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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on January 20th 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-8,10-17 and 19-22 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 20th 2025.
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(s) 1-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christie et al. (US 11228108 B2) in view of Mehen et al. (US 6407721 B1) and West et al. (US 10950927 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Christie et al. discloses an antenna conformal to a vehicular surface (Multi-band antenna of figure 6-10 can be mounted to a vehicle surface for satellite GNSS communications: Paragraph 13 and 31), comprising:
a first dielectric substrate having a conductive ground plane layer on a lower surface of the first dielectric substrate (Antenna comprises a HIS structure 10 comprising a first dielectric substrate and a ground plane on a lower surface of the dielectric substrate; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.) ;
a second dielectric substrate juxtaposed with an upper surface of the first dielectric substrate, wherein first and second spiral antenna elements are interposed on an upper surface of the second dielectric substrate, wherein the first and second spiral antenna elements each have respective origination ends separated by a gap (A spiral antenna 5 can be placed on its own dielectric which can serve as a second dielectric with said second dielectric being placed on an upper surface of the first dielectric wherein the spiral antennas can comprise two spiral antenna arm elements which have respective origination ends separated by a gap as seen in figure 1-2; Paragraph 4 and 13-32 as well figure 6-10 of Christie et al.);
a plurality of conductive patches disposed in an array on at least one of the first dielectric substrate or the second dielectric substrate between the upper surface of the first dielectric substrate and a lower surface of the second dielectric substrate (Array of patch elements 25 can be disposed on the upper surface of the first dielectric substrate; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.);
a plurality of conductive vias through the first dielectric substrate connecting the conductive patches to the ground plane layer (Patch antenna elements 25 can be connected to the ground plane by a conductive vias that would pass through the first dielectric substrate; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.);
Christie et al. fails to explicitly disclose first and second RF transmission lines respectively coupled to the origination ends and wherein the antenna is configured to conformally mount the antenna onto an exterior surface of the vehicle regardless of whether the exterior surface is planar or curved.
However, Mehen et al. does disclose first and second RF transmission lines respectively coupled to the origination ends (Spiral antenna comprises spiral arms 24a and 24b that have origination ends in the form of electrical pads 26a and 26b which connect to respective coaxial feed lines 68a and 68b; Paragraphs 10-25 and figure 1-7 of Mehen et al.).
West et al. further discloses wherein the antenna is configured to conformally mount the antenna onto an exterior surface of the vehicle regardless of whether the exterior surface is planar or curved (Spiral antenna structure 25 comprises a substrate 25 that can be flat or curved such that it could be placed on a flat surface or it could be mounted on a convex surface which would be curved wherein the spiral antenna is designed to be conformally attached to a vehicle surface; Column 3-4 and 6-7 as well as figure 7-12 of West et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. to have first and second RF transmission lines respectively coupled to the origination ends as taught by Mehen et al. to feed signals with different phases (Paragraph 21-25 of Mehen et al.) which allows one to manipulate the radiation pattern.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. and Mehen et al. to have the antenna be configured to conformally mount the antenna onto an exterior surface of the vehicle regardless of whether the exterior surface is planar or curved as taught by West et al. so the antenna device may be placed to match its platform surface like a curved surface such that it can conformally attach to a vehicle surface (Column 3-4 and 7 of West et al.).
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.).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
573
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
’
PNG
media_image3.png
537
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Christie et al. fails to explicitly discloses wherein the first and second RF transmission lines are comprised of first and second coaxial connector bodies, respectively.
However, Mehen et al. does disclose wherein the first and second RF transmission lines are comprised of first and second coaxial connector bodies, respectively (Antenna feeding is in the form of two coaxial cables 14 which comprise coaxial connector bodies as seen in figure 1; Paragraph 16-25 of Mehen et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. to have the first and second RF transmission lines be comprised of first and second coaxial connector bodies, respectively as taught by Mehen et al. to feed signals with different phases (Paragraph 21-25 of Mehen et al.) which allows one to manipulate the radiation pattern.
Regarding Claim 3, Christie et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second coaxial connector bodies each include an outer shield conductor connected to the ground plane layer and an inner conductor connected to the respective origination ends.
However, Mehen et al. does disclose wherein the first and second coaxial connector bodies each include an outer shield conductor connected to the ground plane layer and an inner conductor connected to the respective origination ends (Outer sheaths of the coaxial cables 14 are coupled to the ground surface 12 and inner conductors in the form of feed lines 68a/68b are connected to the origination ends of the arm elements; Paragraph 21-25 and figure 1-7 of Mehen et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. to have the first and second coaxial connector bodies each include an outer shield conductor connected to the ground plane layer and an inner conductor connected to the respective origination ends as taught by Mehen et al. to feed signals with different phases (Paragraph 21-25 of Mehen et al.) which allows one to manipulate the radiation pattern.
Regarding Claim 4, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the first and second spiral antenna elements trace first and second arms of a two-arm Archimedean spiral, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second spiral antenna elements has greater than one turn (First and second spiral antenna elements are in the form of spiral arms comprising Archimedean spirals that comprise greater than one turn; Paragraph 4 and figure 1-2 of Christie et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Christie et al. wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for a satellite system (High impedance surface 10 serves as a meta surface wherein thickness of the substrate, size of the patches, and gap between patches, in other words placement, would affect the resonant frequency of the HIS and said HIS is designed for communication in a band for satellite systems; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.).
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 6, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the satellite system is a GNSS or an SDARS (Multi-band antenna comprising HIS Structure can be mounted to a vehicle surface for satellite GNSS communications: Paragraph 13 and 31 of Christie et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the antenna is configured without regard to the exterior surface of the vehicle being conductive or nonconductive (Antenna device comprises a high impedance surface on the lower side that electrically isolates the antenna from the mounting surface of a vehicle which would allow the antenna to be placed regardless of whether the vehicle surface was conductive or nonconductive; Paragraph 5-13 and figure 10 of Christie et al.).
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.).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christie et al. (US 11228108 B2) in view of Mehen et al. (US 6407721 B1), West et al. (US 10950927 B1), Sievenpiper et al. (US 6483481 B1), and Higaki et al. (US 7623087 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Christie et al. further discloses herein the conductive patches are substantially square (Patches 25 are squares; Paragraph 19 of Christie et al.).
Christie et al., Mehen et al., and West et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each side of the conductive patches has a length between one inch and three inches, wherein gaps between adjacent conductive patches in the array are each greater than or equal to 0.04 inches, and wherein a thickness of the first dielectric substrate is less than or equal to 0.01 inches.
Although, Sievenpiper et al. fails to explicitly disclose a length between one inch and three inches, wherein gaps are greater than or equal to 0.04 inches, and wherein a thickness of the first dielectric substrate is less than or equal to 0.01 inches. Sievenpiper et al. does disclose wherein each side of the conductive patches has a length, gaps between adjacent conductive patches in the array, and a thickness of the first dielectric (High Impedance structure comprises a dielectric substrate 16 with thickness much less than one wavelength which at 13ghz would be less than .09in or 1.6mm in example of figure 3, patch elements like 10 can have lengths of 3.8mm or .15in and a gap between adjacent patches can be a clearance of .25mm; Paragraph 8-23 and figure 1-6 of Sievenpiper et al.).
Higaki et al. further discloses wherein the conductive patches are substantially square in a two-by-two array (High impedance structure comprising a 2 by 2 patch arrangement; Paragraph 26-30 and figure 11 of Higaki et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., and West et al.. to have each side of the conductive patches has a length between one inch and three inches, wherein gaps between adjacent conductive patches in the array are each greater than or equal to 0.04 inches, and wherein a thickness of the first dielectric substrate is less than or equal to 0.01 inches as taught by Sievenpiper et al. since these dimensions affect the resonant frequency of the HIS structure and how it operates (Paragraph 9-32 of Christie et al.).
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., West et al., and Sievenpiper et al. to have the conductive patches be substantially square in a two-by-two array as taught by Higaki et al. since the layout of the patches affects the band of operation of the HIS (Paragraph 21 of Christie et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
462
513
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
291
330
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Christie et al., Mehen et al., and West et al. fail to disclose wherein the conductive vias each comprise a cylindrical conductor member having a radius in a range of 0.01 to 0.15 inches, and wherein each via connects to a respective conductive patch at a geometric center of the respective conductive patch.
Although, Sievenpiper et al. does not explicitly disclose a radius in a range of 0.01 to 0.15 inches. However, Sievenpiper et al. does disclose wherein the conductive vias each comprise a cylindrical conductor member having a radius, and wherein each via connects to a respective conductive patch at a geometric center of the respective conductive patch (Conductive vias 14 are cylindrical conductors that can be centered on patches 10 that comprise a diameter of .5mm and thus a radius of .009in; Paragraph 2 and figure 1-6 of Sievenpiper et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., and West et al. to have the conductive vias each comprise a cylindrical conductor member having a radius in a range of 0.01 to 0.15 inches, and wherein each via connects to a respective conductive patch at a geometric center of the respective conductive patch as taught by Sievenpiper et al. since the via size and placement would affect resonance of the HIS structure (Paragraph 18 of Sievenpiper et al.).
Claim(s) 10-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christie et al. (US 11228108 B2) in view of Mehen et al. (US 6407721 B1), Ng et al. (US 9323877 B2), and West et al. (US 10950927 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Christie et al. discloses an antenna conformal to a vehicle for satellite communication (Multi-band antenna of figure 6-10 can be mounted to a vehicle surface for satellite GNSS communications: Paragraph 13 and 31), comprising:
a first dielectric substrate having a conductive ground plane layer on a lower surface of the first dielectric substrate (Antenna comprises a HIS structure 10 comprising a first dielectric substrate and a ground plane on a lower surface of the dielectric substrate; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.) ;
a second dielectric substrate juxtaposed with an upper surface of the first dielectric substrate, wherein first and second spiral antenna elements are interposed on an upper surface of the second dielectric substrate, wherein the first and second spiral antenna elements each have respective origination ends separated by a gap (A spiral antenna 5 can be placed on its own dielectric which can serve as a second dielectric with said second dielectric being placed on an upper surface of the first dielectric wherein the spiral antennas can comprise two spiral antenna arm elements which have respective origination ends separated by a gap as seen in figure 1-2; Paragraph 4 and 13-32 as well figure 6-10 of Christie et al.);
a plurality of conductive patches disposed in an array on at least one of the first dielectric substrate or the second dielectric substrate between the upper surface of the first dielectric substrate and a lower surface of the second dielectric substrate (Array of patch elements 25 can be disposed on the upper surface of the first dielectric substrate; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.);
a plurality of conductive vias through the first dielectric substrate connecting the conductive patches to the ground plane layer (Patch antenna elements 25 can be connected to the ground plane by a conductive vias that would pass through the first dielectric substrate; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.); and
Christie et al. fails to explicitly disclose first and second RF transmission lines respectively coupled to the origination ends, an overwrap covering the first and second substrates and configured to mount onto an exterior surface of the vehicle, and wherein the antenna is configured to conformally mount the antenna onto an exterior surface of the vehicle regardless of whether the exterior surface is planar or curved.
However, Mehen et al. does disclose first and second RF transmission lines respectively coupled to the origination ends (Spiral antenna comprises spiral arms 24a and 24b that have origination ends in the form of electrical pads 26a and 26b which connect to respective coaxial feed lines 68a and 68b; Paragraphs 10-25 and figure 1-7 of Mehen et al.).
Ng et al. also discloses an overwrap covering the first and second substrates and configured to mount onto an exterior surface of the vehicle (Antenna assembly comprises a EGB structure 14 with a first substrate and an radiating element 12 that can be placed on a second substrate wherein this antenna structure can have a radome 62 and an adhesive on the backside of the first substrate forming an adhesive backing layer that adheres to conductive skin 34 of a vehicle and altogether forms an overwrap that covers the first and second substrates; Paragraph 21-39 and figure 2-3 of Ng et al.).
West et al. further discloses wherein the antenna is configured to conformally mount the antenna onto an exterior surface of the vehicle regardless of whether the exterior surface is planar or curved (Spiral antenna structure 25 comprises a substrate 25 that can be flat or curved such that it could be placed on a flat surface or it could be mounted on a convex surface which would be curved wherein the spiral antenna is designed to be conformally attached to a vehicle surface; Column 3-4 and 6-7 as well as figure 7-12 of West et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. to have first and second RF transmission lines respectively coupled to the origination ends as taught by Mehen et al. to feed signals with different phases (Paragraph 21-25 of Mehen et al.) which allows one to manipulate the radiation pattern.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. and Mehen et al. to have an overwrap covering the first and second substrates and configured to mount onto an exterior surface of the vehicle as taught by Ng et al. to mount the antenna assembly on a vehicle and provide protection for the antenna assembly (Paragraph 31-36 of Ng et al.).
It would have also been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., and Ng et al. to have the antenna be configured to conformally mount the antenna onto an exterior surface of the vehicle regardless of whether the exterior surface is planar or curved as taught by West et al. so the antenna device may be placed to match its platform surface like a curved surface such that it can conformally attach to a vehicle surface (Column 3-4 and 7 of West et al.).
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.).
PNG
media_image6.png
503
790
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Christie et al. fails to explicitly discloses wherein the first and second RF transmission lines are comprised of first and second coaxial connector bodies, respectively.
However, Mehen et al. does disclose wherein the first and second RF transmission lines are comprised of first and second coaxial connector bodies, respectively (Antenna feeding is in the form of two coaxial cables 14 which comprise coaxial connector bodies as seen in figure 1; Paragraph 16-25 of Mehen et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. to have the first and second RF transmission lines be comprised of first and second coaxial connector bodies, respectively as taught by Mehen et al. to feed signals with different phases (Paragraph 21-25 of Mehen et al.) which allows one to manipulate the radiation pattern.
Regarding Claim 12, Christie et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second coaxial connector bodies each include an outer shield conductor connected to the ground plane layer and an inner conductor connected to the respective origination ends.
However, Mehen et al. does disclose wherein the first and second coaxial connector bodies each include an outer shield conductor connected to the ground plane layer and an inner conductor connected to the respective origination ends (Outer sheaths of the coaxial cables 14 are coupled to the ground surface 12 and inner conductors in the form of feed lines 68a/68b are connected to the origination ends of the arm elements; Paragraph 21-25 and figure 1-7 of Mehen et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al. to have the first and second coaxial connector bodies each include an outer shield conductor connected to the ground plane layer and an inner conductor connected to the respective origination ends as taught by Mehen et al. to feed signals with different phases (Paragraph 21-25 of Mehen et al.) which allows one to manipulate the radiation pattern.
Regarding Claim 13, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the first and second spiral antenna elements trace first and second arms of a two-arm Archimedean spiral, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second spiral antenna elements has greater than one turn (First and second spiral antenna elements are in the form of spiral arms comprising Archimedean spirals that comprise greater than one turn; Paragraph 4 and figure 1-2 of Christie et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Christie et al. wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for a satellite system (High impedance surface 10 serves as a meta surface wherein thickness of the substrate, size of the patches, and gap between patches, in other words placement, would affect the resonant frequency of the HIS and said HIS is designed for communication in a band for satellite systems; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.).
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 15, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the satellite system is a GNSS or an SDARS (Multi-band antenna comprising HIS Structure can be mounted to a vehicle surface for satellite GNSS communications: Paragraph 13 and 31 of Christie et al.).
Regarding Claim 21, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the antenna is configured without regard to the exterior surface of the vehicle being conductive or nonconductive (Antenna device comprises a high impedance surface on the lower side that electrically isolates the antenna from the mounting surface of a vehicle which would allow the antenna to be placed regardless of whether the vehicle surface was conductive or nonconductive; Paragraph 5-13 and figure 10 of Christie et al.).
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.).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christie et al. (US 11228108 B2) in view of Mehen et al. (US 6407721 B1), Ng et al. (US 9323877 B2), West et al. (US 10950927 B1), Sievenpiper et al. (US 6483481 B1), and Higaki et al. (US 7623087 B2).
Regarding Claim 16, Christie et al. further discloses herein the conductive patches are substantially square (Patches 25 are squares; Paragraph 19 of Christie et al.).
Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., and West et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each side of the conductive patches has a length between one inch and three inches, wherein gaps between adjacent conductive patches in the array are each greater than or equal to 0.04 inches, and wherein a thickness of the first dielectric substrate is less than or equal to 0.01 inches.
Although, Sievenpiper et al. fails to explicitly disclose a length between one inch and three inches, wherein gaps are greater than or equal to 0.04 inches, and wherein a thickness of the first dielectric substrate is less than or equal to 0.01 inches. Sievenpiper et al. does disclose wherein each side of the conductive patches has a length, gaps between adjacent conductive patches in the array, and a thickness of the first dielectric (High Impedance structure comprises a dielectric substrate 16 with thickness much less than one wavelength which at 13ghz would be less than .09in or 1.6mm in example of figure 3, patch elements like 10 can have lengths of 3.8mm or .15in and a gap between adjacent patches can be a clearance of .25mm; Paragraph 8-23 and figure 1-6 of Sievenpiper et al.).
Higaki et al. further discloses wherein the conductive patches are substantially square in a two-by-two array (High impedance structure comprising a 2 by 2 patch arrangement; Paragraph 26-30 and figure 11 of Higaki et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., and West et al.to have each side of the conductive patches has a length between one inch and three inches, wherein gaps between adjacent conductive patches in the array are each greater than or equal to 0.04 inches, and wherein a thickness of the first dielectric substrate is less than or equal to 0.01 inches as taught by Sievenpiper et al. since these dimensions affect the resonant frequency of the HIS structure and how it operates (Paragraph 9-32 of Christie et al.). It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., West et al., and Sievenpiper et al. to have the conductive patches be substantially square in a two-by-two array as taught by Higaki et al. since the layout of the patches affects the band of operation of the HIS (Paragraph 21 of Christie et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., and West et al. fail to disclose wherein the conductive vias each comprise a cylindrical conductor member having a radius in a range of 0.01 to 0.15 inches, and wherein each via connects to a respective conductive patch at a geometric center of the respective conductive patch.
Although, Sievenpiper et al. does not explicitly disclose a radius in a range of 0.01 to 0.15 inches. However, Sievenpiper et al. does disclose wherein the conductive vias each comprise a cylindrical conductor member having a radius, and wherein each via connects to a respective conductive patch at a geometric center of the respective conductive patch (Conductive vias 14 are cylindrical conductors that can be centered on patches 10 that comprise a diameter of .5mm and thus a radius of .009in; Paragraph 2 and figure 1-6 of Sievenpiper et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., and West et al. to have the conductive vias each comprise a cylindrical conductor member having a radius in a range of 0.01 to 0.15 inches, and wherein each via connects to a respective conductive patch at a geometric center of the respective conductive patch as taught by Sievenpiper et al. since the via size and placement would affect resonance of the HIS structure (Paragraph 18 of Sievenpiper et al.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christie et al. (US 11228108 B2) in view of Mehen et al. (US 6407721 B1), West et al. (US 10950927 B1), and Hill et al. (US 20200358172 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band (High impedance surface 10 serves as a meta surface wherein thickness of the substrate, size of the patches, and gap between patches, in other words placement, would affect the resonant frequency of the HIS and said HIS is designed for communication in a band for satellite systems; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.).
Christie et al., Mehen et al., and West et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for cellular vehicle-to-everything wireless services.
However Hill et al. does disclose wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for cellular vehicle-to-everything wireless services (Antenna 90/160 comprises a EGB structure with antennation patches 95/165 that serve as a meta-material body wherein said structure can be used in the V2x Services band or in cellular based v2x like Cv2x and as such the thickness of the substrate, size of the patch, and gap distance would be determined for said resonant frequency; Paragraph 2, 65-82, and 99-118 as well as figure 9 and 15-16 of Hill et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., and West et al. to have wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for cellular vehicle-to-everything wireless services as taught by Hill et al. so the antenna can receive signals an control radiation patterns in multiple bands (Paragraph 2 and 118 of Hill et al.).
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.).
PNG
media_image7.png
445
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christie et al. (US 11228108 B2) in view of Mehen et al. (US 6407721 B1), Ng et al. (US 9323877 B2), West et al. (US 10950927 B1), and Hill et al. (US 20200358172 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Christie et al. further discloses wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band (High impedance surface 10 serves as a meta surface wherein thickness of the substrate, size of the patches, and gap between patches, in other words placement, would affect the resonant frequency of the HIS and said HIS is designed for communication in a band for satellite systems; Paragraph 13-32 and figure 6-10 of Christie et al.).
Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., and West et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for cellular vehicle-to-everything wireless services.
However Hill et al. does disclose wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for cellular vehicle-to-everything wireless services (Antenna 90/160 comprises a EGB structure with antennation patches 95/165 that serve as a meta-material body wherein said structure can be used in the V2x Services band or in cellular based v2x like Cv2x and as such the thickness of the substrate, size of the patch, and gap distance would be determined for said resonant frequency; Paragraph 2, 65-82, and 99-118 as well as figure 9 and 15-16 of Hill et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Christie et al., Mehen et al., Ng et al., and West et al. to have wherein the ground plane layer, a thickness of the first dielectric substrate, a size of each of the conductive patches, and a gap distance between adjacent ones of the conductive patches are configured to form a meta-material body which is resonant in a frequency band for cellular vehicle-to-everything wireless services as taught by Hill et al. so the antenna can receive signals an control radiation patterns in multiple bands (Paragraph 2 and 118 of Hill et al.).
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.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 10950927 B1 (West; James B.) discloses a spiral antenna disposed on a metasuface in the form of EGB structure with patches.
US 10714823 B2 (Balanis; Constantine A. et al.) discloses a spiral antenna disposed on a metasuface in the form of an high impedance surface with patches.
WO 2024159186 A1 (BARTONE CHRIS et al.) discloses a spiral antenna disposed on a dielectric with two spiral antenna elements fed by two coaxial cables.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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
/GURBIR SINGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights