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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, 11-12 and 17-22 in the reply filed on 12/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 12/06/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 1: “wherein the strip lines cross the cruciform slit at a center of the cruciform slit and second ends of strip lines are connected to coupling elements”. Fig. 4a shows only one of the two strip lines 12a cross the cruciform slit 22 of fig. 4b and connected to coupling element 13a.
Claim 2: “wherein the matching circuit comprises open-ended stubs and short-ended stubs”. Drawings do not show the matching circuit comprises both open-ended stubs and short-ended stubs. Fig. 4c shows open-ended stubs 28a, 28b and fig. 4e shows short-ended stubs 32a, 32b.
Claim 12: “wherein each dipole is connected to a symmetrical line formed by two conductors connected to adjacent support elements”. It is not clear how each dipole is connected to a symmetrical line. Fig. 13 marked below shows two arms of dipole 69d, therefore the conductor lines 68d are already a part of the dipole. Does Applicant mean the dipole only the horizontal parts? Moreover, the dipole has 2 arms so each dipole would have to connect to 2 separate lines as shown in fig. 13 that there are two conductor lines 68d.
Similar objection would be applied to claim 18.
PNG
media_image1.png
875
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read “wherein the feeding unit consists of a printed circuit board disposed at [[a]] the middle of the radiating unit on top surfaces of the four conductive elements and two coaxial cables disposed along two of the four support elements and connected by [[its]] theirs outer conductors to a conductive layer covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board and connected by [[its]] their inner conductors to first ends of two strip lines disposed on a top surface of the printed circuit board and forming two circuits matching the radiating unit with the two coaxial cables;
wherein the conductive layer covering [[a]] the bottom surface of the printed circuit board comprises a cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts disposed corresponding to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit; and
wherein the two strip lines cross the cruciform slit at a center of the cruciform slit and second ends of the two strip lines are connected to coupling elements.”
Claim 3 should read “one portion of the strip line crossing the cruciform slit formed in the conductive layer is disposed on [[a]] the bottom surface of the printed circuit board and connected to the strip line by metallized holes made in the printed circuit board”.
Claim 4 should read “wherein the coupling elements have a shape of conductive plates formed on [[a]] the top surface of the printed circuit board”.
Claim 17 should read “wherein the radiating unit comprises four folded dipoles placed above [[a]] the reflective plate and arranged in a shape of a dipole square”.
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 1-9, 11-12 and 17-22 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 1 recites the limitation "wherein the strip lines cross the cruciform slit at a center of the cruciform slit and second ends of strip lines are connected to coupling elements" in lines 15-16 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if Applicant means the cruciform slit between the four conductive elements recited previously in line 3 or the cruciform slit of the conductive layer covering the bottom surface of the PCB recite in line 13. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-9, 11-12 and 17-22 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the matching circuit comprises open-ended stubs and short-ended stubs” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this matching circuit is one of the two circuits matching the radiating unit with two coaxial cables recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “one portion of the strip line crossing the cruciform slit formed in the conductive layer is disposed on a bottom surface of the printed circuit board and connected to the strip line by metallized holes made in the printed circuit board” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the claim means one of the two strip lines recited in claim 1. It conflicts to claim 1 that the two strip lines disposed on a top surface of the printed circuit board.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the radiating unit consists of two crossed dipoles” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. The transitional phrase “consist of” is closed to unrecited elements but claim 1 already recited “a radiating unit consisting of four conductive elements” so it is not clear how these two crossed dipoles relate to the four conductive elements recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 8 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein each arm of the crossed dipoles consists of two side portions connected to the support element”. It is not clear if each arm of the crossed dipoles is the same or different to one of the four conductive elements recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the radiating unit comprises four dipoles placed above the reflective plate and arranged in a shape of a dipole square” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 recited “a radiating unit consisting of four conductive elements” and the transitional phrase “consist of” is closed to unrecited elements so it is not clear how these four dipoles relate to the four conductive elements recited in claim 1.
Similar rejection would be applied to claim 17.
Claims 18-22 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 17 and are subsequently 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, 8-9, 11-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich et al, US-20180034165-A1 (hereinafter Aleksandrovich) and in view of Sun et al, US-20230361475-A1 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses the following:
a dual-polarized antenna, comprising a radiating unit consisting of four conductive elements (2a-2d, fig. 3), four support elements (3a,3b, 4a, 4b), a feeding unit (balun, coaxial cables, Abstract), and a reflective plate (1, fig. 2),
wherein the four conductive elements are separated from each other by a cruciform slit (fig. 3 below) at a middle of the radiating unit, top ends of the four support elements are directly connected to the conductive elements (fig. 3), and bottoms of the four support elements are fixed on the reflective plate (fig. 2);
two strip lines (51a, 51b, fig. 7) disposed on a top surface of the printed circuit board and forming two circuits matching the radiating unit with two coaxial cables (para [0039]).
Aleksandrovich does not disclose wherein the feeding unit consists of a printed circuit board disposed at a middle of the radiating unit on top surfaces of the conductive elements and two coaxial cables disposed along the support elements and connected by its outer conductors to a conductive layer covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board and connected by its inner conductors to first ends of two strip lines;
wherein the conductive layer covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board comprises a cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts disposed corresponding to four conductive elements of the radiating unit; and
wherein the strip lines cross the cruciform slit at a center of the cruciform slit and second ends of strip lines are connected to coupling elements.
Sun suggests wherein the feeding unit consists of a printed circuit board (36c, para [0040]) disposed at a middle of the radiating unit on top surfaces of the conductive elements (32a-32d, fig. 3A) and two coaxial cables (38, fig. 3C) disposed along the support elements (40) and connected by its outer conductors (para [0042] outer jackets of the coaxial cables 38) to a conductive layer (36b) covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board (para [0042]: ground plane segments 36b are also provided on a rear facing surface of the circuit board 36c) and connected by its inner conductors to first ends of two strip lines (36a, para [0041]);
wherein the conductive layer covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board (36b, para [0042]) comprises a cruciform slit (fig. 3B) dividing the conductive layer into four parts (36b) disposed corresponding to four conductive elements of the radiating unit (fig. 3B); and
wherein the strip lines (36a) cross the cruciform slit at a center of the cruciform slit (fig. 3B) and second ends of strip lines are connected to coupling elements (36f).
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 feeding unit as suggested in Sun to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich as claimed for the purpose of capacitively feeding the radiating unit in order to provide a high isolation feeding unit (Sun, para [0011]) to prevent interference of the signals in the coaxial cables to improve the antenna’s performance.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein the coupling elements have a shape of conductive plates (51c, fig. 7) formed on a top surface of the printed circuit board (para [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Aleksandrovich does not disclose wherein the coupling elements have a shape of metallized holes made in the printed circuit board.
Sun discloses wherein the coupling elements have a shape of metallized holes (36f, fig. 3B) made in the printed circuit board.
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 metallized holes as suggested in Sun to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich as claimed for the purpose of capacitively coupling across the cruciform slit (para [0042]) in order to create an antenna feeding circuit to provide wireless communication to the application.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein the radiating unit consists of two crossed dipoles (2a-2d, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each arm of the crossed dipoles consists of two side portions (22a-22d, fig. 3) connected to the support element (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein the radiating unit comprises four dipoles placed above the reflective plate and arranged in a shape of a dipole square (2a-2d, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each dipole (2a-2d, fig. 3) is connected to a symmetrical line formed by two conductors (22a-22d) connected to adjacent support elements (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein the radiating unit comprises four folded dipoles placed above a reflective plate and arranged in a shape of a dipole square (2a-2d, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each folded dipole (2a-2d, fig. 3) is connected to a symmetrical line formed by two conductors (22a-22d) connected to adjacent support elements (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 19, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each folded dipole is disposed in a same plane with the symmetrical lines (fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al, US-9905938-B2 (hereinafter So).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the matching circuit comprises open-ended stubs and short-ended stubs.
So suggests wherein the matching circuit comprises open-ended stubs and short-ended stubs (320, 370, fig. 3, col. 5, lines 29-32).
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 short-ended stubs as suggested in So to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of performing fine tuning and impedance matching for the dual-polarized antenna (So, col. 5, lines 29-32) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasani et al, US-20200006861-A1 (hereinafter Kasani).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein one portion of the strip line crossing the cruciform slit formed in the conductive layer is disposed on a bottom surface of the printed circuit board and connected to the strip line by metallized holes made in the printed circuit board.
Kasani suggests wherein one portion of the strip line (14b, figs. 6A-6B) crossing the cruciform slit formed in the conductive layer is disposed on a bottom surface of the printed circuit board (para [0066]) and connected to the strip line (14) by metallized holes (PTH) made in the printed circuit board.
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 portion of the strip line formed in the conductive layer is disposed on a bottom surface of the printed circuit board as suggested in Kasani to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of maintain electrical isolation between different signals (Kasani, para [0066]) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al, CN-207602782-U (hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the coupling elements have a shape of strip lines with open ends.
Yu suggests wherein the coupling elements have a shape of strip lines with open ends (313, fig. 2, page 4, para 3).
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 open ends as suggested in Yu to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of performing impedance matching for the dual-polarized antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varnoosfaderani et al, US-20230163486-A1 (hereinafter Varnoosfaderani).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the reflective plate contains a cruciform slot disposed between bottom ends of the support elements.
Varnoosfaderani suggests wherein the reflective plate (24, fig. 1B) contains a cruciform slot (26, fig. 7, para [0117]) disposed between bottom ends of the support elements (210).
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 cruciform slot in the reflective plate as suggested in Varnoosfaderani to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of facilitating forming or reworking electrical connections after the antenna assembly (Varnoosfaderani, para [0117]).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Feng et al, CN-111193099-A (hereinafter Feng).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein conductors connecting ends of the folded dipoles are tilted from a plane where the symmetrical lines are disposed to be directed towards the reflective plate.
Feng suggests wherein conductors connecting ends of the dipoles are tilted from a plane where the symmetrical lines are disposed (113, fig. 1).
Although Feng does not explicitly disclose the conductors connecting ends of the dipoles to be directed towards the reflective plate, the dipoles are disposed on the reflective plate in Aleksandrovich, so when the conductors bent downward in fig. 1 of Feng, it is implied that it is directed towards the reflective plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the conductors connecting ends as suggested in Feng of the folded dipoles taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of improving the radiation performance of the radiating unit (Feng, page 5, para 2).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the folded dipoles are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the symmetrical lines are disposed to be directed towards the reflective plate.
Feng suggests wherein the folded dipoles are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the symmetrical lines are disposed (113, fig. 1).
Although Feng does not explicitly disclose the dipoles to be directed towards the reflective plate, the dipoles are disposed on the reflective plate in Aleksandrovich, so when the dipoles bent downward in fig. 1 of Feng, it is implied that it is directed towards the reflective plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the dipoles taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as suggested in Feng as claimed for the purpose of improving the radiation performance of the radiating unit (Feng, page 5, para 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Emormon, CN-1467874-A.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the folded dipoles are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the symmetrical lines are disposed to be directed away from the reflective plate.
Emormon suggests wherein the folded dipoles 21’, 22’, figs. 2, 3) are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the symmetrical lines (40, 44, fig. 1a) are disposed to be directed away from the reflective plate (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the dipoles taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as suggested in Emormon as claimed for the purpose of reducing the size of the antenna while still maintaining the antenna’s performance (Emormon, page 2, Technical Field section).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Choi et al, KR-20110062828-A, fig. 3 – crossed dipoles
Yun et al, KR-20050069746-A, fig. 3 – crossed dipoles
Zeng et al, CN-102891353-A, fig. 4 – connecting ends tilted
Conclusion
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 N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845