality of patch elements is arranged in a horizontal row and the width of each patch element is essentially the same (figure 1 shows two patches 1 having the same width thereof).
With respect to claim 10, Buralli discloses that wherein the plurality of patch elements is arranged in a two-dimensional arrangement (see figures 1-2), wherein the two dimensional shape is a matrix shape (see figures 1 and 5), an L-shape, a cross shape (see figure 2) or a U-shape, and wherein each patch element is spaced apart from each neighboring patch element by a regular gap (figure 1 shows a gap between the two patches 1 and 2) based on a predefined center-to-center distance S (see figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buralli et al. (US 5,576,718 of record) in view of Egbert et al. (US 2005/0212707 of record).
With respect to claim 6, Buralli discloses all claimed limitations, as expressly recited in claim 1, except for specifying that wherein an average edge length of each patch element is based on the common resonance frequency.
Egbert discloses in figure 6 an antenna patch (24), wherein an average edge length (see paragraph 0068, e.g., “the average edge length of the multiple loops of the RFID tag antenna”) of each patch element is based on the common resonance frequency (see paragraph 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the antenna array of Buralli with an average edge length as taught by Egbert for the purpose of reducing or preventing tampering thereof since this configuration for the stated purpose would have been obvious as evidenced by the teaching of Egbert (see paragraph 0021).
Claims 11, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buralli et al. (US 5,576,718 of record) in view of Sato et al. (US 9,379,434 of record).
With respect to claim 11, Buralli discloses all claimed limitations, as expressly recited in claim 1, except for specifying that wherein at least one first patch element of the plurality of patch elements has the same width and height as a second patch element arranged at a mirror or point symmetric position of the arrangement.
Sato discloses in figure 1 a patch antenna array comprising a plurality of patch elements (5) and a substrate (1), wherein at least one first patch element (5) of the plurality of patch elements has the same width and height as a second patch element (5) arranged at a mirror or point symmetric position of the arrangement (figure 1 shows the first patch element 5 and the second patch element 5 having the same width and height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the antenna array of Buralli with patch elements having the same width and height as taught by Sato for the purpose of reducing coupling between transmission and reception while implementing sharing of polarized waves since this configuration for the stated purpose would have been obvious as evidenced by the teaching of Sato (see column 3 in lines 35-40).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Buralli and Sato disclose that wherein one or more of the plurality of patch elements comprise a slot structure (figure 4 of Sato shows slots 13 and 21).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Buralli and Sato disclose that wherein the plurality of patch elements is arranged in a horizontal row or a vertical column (see figure 1 of Sato).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Buralli and Sato disclose that wherein the plurality of patch elements is arranged in a vertical column, and the height of each patch element is essentially the same (see figure 2 of Sato).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claims 2-3, 5, 9, 12 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reasons for indicating the allowable subject matter of claim 15 were provided in the previous office action mailed on July 14, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 and 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art Houtz – US 2023/0208046 (see figures 1a-1b and paragraph 0651)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10am to 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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/TUNG X LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights