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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 16-19 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the second deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second deformation resistant material” for this limitation in the claim. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. Dependent claims 17-19 do not clarify and are likewise rejected.
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 1-4, 6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (WO 2022/211600), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses an antenna structure (e.g., title, abstract) comprising: antenna elements (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 313a-f) mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region of a faceplate (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 310; paragraph 0048 “metal plate”); and a dual-polarity coupler (e.g., paragraph 0109 “coupler”) electronically coupled to the antenna elements; wherein the dual polarity coupler is operable to transmit: a first type of electronic communication having a first polarity type (e.g., paragraph 0060); and a second type of electronic communication have a second polarity type (e.g., paragraph 0060); wherein each of the antenna elements comprises exposed surfaces (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 313).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material.
Kim discloses by example wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 313; see paragraph 0026 “metal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Kim in accordance with the teaching of Kim regarding the use of metal structures in an antenna in order to allow for outdoor environmental use (Kim, paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 2 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 1 further comprising a feed network (e.g., Fig. 3a, at 311a and 311b) electronically coupled between the dual-polarity coupler and the antenna elements, wherein the feed network comprises a second deformation resistant material (e.g., Fig. 3a, at 311a and 311b).
Regarding claim 3 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 2, wherein: the feed network is mechanically coupled to a dielectric substrate region of a feed network support (e.g., abstract “PCB”); and the feed network support is mechanically coupled to the faceplate (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311 is connected to a faceplate).
Regarding claim 4 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 2, wherein: the feed network is mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region of a feed network support (e.g., abstract “PCB”); and the feed network support is mechanically coupled to the faceplate (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311 is connected to a faceplate).
Regarding claim 5 wherein the deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 4, further comprising: a backplane housing (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311) mechanically coupled to the feed network support; wherein the backplane housing comprises a third deformation resistant material (e.g., paragraph 0048); wherein the first deformation resistant material comprises a first metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051); wherein the second deformation resistant material comprises a second metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051); and wherein the third deformation resistant material comprises a third metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051).
(Examiner note: the first, second and third metal materials are not identified as different metal materials.)
Regarding claim 8 Kim discloses an antenna structure (e.g., title, abstract) comprising: an antenna array (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 313a-f) comprising antenna elements (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 313a-f) mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region of a faceplate (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 310; paragraph 0048 “metal plate”); and a dual-polarity coupler (e.g., paragraph 0109) electronically coupled to the antenna elements; wherein the dual polarity coupler is operable to transmit: a first type of electronic communication having a first polarity type (e.g., paragraph 0060); and a second type of electronic communication have a second polarity type (e.g., paragraph 0060); wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 313).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material.
Kim discloses by example wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 313; see paragraph 0026 “metal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Kim in accordance with the teaching of Kim regarding the use of metal structures in an antenna in order to allow for outdoor environmental use (Kim, paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 9 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 8 except for explicitly disclosing wherein the deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 9, further comprising a feed network electronically coupled between the dual polarity coupler and the antenna elements, (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311 is connected to a faceplate).
Kim is silent regarding wherein the feed network comprises one or more types of a second deformation resistant material comprising a BH in the range from about 80 to about 165.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the feed network comprises one or more types of a second deformation resistant material comprising a BH in the range from about 80 to about 165, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 9, wherein: the feed network comprises a first feed network layer (e.g., Fig. 3a, at 311a and 311b) and a second feed network layer (e.g., Fig. 3a, at 311a and 311b); a connection between the feed network and the second feed network layer does not comprises a via (e.g., Fig. 3A does not show a via); the feed network is mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region (e.g., abstract “PCB”) of a feed network support; and the feed network support is mechanically coupled to the faceplate (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311 is connected to a faceplate).
Regarding claim 12 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 9, wherein: the feed network is mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region (e.g., abstract “PCB”) of a feed network support; the feed network support is mechanically coupled to the faceplate; the antenna structure further comprises a backplane housing (e.g., Fig. 2A, at 225) mechanically coupled to the feed network support; and the backplane housing comprises one or more types of a third deformation resistant material (paragraph 0048 at “metal plate; ”see also “ground plane”).
Regarding claim 13 Kim further discloses the antenna structure of claim 12, wherein: the first deformation resistant material comprises a first metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051); the second deformation resistant material comprises a second metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051); and the third deformation resistant material comprises a third metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 15 Kim discloses an method of forming an antenna structure (e.g., title, abstract), the method comprising: forming an antenna array (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 313a-f) comprising antenna elements (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 313a-f) mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region of a faceplate (e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B, at 310; paragraph 0048 “metal plate”); and electronically coupling a dual-polarity coupler (e.g., paragraph 0109) to the antenna elements; wherein the dual polarity coupler is operable to transmit (e.g., abstract): a first type of electronic communication having a first polarity type (e.g., paragraph 0060); and a second type of electronic communication have a second polarity type (e.g., paragraph 0060); wherein each of the antenna elements comprises exposed surfaces (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 313).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the exposed surfaces of each of the antenna elements comprise one or more types of a first deformation resistant material.
Kim teaches by example wherein the exposed surfaces of each of the antenna elements comprise one or more types of a first deformation resistant material (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 313; see paragraph 0026 “metal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Kim in accordance with the teaching of Kim regarding the use of metal structures in an antenna in order to allow for outdoor environmental use (Kim, paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 16 Kim as best understood further discloses the method of claim 15 further comprising electronically coupling a feed network (e.g., Fig. 3a, at 311a and 311b) between the dual-polarity coupler and the antenna elements, wherein the feed network comprises one or more types of a second deformation resistant material (e.g., Fig. 3a, at 311a and 311b).
Kim discloses the method of claim 15 except for explicitly disclosing wherein the first deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165, and wherein the second deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the first deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165, and wherein the second deformation resistant material comprises a Brinell hardness (BH) in a range from about 80 to about 165, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17 Kim as best understood further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein: the feed network is mechanically coupled to a dielectric substrate region (e.g., abstract “PCB”) of a feed network support; and the feed network support is mechanically coupled to the faceplate (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311 is connected to a faceplate).
Regarding claim 18 Kim as best understood further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein: the feed network is mechanically coupled to a non-dielectric substrate region (e.g., abstract “PCB”) of a feed network support; and the feed network support is mechanically coupled to the faceplate (e.g., Fig. 3A, at 311 is connected to a faceplate).
Regarding claim 19 Kim as best understood further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein: the first deformation resistant material comprises a first metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051); the second deformation resistant material comprises a second metal material (e.g., paragraph 0051).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, and 20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claim 7, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein: the antenna elements comprise a first antenna element and a second antenna element; the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate comprises a first cavity having cavity sidewalls; and the first antenna element is mechanically coupled to the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate through the first cavity such that a first cavity gap is defined between the first antenna element and the cavity sidewalls; wherein a portion of the cavity sidewalls and a portion of the first cavity gap are between the first antenna element and the second antenna element; and wherein the portion of the first cavity sidewalls is operable to reduce mutual coupling between the first antenna element and the second antenna element.
Kim and Khatua (US 2024/0097339) are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna structure with antenna elements, a dual polarity coupler, wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 14, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein: the antenna elements comprise a first antenna element and a second antennal element; the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate comprises a top surface having a first cavity and a second cavity; the first antenna element is mechanically coupled to the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate through the first cavity; and the second antenna element is mechanically coupled to the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate through the second cavity.
Kim and Khatua are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna structure with antenna elements, a dual polarity coupler, wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 20, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein: the antenna elements comprise a first antenna element and a second antennal element; the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate comprises a top surface having a first cavity and a second cavity; the first antenna element is mechanically coupled to the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate through the first cavity; and the second antenna element is mechanically coupled to the non-dielectric substrate region of the faceplate through the second cavity.
Kim and Khatua are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna structure with antenna elements, a dual polarity coupler, wherein the exposed surfaces of the antenna elements comprise a first deformation resistant material.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “deformation resistant material” cannot be supplied by calling it implicit, Perhaps a better word would be to point to the Examiner’s example of a “deformation resistant material”. Applicant states in paragraph 0026 “In addition to any one or more of the features described herein, the first deformation resistant material includes a first metal material; and the second deformation resistant material includes a second metal material”. Since Kim teaches using a metal it is at least implied if not explicit that a metal acts as a deformation material. In addition “ a metal” is a non-limiting example. Other non-material materials are left open as possible deformation resistant materials. Furthermore, applicant’s lack of a definition of “a deformation resistant material” clearly leaves the term open to the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term. The examiner highly suggests a phone interview to help advance prosecution of this application on this matter.
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.
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 aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dameon 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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
