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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 15, 2026, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 09, 2024 and March 20, 2025, are in accordance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 14-16, 18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2953782 by Dennis Byatt et al. (hereinafter Byatt et al.) in view of US 6057804 by Daniel P. Kaegebein et al. (hereinafter Kaegebein et al.) and in further view of US 2521550 by Phillip H. Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Byatt et al. teaches An antenna (fig. 3), comprising:
a first radiating element (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) configured to transmit or receive a radio signal (col, 1, ll. 15-17), wherein the radiating element comprises a plurality of radiating arms (fig. 3 [3] annotated hereinbelow), wherein each of the plurality of radiating arms has an annular shape (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), and wherein each of the plurality of radiating arms is provided with a through hole (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow);
PNG
media_image1.png
782
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
2N first conductive parts (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) disposed in a first polarization direction of the first radiating element (col. 1, ll. 62-67, col. 2, ll. 3-5, fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow),
PNG
media_image2.png
782
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein N is a positive integer (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), wherein each respective first conductive part of the 2N first conductive parts is disposed within an inner radius of the annular shape of a respective radiating arm of the plurality of radiating arms (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow),
PNG
media_image3.png
782
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
wherein a distance between a respective first conductive part and a center of the first radiating element is L1 (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), a maximum distance from an edge of the first radiating element to the center of the first radiating element is L2 (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), and L1≤L2 (L1<L2fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image4.png
782
689
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Byatt et al. teaches the through hole of each of the plurality of radiating arms and one or a plurality of first conductive parts (fig. 3).
Byatt et al. does not teach and wherein the through hole of each of the plurality of radiating arms is penetrated by one or a plurality of first conductive parts.
However, Kaegebein et al. teaches and wherein the through hole (fig. 8 [31]) of each of the plurality of radiating arms (fig. 8 [38]) is penetrated by one or a plurality of first conductive parts (fig. 8 [33]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and wherein the through hole of each of the plurality of radiating arms is penetrated by one or a plurality of first conductive parts as taught by Kaegebein et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al. for the benefit of providing dual polarization.
Byatt et al. and Kaegebein et al. teaches the 2N first conductive parts and the first radiating element.
Byatt et al. and/or Kaegebein et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the 2N first conductive parts and the first radiating element are connected to a common ground.
However, Smith et al. teaches wherein the 2N first conductive parts and the first radiating element are connected to a common ground (col. 2, ll. 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the 2N first conductive parts and the first radiating element are connected to a common ground as taught by Smith et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al. and Kaegebein et al. for the benefit of shielding from electromagnetic fields (Smith et al., col. 2, ll. 10-12).
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. teaches wherein a respective first conductive part (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) is configured to narrow a beam width of the first radiating element.
PNG
media_image5.png
782
689
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 14, Byatt et al. teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a second conductive part (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow),
PNG
media_image6.png
782
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and wherein the second conductive part is located at the center of the first radiating element (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), is coupled to the first radiating element, and is configured to suppress common-mode resonance generated by the first radiating element in a second radiating element.
PNG
media_image7.png
782
691
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Byatt et al. and/or Kaegebein et al. do not explicitly teach and the second conductive part and the first radiating element are connected to the common ground.
However, Smith et al. teaches and the second conductive part and the first radiating element are connected to the common ground (col. 2, ll. 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and the second conductive part and the first radiating element are connected to the common ground as taught by Smith et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al. and Kaegebein et al. for the benefit of shielding from electromagnetic fields (Smith et al., col. 2, ll. 10-12).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” (i.e., configured to suppress common-mode resonance) 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 15, Byatt et al. teaches wherein the second conductive part a linear shape, or wherein the second conductive part is a metal strip (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image6.png
782
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note regarding the other limitation in the claim [i.e., wherein the second conductive part is a printed circuit board] is recited as alternative limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Byatt et al. teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a balun (fig. 3 [4] annotated hereinbelow), and the second conductive part is electrically connected to the balun (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image6.png
782
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Byatt et al. teaches wherein a respective first conductive part is a metal strip (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image5.png
782
689
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note regarding the other limitation in the claim [i.e., wherein a respective first conductive part is a printed circuit board] is recited as alternative limitation.
Regarding claim 21, Byatt et al. teaches wherein the plurality of radiating arms comprise four radiating arms (fig. 3 [3]), including two radiating arms in the first polarization direction and two radiating arms in a second polarization direction (col. 1, ll. 62-67, col. 2, ll. 3-5).
Regarding claim 22, Byatt et al. teaches further comprising 2N first conductive parts disposed in the second polarization direction (col. 1, ll. 62-67, col. 2, ll. 3-5, fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow);
PNG
media_image8.png
782
689
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and
wherein each of the four radiating arms (fig. 3 [3] annotated hereinbelow) comprises at least one first conductive part disposed within the inner radius of the annular shape of the radiating arm (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image9.png
782
689
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Byatt et al. teaches wherein first conductive parts disposed within a respective radiating arm have a same distance to a center of the respective radiating arm (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image10.png
782
689
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Byatt et al. teaches wherein a phase of an induced current generated on the first conductive part (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) based on the first radiating element (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) transmitting the radio signal and a phase of a current on the first radiating element are the same.
PNG
media_image11.png
782
790
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s note - Regarding the functional limitations recited herein, 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 25, Byatt et al. teaches wherein the induced current generated on the first conductive part (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) based on the first radiating element (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) transmitting the radio signal enables the first conductive part to generate another radio signal.
PNG
media_image11.png
782
790
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s note - Regarding the functional limitations recited herein, 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(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2953782 by Dennis Byatt et al. (hereinafter Byatt et al.) in view of US 6057804 by Daniel P. Kaegebein et al. (hereinafter Kaegebein et al.) in view of US 2521550 by Phillip H. Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith et al.) and in further view of US 20230071050 by Sun Bin et al. (hereinafter Bin et al.).
Regarding claim 5, Byatt et al. and/or Kaegebein et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the antenna further comprises a second radiating element.
However, Smith et al. teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a second radiating element (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image12.png
956
368
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the antenna further comprises a second radiating element as taught by Smith et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al. and Kaegebein et al. for the benefit of providing multiple frequencies.
Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and/or Smith et al. do not explicitly teach and wherein an operating frequency of the first radiating element is greater than an operating frequency of the second radiating element.
However, Bin et al. teaches and wherein an operating frequency of the first radiating element (fig. 3 [244]) is greater than an operating frequency of the second radiating element (¶ 0095, fig. 3 [224]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and wherein an operating frequency of the first radiating element is greater than an operating frequency of the second radiating element as taught by Bin et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and Smith et al. for the benefit of providing multiple frequency bands (Bin et al., ¶ 0080).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2953782 by Dennis Byatt et al. (hereinafter Byatt et al.) in view of US 6057804 by Daniel P. Kaegebein et al. (hereinafter Kaegebein et al.) in view of US 2521550 by Phillip H. Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith et al.) and in further view of US 20220052442 by Mohammad Vatankhah et al. (hereinafter Vatankhah et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Byatt et al. teaches wherein L1 is less than the first radiating element (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image13.png
782
689
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and/or Smith et al. do not explicitly teach wherein L1 is less than or equal to 0.1 times an operating wavelength of the first radiating element.
However, Vatankhah et al. teaches wherein L1 is less than or equal to 0.1 times an operating wavelength of the first radiating element (¶ 0049, 0.1 or 0.05 times the operating wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to adjust wherein L1 is less than or equal to 0.1 times an operating wavelength of the first radiating element as taught by Vatankhah et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and Smith 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. Doing so would achieve the desired radiation characteristics.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2953782 by Dennis Byatt et al. (hereinafter Byatt et al.) in view of US 6057804 by Daniel P. Kaegebein et al. (hereinafter Kaegebein et al.) in view of US 2521550 by Phillip H. Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith et al.) and in further view of FR 2808128 A1 (see attached translation for the following citation) by Le Cam Patrick et al. (hereinafter Patrick et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and/or Smith et al. do not explicitly teach wherein a length of a respective first conductive part is greater than or equal to 0.25 times the operating wavelength of the first radiating element.
However, Patrick et al. teaches wherein a length of a respective first conductive part is equal to 0.25 times the operating wavelength of the first radiating element (¶ 0010, equal to 0.25 of the wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to adjust wherein a length of a respective first conductive part is equal to 0.25 times the operating wavelength of the first radiating element as taught by Patrick et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and Smith 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. Doing so would achieve the desired radiation characteristics.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2953782 by Dennis Byatt et al. (hereinafter Byatt et al.) in view of US 6057804 by Daniel P. Kaegebein et al. (hereinafter Kaegebein et al.) in view of US 2521550 by Phillip H. Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith et al.) and in further view of US 10153552 by Masayuki Ikeda et al. (hereinafter Ikeda et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and/or Smith et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the reflective plate has a reflective surface, and wherein the first radiating element and the second conductive part are located on one side of the reflective surface.
However, Ikeda et al. teaches wherein the reflective plate has a reflective surface, and wherein the first radiating element and the second conductive part are located on one side of the reflective surface (col. 10, ll. 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the reflective plate has a reflective surface, and wherein the first radiating element and the second conductive part are located on one side of the reflective surface as taught by Ikeda et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and Smith for the benefit of reducing electromagnetic interference.
Regarding claim 19, Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and/or Smith et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the antenna further comprises a reflective plate, wherein the reflective plate has a reflective surface, and wherein the first radiating element and a respective first conductive part are located on one side of the reflective surface.
However, Ikeda et al. teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a reflective plate (col. 10, ll. 40-42, fig. 5A-5B [503]), wherein the reflective plate has a reflective surface (col. 10, ll. 40-42), and wherein the first radiating element and a respective first conductive part are located on one side of the reflective surface (col. 10, ll. 47-49, fig. 5A-5B [501, 502).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the antenna further comprises a reflective plate, wherein the reflective plate has a reflective surface, and wherein the first radiating element and a respective first conductive part are located on one side of the reflective surface as taught by Ikeda et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and Smith for the benefit of reducing electromagnetic interference.
Regarding claim 20, Byatt et al. teaches the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected (fig. 3).
Byatt et al. and/or Kaegebein et al. do not explicitly teach the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected to a common ground point.
However, Smith et al. teaches the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected to a common ground point (col. 2, ll. 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected to a common ground point as taught by Smith et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al. and Kaegebein et al. for the benefit of shielding from electromagnetic fields (Smith et al., col. 2, ll. 10-12).
Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and/or Smith et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected to a common ground point on the reflective plate.
However, Ikeda et al. teaches wherein the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected to a common ground point on the reflective plate (col. 10, ll. 40-42, 47-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first radiating element and the 2N first conductive parts are electrically connected to a common ground point on the reflective plate as taught by Ikeda et al. in the antenna of Byatt et al., Kaegebein et al. and Smith for the benefit of reducing electromagnetic interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6 the pertinent prior art, when taken alone or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the combination of elements and features of “wherein the antenna further comprises 2M second conductive parts, and the 2M second conductive parts and the second radiating element are connected to a common ground; wherein the 2M second conductive parts are disposed in a first polarization direction of the second radiating element, and Mis a positive integer; and wherein a distance between a respective second conductive part and a center of the second radiating element is L3, a maximum distance from an edge of the second radiating element to the center of the second radiating element is L4, and L3≤L4.” as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 7-13 depend therefrom and are included in the allowable subject matter.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20200099130 by Dingjiu Daojian et al.
US-20200099128 by Yanmin Yu et al.
US-20180248256 by Weihong Xiao et al.
US-20220328969 by Jian Zhang et al.
US-12627074 by Ignacio Gonzalez et al.
US-20260031549 by Haifeng Li et al.
US-20250118904 by Cheng Xue et al.
US-20230223709 by Ajay Babu Guntupalli et al.
US-11688952 by Matthew G. Salem et al.
US-20230110891 by Chengcheng Tang et al.
US-11322834 by Dingjiu Daojian et al.
US-10622706 by Young-Chan Moon et al.
US 5870064 by Daniel P. Kaegebein et al.
US 20190273315 by Zhonghao Hu et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, 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
/JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights