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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections and specification objections, previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/05/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 regarding the 35USC 112b rejections of claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Applicant has amended claims 10 and 14 (previous claim 18 has now been incorporated into claim 14) to clarify the features of these claims. No new matter has been added. Applicant respectfully requests that the claim rejections be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because claim 10 hasn’t been amended to overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection as explained below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “Based on the above allowable subject matter and in order to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome all the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, and 103 rejections, and respectfully requests that all pending claims be passed to issuance.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because Applicant only rolled the limitation of claim 11 but not its intervening claims 9-10 into claim 1.
The arguments are now moot because claim 1 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao et al, CN-112736435-A as explained below.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation " couple or combine the first input and the second input to cause an electromagnetic signal at a first reflective stub to have a different phase than an electromagnetic signal at a second reflective stub" in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the first and second reflective stubs relate the plurality of reflective stubs of the first and second inputs recited in claim 9. It is also not clear how these electromagnetic signals at the first and second reflective stubs relate to the first and second electromagnetic signals of the first and second inputs recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood. Examiner suggests amending the claim similar to claim 14 to overcome the indefiniteness.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao et al, CN-112736435-A (hereinafter Tao).
Regarding claim 1, Tao discloses the following:
a directionally-tunable antenna element of an antenna, the directionally-tunable antenna element comprising:
a feed structure (116, fig. 2) having a first input to receive a first electromagnetic signal and a second input to receive a second electromagnetic signal (fig. 3, page 5, para 5: different input at 106, 112, 113);
a coupling structure (105) adjacent to the feed structure;
a ridge structure (101, 102) adjacent to the coupling structure,
wherein the coupling structure is disposed between the feed structure and the ridge structure (fig. 2), and
wherein the coupling structure is configured to communicate electromagnetic energy between the feed structure and the ridge structure (fig. 2); and
a first electromagnetic signal source that tunes (a) an amplitude or a phase of the first electromagnetic signal at the first input (page 5, para 5) or (b) an amplitude or a phase of the second electromagnetic signal at the second input to cause the directionally-tunable antenna element to steer an emitted beam of the first electromagnetic signal or the second electromagnetic signal responsive to the tuning.
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, Tao discloses
wherein the coupling structure (105, figs. 2-3) comprises a plurality of apertures (112-115),
wherein the ridge structure (102) comprises a plurality of apertures (112-115), and
wherein the apertures of the coupling structure and the apertures of the ridge structure have same shapes and are aligned to electromagnetically couple the feed structure to the ridge structure (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Tao discloses wherein the second electromagnetic signal is the first electromagnetic signal with a phase delay (page 5, para 5).
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 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao as applied to claim 1 above in view of Cao et al, US-20160301143-A1 (hereinafter Cao), and further in view of Kawaguchi, US-20220181758-A1.
Regarding claim 2, Tao does not disclose wherein the ridge structure comprises: two metal layers made of a first metal and sandwiching a substrate layer; and a plurality of through-hole vias connecting the two metal layers through the substrate layer
Cao suggests wherein the ridge structure comprises: two metal layers (22, 23, fig. 2) made of a metal (para [0025]) and sandwiching a substrate layer (21); and
a plurality of through-hole vias (212, 213) connecting the two metal layers through the substrate layer (para [0025]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the two metal layers and a plurality of through-hole vias as suggested in Cao to the antenna taught in Tao as claimed for the purpose of achieving integrating function of coupling, increasing the availability and reducing the cost (Cao, para [0029]).
The combination of Tao and Cao does not disclose the two metal layers made of a first metal.
Kawaguchi discloses the two metal layers (8a, 8b, fig. 6) made of a first metal (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same first metal as suggested in Kawaguchi to the antenna taught in Tao and Cao as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process in order to reduce cost and be able to mass produce.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tao and Cao does not disclose wherein the plurality of through-hole vias are made of the first metal.
Kawaguchi discloses wherein the plurality of through-hole vias (5a, fig. 6) are made of the first metal (para [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same first metal as suggested in Kawaguchi to the through-hole vias taught in Tao and Cao as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process in order to reduce cost and be able to mass produce.
Regarding claim 12, Tao does not disclose wherein an outermost metal layer of the two metal layers comprises a metal edge lying in a plane surrounding and defining a central opening.
Cao discloses wherein an outermost metal layer of the two metal layers (22, fig. 2) comprises a metal edge lying in a plane surrounding and defining a central opening (224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide outermost metal layer as suggested in Cao to the antenna taught in Tao as claimed for the purpose of achieving integrating function of coupling, increasing the availability and reducing the cost (Cao, para [0029]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao as applied to claim 1 above in view of Cao.
Regarding claim 4, Tao discloses wherein the coupling structure (105, fig. 2) comprises a dielectric material (page 5, para 5).
Tao does not disclose wherein the coupling structure capacitively couples the feed structure to the ridge structure.
Cao discloses wherein the coupling structure that capacitively couples the feed structure (10) to the ridge structure (para [0030]: it implies that the dielectric material 30 capacitively couples the feed structure 10 to the ridge structure 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to capacitively couple as suggested in Cao the feed structure and the ridge structure of the antenna taught in Tao as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 5, Tao does not disclose wherein the coupling structure inductively couples the feed structure to the ridge structure.
Cao discloses wherein the coupling structure inductively couples the feed structure to the ridge structure (para [0030]: it implies that the coupling structure 30 inductively couples the feed structure 10 to the ridge structure 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inductively couple as suggested in Cao the feed structure and the ridge structure of the antenna taught in Tao as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao as applied to claims1 and 7 above, and in view of Sikina et al, US-20030184476-A1 (hereinafter Sikina).
Regarding claim 8, Tao does not disclose wherein the first input and the second input are capacitively coupled inputs.
Sikina suggests wherein the first input (234, fig. 9A) and the second input (234) are capacitively coupled inputs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide capacitively couple inputs as suggested in Sikina to the antenna taught in Tao as claimed for the purpose of avoiding interference between different signals from first and second input in order to maintain the performance of the antenna.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Tao does not disclose wherein the feed structure comprises:
a first input connected to a plurality of reflective stubs by at least one phasing trace; and
a second input connected to the plurality of reflective stubs by at least one further phasing trace.
Sikina suggests a first input (234, fig. 9A) connected to a plurality of reflective stubs (218a-218d) by at least one phasing trace (232); and
a second input (234) connected to the plurality of reflective stubs (218a-218d) by at least one further phasing trace (222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of reflective stubs and phasing trace as suggested by Sikina to the antenna taught in Tao as claimed for the purpose of feeding different signals with different phases to the antenna in order to generate circular polarization signals (Sikina, para [0081]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao, Cao in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gupta et al, NPL “Performance analysis of bandwidth and gain improvement of printed wide slot antenna using parasitic patch” (hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tao, Cao and Kawaguchi does not disclose wherein the outermost metal layer further comprises a center patch element that is a metal pad in the central opening and separated from the metal edge.
Gupta suggests wherein the outermost metal layer further comprises a center patch element (patch, fig. 1, Section Antenna Geometry and Design, page 662) that is a metal pad in the central opening (slot) and separated from the metal edge (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a center patch element suggested in Gupta to the central opening of the antenna taught in Cao, Tao and Kawaguchi as claimed for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and improving the antenna performance (Gupta, Section Conclusion, page 666-667).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein each of the at least one phasing trace and the at least one further phasing trace collectively couple or combine the first input and the second input to cause an electromagnetic signal at a first reflective stub to have a different phase than an electromagnetic signal at a second reflective stub”.
Claims 14-16 are allowed.
Regarding claim 14, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “coupling or combining a plurality of (i) inputs or (ii) outputs to the antenna, each of a co-planar directionally-tunable antenna element of the antenna comprising: a feed structure including a first input connected to a first reflective stub by at least one phasing trace, and a second input connected to a second reflective stub by at least one further phasing trace, each of the at least one phasing trace and the at least one further phasing trace collectively couple or combine the first input and the second input to cause an electromagnetic signal at the first reflective stub to have a different phase than the electromagnetic signal at the second reflective stub” and “a first electromagnetic signal source that tunes an amplitude or a phase of a first portion of the electromagnetic signal at the first input and a second portion of the electromagnetic signal at the second input to cause the co-planar directionally-tunable antenna element to steer an emitted beam of the electromagnetic signal responsive to the tuning”.
However, the prior art of record, 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.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Puzella et al, US-6624787-B2, figs. 1, 3: could read on claim 1
Wu et al, CN-210296620-U, fig. 1: could read on claim 1
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights