DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 03/26/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 2-3 are canceled;
Claims 1 and 4 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending;
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/26/2026. These drawings are acceptable and thus the previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “low-band antenna” and “high-band antenna” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-band” and “high-band” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the term as relative to each other, i.e. the “low-band antenna” is operating at a lower frequency than “high-band antenna” rather than a specific antenna range.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 4, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the base claim from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2022/0368032A1 hereinafter “Kaufmann”.
Regarding claim 1, Kaufmann discloses a coupled feeding multi-band antenna (¶75L1: antenna [100]), comprising:
multiple multi-band antenna groups (¶75L1-5: antenna element [10-1, 10-2])), wherein
each multi-band antenna group forms a multi-band co-feeding antenna (¶82L1-8: each antenna element [10] comprising a radiating element formed of part [12] and [13] and a feed point [14]) with a grounding branch (¶82L2-3: a short to ground [16]) through a coupled feed-in electrode (¶84L13-14: the micro-strip feed network comprises a transmission line [35),
the coupled feed-in electrode is arranged on one surface of a substrate portion (¶84L10-12: a micro-strip feed network is located on the outer surface of the bent PCB), and
the grounding branch is arranged on the other surface of the substrate portion (¶88L1-5: the short to ground will contact the ground strip on the inner surface of the bent PCB)
the multi-band antenna groups are arranged on the other surface of the substrate portion (¶84L12-13: the antenna element is located on the inner surface of the bent PCB), and are connected to the grounding branches (as shown in Fig.2)
the coupled feed-in electrodes are arranged at an end of said one surface (¶84L10-12: a micro-strip feed network is located on the outer surface of the bent PCB) of the substrate portion (as shown in Fig.2),
the multi-band antenna groups are arranged at one end of said the other surface (¶84L12-13: the antenna element is located on the inner surface of the bent PCB) of the substrate portion (as shown in Fig.2), and
the grounding branches are arranged at the other end of said the other surface (¶88L1-5: the short to ground will contact the ground strip on the inner surface of the bent PCB) of the substrate portion. (as shown in Fig.2)
Regarding claim 4, Kaufmann discloses the coupled feeding multi-band antenna according to claim 2, wherein the multi-band antenna groups comprise
a plurality of branch antennas of different lengths (¶30L1-4: each of the first part and the second part may comprise an elongate element, wherein the first part has a first length and the second part has a second length, different from the first length), where multiple branch antennas of different lengths form a corresponding multi-band antenna group (¶75L1-2: four antenna element [10]; as shown in Fig.1),
the long branch antennas in the multi-band antenna group are low-band antennas, and the short branch antennas in the multi-band antenna group are high-band antennas. (¶27L1-8: the antenna may have a first resonant frequency in a first frequency band and a second resonant frequency in a second frequency band, different from the first frequency band) wherein the low-band antenna operates at a frequency lower than those of the high-band antenna.
Regarding claim 6, Kaufmann discloses a coupled feeding multi-band circularly-polarized spiral antenna (¶45L3-4: circularly polarized signal), comprising:
a feeding network portion (¶45L1: phase shifting network) and the coupled feeding multi-band antenna according to claim 1 (as rejected in claim 1 above), wherein
the coupled feeding multi-band antenna is arranged on the feeding network portion and connected to the feeding network portion through the coupled feed-in electrodes to realize single-feeding output. (¶96L1-8: phase shifting network is provided separately from the antenna element on the flexible PCB, hence a feed pin is shown extending through the ground plane to each feed point of each antenna element)
Regarding claim 9, Kaufmann discloses the coupled feeding multi-band circularly-polarized spiral antenna according to claim 6, wherein
the feeding network portion consists of a power divider and a phase shifter (¶96L1-8: the phase shifting network comprising phase shifting circuit is provided by L/C element connected between these pin), the power divider and the phase shifter adjust phases and power synthesis of each spiral arm port of the branch antennas to achieve left-handed radiation or right-handed radiation of the multi-band antenna groups (95L13-16: the phase shifting network provides the desired phase relationship between the various antenna element, such that the antenna is configured to receive or transmit RHCP).
Regarding claim 10, Kaufmann discloses the coupled feeding multi-band circularly-polarized spiral antenna according to claim 6, comprising:
a circuit board, wherein the feeding network portion is arranged on the circuit board (¶84L10-12: a micro-strip feed network is located on the outer surface of the bent PCB), and
the grounding branches are arranged on the feeding network portion and connected to the feeding network portion.(as shown in Fig.2)
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of Machine Translation of JPH0727687Y2 hereinafter “Kazuhiko”
Regarding claim 5, Kaufmann discloses the coupled feeding multi-band antenna according to claim 4
Kaufmann does not expclitly disclose:
a plurality of positioning holes are formed in two sides of the substrate portion oppositely, and edges of the positioning holes in one side of the substrate portion overlap with those of the positioning holes in the other side of the substrate portion to form the coupled feeding multi-band antenna.
Kazuhiko discloses a helical antenna wherein the flexible PCB comprises
a plurality of positioning holes (Page.2 L37-38: at the four corner of this flexible board, positioning holes 12a to 12d are provided) are formed in two sides of the substrate portion oppositely (as shown in Fig. 6), and edges of the positioning holes in one side of the substrate portion overlap with those of the positioning holes in the other side of the substrate portion to form the coupled feeding multi-band antenna. (Page.3 L10-21: as shown in Fig.10)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna element disclosed by Kaufmann to include the positioning hole as disclosed by Kazuhiko.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the hole enable positioning and fixing of the flexible substrate and the core reliably and easily. (Kazuhiko Page.2 L11-13)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann in view of US2011/0254755A1 hereinafter “DiNallo”
Regarding claim 7, Kaufmann discloses the coupled feeding multi-band circularly-polarized spiral antenna according to claim 6, wherein
the coupled feeding multi-band antenna is cylindrical (¶84L6-8: the antenna element are provided on a flexible PCB which is bent into a cylindrical shape)
Kaufmann does not expclitly disclose:
the branch antennas on a side wall of the coupled feeding multi-band antenna are in spiral distribution.
DiNallo discloses a multi-band antenna wherein
the branch antennas on a side wall of the coupled feeding multi-band antenna are in spiral distribution. (¶27L16-21: an antenna disposed in a helical configuration on a cylindrical surface; as shown in Fig.4 for example)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna element disclosed by Kaufmann to be in the helical configuration as disclosed by DiNallo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because Kaufmann recognizes different antenna element shape may be used (¶93L11-12: antenna element with other shapes and configuration could alternatively be used) and DiNallo discloses helical shape is ideal for satellite and navigation (¶5L1-11)
Regarding claim 8, Kaufmann in view of DiNallo hereinafter “Kaufmann/DiNallo” discloses in DiNallo the coupled feeding multi-band circularly-polarized spiral antenna according to claim 7, wherein
the side wall of the coupled feeding multi-band antenna is evenly divided by the branch antennas. (¶11L1-4: shorter and longer elements are uniformly spaced around a cylindrical surface)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant’s argued Kaufmann discloses a direct feed configuration therefore does not anticipate the claimed “coupled feed configuration”.
The examiner disagrees, Kaufmann expclitly discloses in ¶84L27-33 that a captative coupling may be used and that such configuration has an advantage of avoiding the need for via holes; therefore, Kaufmann not only discloses a direct feed configuration, but also discloses a coupled feed configuration as required by the claim.
Furthermore, “coupled feed-in” electrode can be interpreted both as direct or indirect coupled, thus even a “direct feed configuration” would still present an electrode that is coupled.
Applicant further argued Kaufmann discloses a conventional feeding and grounding arrangement and do not disclose the structural relationship defined in claim 1.
The argument amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Finally, applicant argued Kaufman does not disclose “end-distributed arrangement” and that Kaufmann disclose the feed point is located along an elongated antenna element and the short-to-ground connects the element to a ground strip extending toward an edge of the substrate.
The examiner disagrees, the claim does not require any specific structural relationship outside of “arranged an end” of said one surface, and Kaufmann discloses in ¶84L10-12: the micro-strip feed network is located on the outer surface of the PCB and ¶88L4-5: ground strip on the inner surface of the PCB, it can be said that the one is arranged on the “top end” and “the other is arranged on the “bottom end” of the PCB.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant’s argued the claim required “each branch antenna being an independent radiating structure” which is a features not recited in the rejected claim.
Specifically, the claim recites “a plurality of branch antenna of different length” which is expclitly disclose by Kaufmann as shown in Fig.1 wherein each antenna element has a branch 12-1 and 13-1 at different length or in Fig.2 where antenna has antenna part [12] and [13] at different length.
Regarding claim 4, the amendment merely recites the low-band operates at a lower frequency than high band, and still does not define any quantitative boundaries for the frequency ranges, and although examiner is interpreting the claim as relative frequency to each other; the amendment does not overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant’s argued Kazuhiko does not disclose the positioning hole is part of the antenna structure and that the hold do not overlap.
The examiner disagree, as show in Fig.10 of Kazuhiko, the holes 12a and 12b are overlapped to each other when wrap around the core, and the flexible substrate is part of the of the antenna.
Regarding claims 7-8, the applicant argued DiNallo employs a direct structure, therefore does not disclose the coupled-feed in structure required by the claim.
The examiner disagrees, the examiner does not rely on DiNallo to disclose coupled-feed in structure, that has already been addressed and disclosed by Kaufmann; the only feature DiNallo is being used to considered the spiral/helical structure of the antenna; which DiNallo expclitly disclose in Fig.4.
For the at least foregoing reasons, all rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights