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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-15, and cancelled claims 3, 8, and 11. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 2, 2025. The remaining the 112(b) rejections and the Specification and Claims objections are stated below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “an order of millimeters” in line 13 lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the order of millimeters”
In claim 2, “an order of millimeters” in line 9 lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the order of millimeters”
In claims 7 and 15, “the two dipole arms ;” is improper and should read “the two dipole arms;”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a microstrip" in lines 11, 15, and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are referring to a previous “microstrip” or new limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a dielectric plate clad with copper" in lines 11, 16, and 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are referring to a previous “a dielectric plate clad with copper” or new limitations.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "faces, clad with copper entirely, of the first microstrip dipole arm and the second microstrip dipole arm" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation are referring to the previous “double faces clad with copper” or “one face is clad with copper entirely” or a new limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the limitation as “the one face clad with copper entirely of the first microstrip dipole arm and the second microstrip dipole arm”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the microstrip line of the first microstrip dipole arm" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the microstrip line of the second microstrip dipole arm" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a slot" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation are referring to the previous “slot” or a new limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the slot" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which previous “slot” this limitation is referencing.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the two dipole arms" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the dipole arms" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “on dipole units to-be-adjusted" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation are referring to the previous “dipole units to-be-adjusted” or a new limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a slot" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation are referring to the previous “slot” or a new limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the slot" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which previous “slot” this limitation is referencing.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the two dipole arms" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the dipole arms" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-6 and 9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 13-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 2.
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)(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 1-2, 5-6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ippolito et al. (US Patent No. 6072439 A), hereinafter known as Ippolito.
Regarding claim 1, Ippolito discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) A low-frequency band dipole unit (11a), comprising: a first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole), a second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole), and a support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) are in a criss-cross perpendicular arrangement; the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) is in a T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in an order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a straight line when viewed from above; a front face of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) is engraved with a first microstrip line (75) in a form of a microstrip (75) or in a manner of a dielectric plate clad with copper, and is configured for feeding the low-frequency band dipole unit in +45° polarization (col. 1, lines 36-38); a back face of the first microstrip dipole arm is engraved with a metal ground (18b; col. 4, lines 52-53) in the form of a microstrip or in the manner of a dielectric plate clad with copper (73, 18b; col. 4, lines 17-19); the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) is in the T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in an order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a straight line when viewed from above; a front face of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) is engraved with a second microstrip line (75) in the form of a microstrip (75) or in the manner of a dielectric plate clad with copper, and is used for feeding the low-frequency band dipole unit in -45° polarization (col. 1, lines 36-38); a back face of the second microstrip dipole arm is engraved with another metal ground (18a; col. 4, lines 52-53) in the form of a microstrip or in the manner of a dielectric plate clad with copper (73, 18a; col. 4, lines 17-19); wherein the two upward vertical arms of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the two upward vertical arms of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are configured to reduce coupling and blocking with other-frequency band dipole units by shortening transverse dimensions of the first microstrip dipole arm and the second microstrip dipole arm and enabling flexible nested arrangement with other-frequency band array units (col. 7, lines 24-28); and the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) has a slot structure (82) for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a); wherein the first microstrip line (75) of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) has a first-stage bent segment (75 of 18b) upwards starting from a first feeding port, which is denoted as a first bent segment; the second microstrip line (75) of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has another first-stage bent segment (75 of 18a) upwards starting from a second feeding port, which is denoted as a second bent segment; wherein a length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) is less than a length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a), and a difference in the length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) and the length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a) is less than a width of the first microstrip line (75) or the second microstrip line (75); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are each in a face structure, and wherein each of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has a thickness that lies in a range between 0.254 and 3.048 mm (col. 7, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 2, Ippolito discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) A low-frequency band dipole unit (11a), comprising: a first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole), a second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole), and a support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) are in a criss-cross perpendicular arrangement; the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) is in a T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in an order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a straight line when viewed from above; the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) is in the T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in an order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a straight line when viewed from above; the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) are each in a form of double faces clad with copper, wherein one face is clad with copper entirely (73, 18a; col. 4, lines 17-19), and another face is etched with a microstrip line (75); wherein faces, clad with copper entirely (73, 18a; col. 4, lines 17-19), of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) have identical copper cladding regions (73); the microstrip line of the first microstrip dipole arm (75 of 18b dipole) is different from the microstrip line of the second microstrip dipole arm (75 of 18a dipole); wherein the two upward vertical arms of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the two upward vertical arms of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are configured to reduce coupling and blocking with other-frequency band dipole units by shortening transverse dimensions of the first microstrip dipole arm and the second microstrip dipole arm and enabling flexible nested arrangement with other-frequency band array units (col. 7, lines 24-28); the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) has a slot structure (82) for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a); wherein the microstrip line (75) of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) has a first-stage bent segment (75 of 18b) upwards starting from a first feeding port, which is denoted as a first bent segment; the microstrip line (75) of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has another first-stage bent segment (75 of 18a) upwards starting from a second feeding port, which is denoted as a second bent segment; and a length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) is less than a length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a), and a difference in the length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) and the length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a) is less than a width of the first microstrip line (75) or the second microstrip line (75); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are each in a face structure, and wherein each of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has a thickness that lies in a range between 0.254 and 3.048 mm (col. 7, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 5, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the low-frequency band dipole unit has two feeding ports (80 of 18a and 18b); the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) corresponds to the first feeding port (80 of 18b), and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) corresponds to the second feeding port (80 of 18a); and each of the first feeding port (80 of 18b) and the second feeding port (80 of 18a) corresponds to a polarization form (col. 4, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 6, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) is an integrated structure on which the slot structure (82) is provided for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole).
Regarding claim 13, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the low-frequency band dipole unit has two feeding ports (80 of 18a and 18b); the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) corresponds to the first feeding port (80 of 18b), and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) corresponds to the second feeding port (80 of 18a); and each of the first feeding port (80 of 18b) and the second feeding port (80 of 18a) corresponds to a polarization form (col. 4, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 14, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) is an integrated structure on which the slot structure (82) is provided for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole).
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view of Hyjazie et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111396 A1), hereinafter known as Hyjazie.
Regarding claim 4, Ippolito does not specifically teach wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot downwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm.
However, Hyjazie teaches (Fig. 5B and 5D) wherein a microstrip plate (521) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520) is provided with a slot upwards (523), and the slot (523) is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate (521) and the length of the first bent segment (right segment of 522) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520); a microstrip plate (511) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510) is provided with a slot downwards (513), and the slot (513) is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment (right segment of 512) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510).
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 low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Hyjazie to include “wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot downwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm,” as taught by Hyjazie, for the purpose of reducing height (see also [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Ippolito does not specifically teach wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot downwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm.
However, Hyjazie teaches (Fig. 5B and 5D) wherein a microstrip plate (521) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520) is provided with a slot upwards (523), and the slot (523) is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate (521) and the length of the first bent segment (right segment of 522) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520); a microstrip plate (511) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510) is provided with a slot downwards (513), and the slot (513) is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment (right segment of 512) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510).
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 low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Hyjazie to include “wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot downwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm,” as taught by Hyjazie, for the purpose of reducing height (see also [0045]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view of Mamo et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0240188 A1), hereinafter known as Mamo.
Regarding claim 7, Ippolito does not specifically teach wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms.
However, Mamo teaches (Fig. 1A) wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal (142) support and a vertical support (164); an annular structure (142) is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure (164) is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms (102, 104); and the cylindrical structure (164) and the annular structure (142) are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar (146), wherein the reinforcing bar (146) is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms (102, 104).
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 low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Mamo to include “wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms,” as taught by Mamo, for the purpose of withstanding extreme operating conditions (see also [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Ippolito does not specifically teach wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms.
However, Mamo teaches (Fig. 1A) wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal (142) support and a vertical support (164); an annular structure (142) is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure (164) is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms (102, 104); and the cylindrical structure (164) and the annular structure (142) are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar (146), wherein the reinforcing bar (146) is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms (102, 104).
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 low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Mamo to include “wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms,” as taught by Mamo, for the purpose of withstanding extreme operating conditions (see also [0047]).
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view of Puente (US Patent No. 7250918 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Ippolito further teaches (Fig. 10) A multi-frequency band array antenna (col. 3, lines 63-66), comprising multi-frequency band array units (210), but does not specifically teach and wherein the multi-frequency band array antenna has a plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns therein, at least one column or quasi-column of the plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns is composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely, and the at least one column or quasi-column composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely is parallel to an axis at which other-frequency band array units are located; and at least one of the low-frequency band dipole units is located on the axis at which the other- frequency band array units are located.
However, Puente teaches (Fig. 6) the multi-frequency band array antenna has a plurality of columns (columns of 6c) and/or quasi-columns therein, at least one column or quasi-column of the plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns is composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely (left and right columns of 6c), and the at least one column or quasi-column composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely (left and right columns of 6c) is parallel to an axis at which other-frequency band array units are located (middle columns of 6c); and at least one of the low-frequency band dipole units (empty circles) is located on the axis at which the other-frequency band array units (black circles) are located.
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 low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Puente to include “the multi-frequency band array antenna has a plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns therein, at least one column or quasi-column of the plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns is composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely, and the at least one column or quasi-column composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely is parallel to an axis at which other-frequency band array units are located; and at least one of the low-frequency band dipole units is located on the axis at which the other- frequency band array units are located,” as taught by Puente, for the purpose of reducing cost, size, and environmental impact (see also col. 1, lines 29-36).
Regarding claim 10, Ippolito does not specifically teach determining dipole units to-be-adjusted in the multi-frequency band array antenna, wherein one or more of the dipole units to-be-adjusted are provided; acquiring radiation patterns of the dipole units to-be-adjusted each in the multi-frequency band array antenna; feeding the radiation patterns back to the multi-frequency band array antenna based on the radiation patterns, and performing amplitude-phase optimization on dipole units to-be-adjusted corresponding to the radiation patterns; and adjusting an amplitude and phase for feeding of the multi-frequency band array antenna based on amplitude-phase optimization results of the dipole units to-be-adjusted.
However, Puente teaches determining dipole units to-be-adjusted in the multi-frequency band array antenna (claim 11), wherein one or more of the dipole units to-be-adjusted are provided (claim 11); acquiring radiation patterns of the dipole units to-be-adjusted each in the multi-frequency band array antenna (claim 11); feeding the radiation patterns back to the multi-frequency band array antenna based on the radiation patterns (claim 11), and performing amplitude-phase optimization on dipole units to-be-adjusted corresponding to the radiation patterns (claim 11); and adjusting an amplitude and phase for feeding of the multi-frequency band array antenna based on amplitude-phase optimization results of the dipole units to-be-adjusted (claim 11).
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 low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Puente to include “determining dipole units to-be-adjusted in the multi-frequency band array antenna, wherein one or more of the dipole units to-be-adjusted are provided; acquiring radiation patterns of the dipole units to-be-adjusted each in the multi-frequency band array antenna; feeding the radiation patterns back to the multi-frequency band array antenna based on the radiation patterns, and performing amplitude-phase optimization on dipole units to-be-adjusted corresponding to the radiation patterns; and adjusting an amplitude and phase for feeding of the multi-frequency band array antenna based on amplitude-phase optimization results of the dipole units to-be-adjusted,” as taught by Puente, for the purpose of achieving a desired radiation pattern (see also claim 11).
Conclusion
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.
Applicant, 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845