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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-17 have been withdrawn.
The Remarks of 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claims 1, 6, 10-14, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Strickland is maintained. On page 8 of the remarks, applicant argues that in Strickland, none of radiators in the antenna array are partially overlapping to one another. Examiner respectfully disagrees, while the stubs of Strickland do not directly contact each other, they are still at least partially overlapping each other with their varying lengths. The rejection of claims 1, 6, 10-14, and 16-17 as anticipated by Strickland is, therefore, maintained.
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, 6, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strickland et al. (P. C. Strickland, "Series-fed microstrip patch arrays with periodic loading," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 1472-1474, Dec. 1995; hereinafter Strickland).
Regarding claim 1, Strickland discloses “An antenna apparatus, comprising: a first antenna array (fig. 1B), wherein the first antenna array comprises at least two antenna units (elements of 1B), the at least two antenna units comprises a first antenna unit (lower antenna unit of fig. 1B), and the first antenna unit comprises a first patch subunit (lower patch of fig. 1B) and a first feeder subunit (lower feedline of fig. 1B); and the first patch subunit sequentially comprises at least two stubs in a first direction (many stubs in first direction), the at least two stubs consist of a first stub and a second stub that are partially overlapping (stubs below patch in fig. 1B), and a length of the first stub in a second direction is less than a length of the second stub in the second direction (see fig. 1B stubs have varying length)”.
Regarding claim 6, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least two stubs comprise the first stub, the second stub, and a third stub (fig. 1B has at least three stubs); and a length of the third stub in the second direction is greater than the length of the first stub in the second direction and less than the length of the second stub in the second direction (stubs are all of carrying length)”.
Regarding claim 10, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a length of the first patch subunit in the first direction is L4, and 0.5k<L4<1.5k, and k is an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus (Section III, patch is a half wavelength radiator)”.
Regarding claim 11, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first stub is configured to generate a horizontal single peak beam (all these stubs are single peak since they are meant to radiate in fundamental modes)”.
Regarding claim 12, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first stub, the second stub, or a third stub is in a shape of a rectangle, an ellipse, a circle, a rhombus, a square, or a trapezoid (shape of a rectangle/square in fig. 1B)”.
Regarding claim 13, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an edge of the first stub, the second stub, or a third stub is in a shape of a line segment (see fig. 1B stubs)”.
Regarding claim 14, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least two antenna units further comprises a second antenna unit (fig. 1B has multiple units in series), wherein the second antenna unit and the first antenna unit have a same structure (fig. 1B); and the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit are connected in the first direction (in series in first direction)”.
Regarding claim 16, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a central axis of the first stub in the first direction, a central axis of the second stub in the first direction, or a central axis of the third stub in the first direction is parallel to the second direction (stub central axis all parallel to second direction in fig. 1B)”.
Regarding claim 17, Strickland discloses “The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a second antenna array, wherein the second antenna array and the first antenna array have a same structure (fig. 1B and fig. 2 show array and side-by-side disposal/loading)”.
Regarding claim 18, Strickland discloses “A detection apparatus to sense a surrounding environment, the detection apparatus comprising an antenna apparatus, comprising: a first antenna array (fig. 1B), wherein the first antenna array comprises at least two antenna units (elements of 1B), the at least two antenna units comprises a first antenna unit (lower antenna unit of fig. 1B), and the first antenna unit comprises a first patch subunit (lower patch of fig. 1B) and a first feeder subunit (lower feedline of fig. 1B); and the first patch subunit sequentially comprises at least two stubs in a first direction (many stubs in first direction), the at least two stubs consist of a first stub and a second stub that are partially overlapping(stubs below patch in fig. 1B), and a length of the first stub in a second direction is less than a length of the second stub in the second direction (see fig. 1B stubs have varying length)”.
Regarding claim 19, Strickland discloses “A terminal device comprising: a detection apparatus to sense a surrounding environment, the detection apparatus comprising an antenna apparatus, comprising: a first antenna array (fig. 1B), wherein the first antenna array comprises at least two antenna units (elements of 1B), the at least two antenna units comprises a first antenna unit (lower antenna unit of fig. 1B), and the first antenna unit comprises a first patch subunit (lower patch of fig. 1B) and a first feeder subunit (lower feedline of fig. 1B); and the first patch subunit sequentially comprises at least two stubs in a first direction (many stubs in first direction), the at least two stubs consist of a first stub and a second stub that are partially overlapping(stubs below patch in fig. 1B), and a length of the first stub in a second direction is less than a length of the second stub in the second direction (see fig. 1B stubs have varying length)”.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland in view of Liu et al. (H. Liu, L. Meng, X. Huo, S. Liu and J. Xiao, "A Novel Dual-Band Dual-Pattern Radiation Patch Antenna Based on Mode Analysis Theory Under TM01 and TM02 Mode," 2020 IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Numerical Electromagnetic and Multiphysics Modeling and Optimization (NEMO), Hangzhou, China, 2020, pp. 1-4; hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 2, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein a direction in which the first antenna unit radiates a signal on a first frequency band is a third direction, wherein the third direction is a normal direction of the first antenna unit; directions in which the first antenna unit radiates signals on a second frequency band are a fourth direction and a fifth direction, wherein the fourth direction and the fifth direction are respectively located on two sides of the third direction; and the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band”.
However, Liu teaches designing patches and feeding them such that it creates a first signal in a third direction and second signal in a fourth and fifth direction with different frequencies (see patterns created in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein a direction in which the first antenna unit radiates a signal on a first frequency band is a third direction, wherein the third direction is a normal direction of the first antenna unit; directions in which the first antenna unit radiates signals on a second frequency band are a fourth direction and a fifth direction, wherein the fourth direction and the fifth direction are respectively located on two sides of the third direction; and the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band, in order to cover more area with the signal and have multiple modes without overlap.
Regarding claim 3, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein the first antenna unit radiates a horizontal single peak beam on a first frequency band; the first antenna unit radiates a horizontal double peak beam on a second frequency band; and the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band”.
However, Liu teaches designing patches and feeding them such that it creates a first signal in a third direction and second signal in a fourth and fifth direction with different frequencies (see patterns created in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein the first antenna unit radiates a horizontal single peak beam on a first frequency band; the first antenna unit radiates a horizontal double peak beam on a second frequency band; and the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band, in order to cover more area with the signal and have multiple modes without overlap.
Regarding claim 4, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein a current on the first stub flows in the first direction”.
However, Liu teaches “wherein a current on the first stub flows in the first direction (fig. 3a)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein a current on the first stub flows in the first direction, in order to get the desired radiation pattern from the radiator.
Regarding claim 5, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein components of a current on the second stub in the second direction are symmetrical in the first direction”.
However, Liu teaches “wherein components of a current on the second stub in the second direction are symmetrical in the first direction (fig. 3a)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein components of a current on the second stub in the second direction are symmetrical in the first direction, in order to get the desired radiation pattern from the radiator.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland in view of Yoshitake et al. (US20190312357; hereinafter Yoshitake).
Regarding claim 7, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein the length of the first stub in the second direction is L1, 0.35X<L1<0.65X, and X is an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus”.
However, Yoshitake teaches that the length and width of stub elements in an antenna unit is a design choice that can be found through experimental procedure (see figs. 4-5, ¶[0038]; In a conventional antenna element, control of the coupling amount is performed by changing the element width, and ¶[0049]; In FIG. 4, a horizontal axis indicates a ratio of the opening depth La to the element length L and a vertical axis indicates the coupling amount. In FIG. 5, a horizontal axis indicates a ratio of the opening width Wa to the element width W and a vertical axis indicates the coupling amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yoshitake and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein the length of the first stub in the second direction is L1, 0.35X<L1<0.65X, and X is an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus, in order to have the proper radiation and coupling (or decoupling) at the desired operating frequencies.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein the length of the second stub in the second direction is L2, 0.7k< L2<1.3k, and k is the-an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus”.
However, Yoshitake teaches that the length and width of stub elements in an antenna unit is a design choice that can be found through experimental procedure (see figs. 4-5, ¶[0038]; In a conventional antenna element, control of the coupling amount is performed by changing the element width, and ¶[0049]; In FIG. 4, a horizontal axis indicates a ratio of the opening depth La to the element length L and a vertical axis indicates the coupling amount. In FIG. 5, a horizontal axis indicates a ratio of the opening width Wa to the element width W and a vertical axis indicates the coupling amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yoshitake and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein the length of the second stub in the second direction is L2, 0.7k< L2<1.3k, and k is the-an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus, in order to have the proper radiation and coupling (or decoupling) at the desired operating frequencies.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 6 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein the length of the third stub in the second direction is L3, and 0.525X<L3<1.125X, and X is an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus”.
However, Yoshitake teaches that the length and width of stub elements in an antenna unit is a design choice that can be found through experimental procedure (see figs. 4-5, ¶[0038]; In a conventional antenna element, control of the coupling amount is performed by changing the element width, and ¶[0049]; In FIG. 4, a horizontal axis indicates a ratio of the opening depth La to the element length L and a vertical axis indicates the coupling amount. In FIG. 5, a horizontal axis indicates a ratio of the opening width Wa to the element width W and a vertical axis indicates the coupling amount).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yoshitake and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein the length of the third stub in the second direction is L3, and 0.525X<L3<1.125X, and X is an operating wavelength of the antenna apparatus, in order to have the proper radiation and coupling (or decoupling) at the desired operating frequencies.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland in view of Gharavi et al. (US20190312357; hereinafter Gharavi).
Regarding claim 7, Strickland discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 as shown previously.
Strickland does not disclose “wherein a distance between the first antenna unit and a second antenna unit in the first direction is 0.5xN first wavelengths, wherein N is a positive integer”.
However, Gharavi teaches “wherein a distance between the first antenna unit and a second antenna unit in the first direction is 0.5xN first wavelengths, wherein N is a positive integer (¶[0076]; As illustrated in FIGS. 9A and 9B, when antennas 950 are interleaved with antennas 952, as in the interleaved antenna rows configuration of phased array antenna panel 700 in FIG. 7, if each antenna element is uniformly spaced from its adjacent antenna element by distance D1, the distance between each antenna 950 increases as compared to when antennas 950 are not interleaved with antennas 952, as in the non-overlapping sub-arrays configuration of phased array antenna panel 400 in FIG. 4. In practice, a relatively large distance between antennas 950 uniquely associated with power amplifiers that transmit constant amplitude component S1(t), such as distance D2, can cause a phased array antenna panel to transmit RF beams in unintended directions, also referred to as “grating lobes.” For example, phased array antenna panel 902 may exhibit grating lobes when distance D2 is greater than a half wavelength (i.e., greater than λ/2). In high frequency applications having short wavelengths, it can be complex and costly to manufacture phased array antenna panel 902 such that distance D2 is less than or equal to a half wavelength (i.e., less than or equal to λ/2))”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gharavi and make Strickland’s apparatus wherein a distance between the first antenna unit and a second antenna unit in the first direction is 0.5xN first wavelengths, wherein N is a positive integer, in order to have the proper radiation and coupling (or decoupling) at the desired operating frequencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, specifically “the at least two stubs comprise a first stub and second stub that are partially overlapping”. Guichi et al. (Guichi, Fella and Mouloud Challal. “Compact UWB monopole antenna with WiMAX/ITU band notch characteristics.” 2017 5th International Conference on Electrical Engineering - Boumerdes (ICEE-B) (2017): 1-4.).
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 AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights