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 04/06/2026, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
The Remarks of 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chi, in view of Schaffner, further in view of Khaleghi and Cho is maintained. On page 6-7 of the remarks, applicant argues that “Cho is not a proper prior art reference as "the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to invoke the 102(b)(2)(C) exception, a signed statement on the record that the common ownership existed “no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention” (See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i)) must be submitted since prior art list inventors other than those listed on the instant application. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 10 as unpatentable over Chi, in view of Schaffner, further in view of Khaleghi and Cho is, therefore, maintained.
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, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (US20240356236; hereinafter Chi), Schaffner et al. (US20160013549; hereinafter Schaffner), Khaleghi et al. (US20190229770; hereinafter Khaleghi), and Cho et al. (US20220344806; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 1, Chi discloses “A dual-band antenna array comprising: a top layer of fused silica substrate (420); a bottom layer of fused silica substrate (440); a ground plane (430) positioned between the top and bottom layers of fused silica substrate; antenna patch elements (410) arranged on top of the top layer of fused silica substrate; an input feedline (450) arrange on the bottom layer of the fused silica substrate”.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the ground plane comprises layers of three different metals” or “a meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure etched on a top surface of the ground plane, wherein the input feedline is directly coupled to the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure and is configured to excite a plurality of resonance frequencies of the antenna patch elements”.
However, Schaffner teaches “wherein the ground plane comprises layers of three different metals (¶[0026]; A multilayer electromagnetic bandgap structure forms a wideband multilayer ground plane 22 to cover the frequencies of operation of the pixelated tile 10 and ¶[0016]; configured as a patch antenna and then reconfigured in size to three different operational frequencies)”.
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 Schaffner and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the ground plane comprises layers of three different metals, in order to help with shielding and mitigate changes in bandwidth vs. frequency (¶[0031]).
The modified Chi does not disclose “a meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure etched on a top surface of the ground plane, wherein the input feedline is directly coupled to the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure and is configured to excite a plurality of resonance frequencies of the antenna patch elements”.
However, Khaleghi teaches “a meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure (fig. 2A/4A), wherein the input feedline (38) is directly coupled to the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure (coupled capacitively) and is configured to excite a plurality of resonance frequencies of the antenna patch elements”.
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 Khaleghi and make Chi’s antenna array wherein a meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure, wherein the input feedline is directly coupled to the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure and is configured to excite a plurality of resonance frequencies of the antenna patch elements, in order to feed the patches at multiple frequencies and avoid cross talk when patches are located close together.
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.
The modified Chi does not disclose that the meanderlines ring resonator is “etched on a top surface of the ground plane”.
However, Cho teaches that the meanderlines ring resonator is “etched on a top surface of the ground plane (Abstract; and meander line (ML) slots formed in a ground plane disposed on a second side of the substrate)”.
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 Cho and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the meanderline ring resonator is etched on a top surface of the ground plane, in order to miniaturize the structure.
Regarding claim 3, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 1 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the antenna patch elements comprise a 2x2 patch antenna array”.
However, Cho teaches “wherein the antenna patch elements comprise a 2x2 patch antenna array (fig. 1)”.
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 Cho and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the antenna patch elements comprise a 2x2 patch antenna array, in order to allow MIMO capabilities.
Regarding claim 10, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 1 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure comprises four meanderline complimentary split ring resonators that are configured to resonate around a desired frequency and are placed diagonally on the ground plane beneath the antenna patch elements”.
However, Cho teaches “wherein the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure comprises four meanderline complimentary split ring resonators that are configured to resonate around a desired frequency and are placed diagonally on the ground plane beneath the antenna patch elements (fig. 1)”.
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 Cho and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the meanderline complimentary split ring resonator structure comprises four meanderline complimentary split ring resonators that are configured to resonate around a desired frequency and are placed diagonally on the ground plane beneath the antenna patch elements, in order to allow the patches to be more closely disposed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi, Schaffner, Khaleghi, and Cho, further in view of Brobston et al. (US20230037629; hereinafter Brobston).
Regarding claim 2, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 1 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the plurality of resonant frequencies comprise 28 GHz and at 24 GHz”.
However, Brobston teaches “wherein the plurality of resonant frequencies comprise 28 GHz and at 24 GHz (¶[0005]; Some 5G wireless communications systems are being deployed that operate in millimeter wave (mmWave) frequency bands, such as, for example, the 24 GHz, 28 GHz and 39 GHz frequency bands)”.
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 Brobston and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the plurality of resonant frequencies comprise 28 GHz and at 24 GHz, in order to allow the antenna to operate at common frequencies.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi, Schaffner, Khaleghi, and Cho, further in view of Koul et al. (US20220021123; hereinafter Koul).
Regarding claim 4, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 3 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the top layer of fused silica substrate comprises a 350 pm thick fused silica wafer”.
However, Koul teaches that the thickness of a top substrate is an adjustable parameter (¶[0048]; Further, as shown in FIG. 2D, the thickness of the second substrate is a parameter that adjusts the flat response over the band without compromising the bandwidth)
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 Koul and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the top layer of fused silica substrate comprises a 350 pm thick fused silica wafer, in order to improve the response over the band.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 3 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the bottom layer of fused silica substrate comprises a 180 pm thick fused silica wafer”.
However, Koul teaches that the thickness of a bottom substrate may be half the thickness of a top substrate (¶[0043]; In some examples, the thickness h′.sub.3 of the bottom or first substrate 120 may be one-half, or approximately one-half, that of the thickness h′.sub.1 of the top or second substrate 124)
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 Koul and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the bottom layer of fused silica substrate comprises a 180 pm thick fused silica wafer, in order to improve the response over the band.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi, Schaffner, Khaleghi, and Cho, further in view of Dave et al. (US20240258701; hereinafter Dave).
Regarding claim 8, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 1 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the input feedline comprises an asymmetric microstrip line attached to an open stub”.
However, Dave teaches “wherein the input feedline comprises an asymmetric microstrip line attached to an open stub (figs. 11-12 and ¶[0090]; Hence the feedlines are matched using open circuit capacitive stubs)”.
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 Dave and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the input feedline comprises an asymmetric microstrip line attached to an open stub, in order to feed the meanderline structures with different frequencies.
Regarding claim 9, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 1 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the input feedline comprises an asymmetric feedline”.
However, Dave teaches “wherein the input feedline comprises an asymmetric feedline (figs. 11-12)”.
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 Dave and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the input feedline comprises an asymmetric feedline, in order to feed the meanderline structures with different frequencies.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi, Schaffner, Khaleghi, and Cho, further in view of Robinson et al. (US20230246323; hereinafter Robinson).
Regarding claim 11, Chi discloses the antenna array of claim 1 as shown previously.
Chi does not disclose “wherein the antenna patch elements comprise a 4x4 patch antenna array”.
However, Robinson teaches that it is known the art to change 2x2 arrays to 4x4 arrays (¶[0098]; In some embodiments, the antennae 313 may include MIMO signaling capabilities include, e.g., 2x2, 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 or more SISO channels).
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 Robinson and make Chi’s antenna array wherein the antenna patch elements comprise a 4x4 patch antenna array, in order to add more modes to the MIMO antenna.
Furthermore, as seen in the instant application the change of the antenna from a 2x2 to 4x4 array is achieved through duplicating the 2x2 antenna design (see fig. 5) and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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 6, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein four patch elements of the 2x2 patch antenna array are separated by a pitch p = 0.048Ao with Ao being a free space wavelength”.
Chi, Schaffner, Khaleghi, Cho, and Koul are all cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including “The dual-band antenna array of claim 5 (see previous rejections)”.
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. For at least this reason claim 6 is allowable.
Claim 7 allowable for its dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
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.
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