DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/31/2025 and 2/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being 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 coplanar waveguide recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are additionally objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: substrate 220.
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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 recites the quadrature coupler of claim 1, wherein the top metallization layer and the bottom metallization layer form a coplanar waveguide without an interconnecting layer between the top metallization layer and the bottom metallization layer. The only relevant description found in the original disclosure merely repeats this claim language word for word without providing any additional detail. The specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention of claim 11 for at least the following reasons.
First, coplanar waveguides have significantly different electromagnetic field distribution and propagation characteristics in comparison to microstrip waveguides disclosed in the present application. Thus, the disclosure of microstrip waveguides does not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use coplanar waveguides.
Second, the specification does not disclose how the top and the bottom layers can possibly form a coplanar waveguide, that is, a waveguide formed on the same plane surface. See, e.g., The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., 2000, p. 240 (defining “coplanar waveguide” as “a planar transmission line consisting of a single thin conducting strip of finite width situated between two semi-infinite ground planes and separated from them by finite gaps, which are all affixed to the same plane surface of an insulating substrate of arbitrary thickness”).
The insufficient description does not permit a meaningful prior art examination of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a size of the quadrature coupler.” It is unclear what dimension(s) the term refers to, which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the dimension(s), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, this term will be understood to refer to the overall size, that is, the length and width, of the metallic upper plane.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as dependent on the rejected claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by S. Sun and L. Zhu, Miniaturised patch hybrid couplers using asymmetrically loaded cross slots, IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 9, pp. 1427 –1433 (“Sun”).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun discloses in Figs. 1-3, Tables 1-2, pp. 1427 –1433:
Claims 1 (as best understood), 13 and 14
A quadrature coupler (Figs. 1-3, pp. 1427 –1433), comprising:
a top metallization layer, comprising:
a metallic upper plane (Fig. 1b, annotated),
a first port (#1) coupled to the metallic upper plane via a first microstrip line, a second port (#2) coupled to the metallic upper plane via a second microstrip line, a third port (#3) coupled to the metallic upper plane via a third microstrip line, and a fourth port (#4) coupled to the metallic upper plane via a fourth microstrip line, wherein the first port is opposite the third port, the first port is adjacent to the second port, and the first port is the adjacent to fourth port (Fig. 1b),
a first slot in the metallic upper plane having a first slot width (W1) and a first slot length (L1),
a second slot in the metallic upper plane having a second slot width (W2) and a second slot length (L2), wherein the first slot crosses the second slot at an intersection point (Fig. 1b, annotated);
a bottom metallization layer comprising a ground plane (Sun discloses a microstrip coupler, which by definition would necessarily include a bottom metallization layer comprising a ground plane. See, e.g., The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., 2000, pp. 693-4); and
a substrate (Fig. 1, “substrate: ε=10.8, thickness=0.635 mm”) between the top metallization layer and the bottom metallization layer,
wherein a size of the quadrature coupler, the first slot width, the first slot length, the second slot width, and the second slot length, determine radio frequency characteristics of the quadrature coupler, the radio frequency characteristics comprising a defined bandwidth around a center frequency (Figs. 3b-c, Tables 1-2, illustrating how L1, L2, W1, and W2 determine radio frequency characteristics of the quadrature coupler).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Sun teaches to use its quadrature hybrid couplers in various devices, including antenna arrays (p. 1427).
Claim 2
wherein the first slot is angled at substantially about forty-five degrees relative to the first microstrip line and the third microstrip line, and wherein the second slot is substantially perpendicular to the first slot (Fig. 1b, annotated).
Claim 3
wherein the first slot length is greater than the second slot length (Fig. 2, L1=7.6mm, L2=5.8mm).
Claims 4 and 15
wherein the metallic upper plane is substantially square, and wherein the intersection point of the first slot and the second slot is substantially centered relative to the metallic upper plane (Fig. 1b, annotated)..
Claim 5
wherein at least one of: the first slot width, the first slot length, the second slot width, or the second slot length, is defined at least in part based on a material of the substrate (Fig. 1, p. 1431, specifying the material of substrate as Rogers RT/Duroid 6010 LM with ε=10.8 and thickness=0.635 mm).
Claims 6 and 16
wherein at least one of: the first slot width, the first slot length, the second slot width, or the second slot length, is determined at least in part based on radio frequency matching of the quadrature coupler (Figs. 3b-c, Tables 1-2, pp. 1429-21, illustrating how L1, L2, W1, and W2 determine radio frequency characteristics of the quadrature coupler).
Claim 7
wherein scattering parameters of the quadrature coupler are determined at least in part by at least one of: the first slot width, the first slot length, the second slot width, or the second slot length (Figs. 3b-c, Tables 1-2, pp. 1429-21, illustrating how L1, L2, W1, and W2 determine scattering parameters of the quadrature coupler).
Claim 8
wherein the defined bandwidth of the quadrature coupler is determined at least in part by at least one of: the first slot width, the first slot length, the second slot width, or the second slot length (Figs. 2b-c, 3b-c illustrating how L1, L2, W1, and W2 determine the frequency bandwidth of the quadrature coupler).
Claims 9 and 17 (as best understood)
wherein the center frequency of the quadrature coupler is determined by the size of the quadrature coupler (p. 1429, teaching how to determine the overall size of the cross-slot patch based on the desired wavelength).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, taken alone.
Claim 10
As set forth above, Sun discloses all the limitations of claim 10 except wherein respective length and width dimensions of the first port, the second port, the third port, and the fourth port determine a characteristic impedance of the quadrature coupler.
It was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the respective length and width dimensions of the microstrip lines functioning as the ports determine a characteristic impedance of the quadrature coupler. See, e.g., C. Free and C. Aitchison, RF and Microwave Circuit Design: Theory and Applications, Wiley 2022, pp. 53, 61-62.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have respective length and width dimensions of the first port, the second port, the third port, and the fourth port determine a characteristic impedance of the quadrature coupler.
Claim 12
As set forth above, Sun discloses all the limitations of claim 12 except wherein the defined bandwidth is greater than around three gigahertz at a center frequency greater than around fifteen gigahertz.
However, Sun teaches that the center frequency and the bandwidth of its coupler depends on various variables, including the overall cross-slot patch size (metallic upper plane) and the lengths and widths of the slots (Fig. 3; pp. 1427-9). Specifically, Sun teaches that the overall cross-slot patch size defines the operating wavelength (p. 1429). Sun further teaches that the center frequency is increasing as the length of the slots is decreasing (p. 1429). Thus, the overall cross-slot patch size and the length of the slots are result-effective variables, i.e., the variables that achieves a recognized result. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the overall cross-slot patch size and/or the length and width of the slots to define bandwidth greater than around three gigahertz at a center frequency greater than around fifteen gigahertz, as taught by Sun (Fig. 3; Table 1; pp. 1427-9)
In addition, the modification would have been obvious because the overall cross-slot patch size and the lengths and widths of the slots are design parameters that can be set as desired for controlling the bandwidth and the center frequency of the coupler, as taught by Sun (Fig. 3; Table 1; pp. 1427-9). The overall cross-slot patch size and the lengths and widths of the slots may be set (greater or different) as a result of optimization to achieve the desired characteristics as known in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) and/or simply obvious to try as there are only limited choices of the relationships (greater, smaller, same, or different; MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Y.Li, Q.Liu, S.Sun and S.Gao, A miniaturised Butler matrix based on patch hybrid couplers with cross slots, IEEE Antennas and Propag. Soc. Int’l Symp., 2013, pp. 2145-2146 (“Li”) discloses a beam-forming Butler matrix based on the patch hybrid couplers with cross slots disclosed in Sun.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,889,449, issued March 30, 1999 (“Fiedziuszko”) discloses microwave transmission devices using cross-shaped irises to control coupling of the electromagnetic modes, passbands and central frequency (Figs. 4-7, 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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 www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL, can be reached at (571) 272-5918. 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843