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 01/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-15 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections and some of the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112b rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Further, claim 9 recites "the second feed line" in the singular, and the floating limitation clearly applies to that specifically recited feed line. The claim does not suggest that all second feed lines must float in a single groove.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because claim 8 recites “a plurality of second feed lines” so it is not clear how a plurality of second feed lines become a single second feed line. It is not clear if only one of the plurality of second feed lines floats in the third groove or each of the plurality of second feed lines floats in its own third groove.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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 “Rogers Does Not Disclose Support Units on a Bottom Surface of a Groove”, “Fundamental Structural Differences Between Applicant's Invention and Rogers”, “The Claimed "Float in the Groove" Limitation Requires Positioning Within the Groove” and “Structural Distinction Between a Penetrating Groove and an Inter-Layer Cavity”.
The arguments are now moot because claims 1 and 12 are now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al, CN-106602281-A as explained below.
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 recites “wherein the first dielectric plate includes a first groove penetrating upper and lower surfaces of the first dielectric plate” but figs. 4-5 show there is something below the first groove 121 as marked below, therefore the first groove cannot penetrate the lower surfaces of the first dielectric plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first dielectric plate further includes one or more first support units formed on a bottom surface of the first groove”. Drawings do not show the one or more first support units 123 formed on a bottom surface of the first groove 121. Moreover, fig. 5 shows the dielectric portion 126, not the support unit 123 is formed on a bottom surface of the first groove 121.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first dielectric plate further includes a dielectric portion between the first feed line and the plate”. Examiner thinks Applicant means dielectric portion 126 in fig. 5 but there is no drawings showing there is both support units 123 and dielectric portion 126 existing same time in the first groove. It also conflict withs para [73] that “The dielectric portion 126 may be formed in at least a portion of the first groove 121 where the first support unit 123 is not formed”.
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.
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 3, 6, 9 and 14 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 3 recites “wherein the first dielectric plate further includes a dielectric portion between the first feed line and the plate” in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear where the dielectric portion is placed because “the first feed line is supported on upper surfaces of the one or more first support units” recited in claim 1. Examiner thinks Applicant means dielectric portion 126 in fig. 5 but there is no drawings showing there is both support units 123 and dielectric portion 126 existing same time in the first groove. It also conflict withs para [73] that “The dielectric portion 126 may be formed in at least a portion of the first groove 121 where the first support unit 123 is not formed”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the first dielectric plate includes at least two first support units, and wherein the first support units are arranged at predetermined intervals " in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how these at least two first support units relate to the one or more first support units recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim “the one or more first support units”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " wherein the second dielectric plate includes a third groove configured to penetrate upper and lower surfaces of the second dielectric plate in which the second feed line is disposed, and the second feed line is configured to float in the third groove" in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear why only one second feed line is recited while claim 8 recites “a plurality of second feed lines”. It is not clear if all of the plurality of second feed lines or one of the plurality of the second feed lines recited in claim 8 float in the third groove.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " wherein the dielectric plate includes at least two support units, and the support units are arranged at predetermined intervals along the first direction" in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how these at least two first support units relate to the one or more first support units recited in claim 12. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim “the one or more first support units”.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al, CN-106602281-A (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses the following:
an antenna device comprising:
a plate (4, fig. 5d);
a first dielectric plate (3) coupled to one surface of the plate;
a plurality of radiation elements (7,8) arranged along a first direction on the first dielectric plate (fig. 5d); and
a first feed lines line (61, fig. 2) configured to supply power to the plurality of radiation elements and having an air-strip line structure (fig. 2),
wherein the first dielectric plate (3) includes a first groove penetrating upper and lower surfaces of the first dielectric plate (fig. 2) and configured to allow the first feed line to float therein, and the first feed line is configured to float in the first groove (fig. 2),
wherein the first dielectric plate further includes one or more first support units (2) formed on a bottom surface of the first groove to support the first feed line (61), and the first feed line is supported on upper surfaces of the one or more first support units (fig. 2).
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.)
PNG
media_image2.png
466
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sun discloses wherein the first feed line (61, fig. 2) floats at a predetermined distance from a side wall of the first groove (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Sun discloses wherein the first dielectric plate (3, fig. 2) further includes a dielectric portion (the air below support unit 2) between the first feed line (61) and the plate (4).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Sun discloses wherein the first dielectric plate (3, fig. 2) includes the one or more first support unit (2), and wherein the first support units are arranged at predetermined intervals and are formed integrally with the first dielectric plate (page 6, para 6).
Regarding claim 12, Sun discloses the following:
a feed line of an air-strip line structure which supplies power to a radiation element of an antenna device, the feed line comprising:
a dielectric plate (3, fig. 2);
a groove (fig. 2 above) formed to penetrate through upper and lower surfaces of the dielectric plate; and
a line unit (61) configured to float at a predetermined distance from a side wall of the groove,
wherein the dielectric plate further includes one or more support units (2) formed on a bottom surface of the groove to support the line unit (61), and the line unit is supported on upper surfaces of the one or more support units (fig. 2).
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.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Sun discloses wherein the groove is formed to extend in a first direction (fig. 2), wherein the dielectric plate (3, fig. 2) includes the one or more first support unit (2), and the support units are arranged at predetermined intervals along the first direction (fig. 2, 5d).
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 4, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Rogers, US-20210135368-A1.
Regarding claim 4, although Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein the first groove has a shape corresponding to a shape of the first feed line, Sun discloses the width of the first groove has influence the field distribution around the feed line and the width of the first groove is more than 3 times of the width of the feed line (last para , page 6 to page 7, para 1).
Rogers suggests wherein the first groove (124, figs. 3A-4B) has a shape corresponding to a shape of the first feed line (116A-116G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the first groove of the antenna device taught in Sun to be corresponding to a shape of the first feed line as suggested in Rogers as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the field distribution around the feed line (Sun, page 6, last para) in order to reduce the dielectric losses between the ground plane and the feed line to increase the antenna gain (Rogers, para [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Sun does not disclose wherein the first feed line has a uniform width.
Rogers discloses wherein the first feed line (116A-116G, figs. 3A-4B) has a uniform width (figs. 3A-4B).
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 first feed line of the antenna device taught in Sun to have a uniform width as disclosed in Rogers as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 15, Sun does not disclose wherein the line unit has a uniform width.
Rogers discloses wherein the line unit (116A-116G, figs. 3A-4B) has a uniform width (figs. 3A-4B).
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 first feed line of the antenna device taught in Sun to have a uniform width as disclosed in Rogers as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Tong et al, CN-214227138-U (hereinafter Tong).
Regarding claim 7, Sun discloses wherein the first dielectric plate further includes a first connection unit (5, fig. 5f) connecting the first dielectric plate (3) to the radiation element (7, 8, page 7, para 3).
Tong suggests wherein the first plate (02, fig. 2) further includes a first connection unit (04, figs. 3, 8) connecting the first plate (02) to the radiation element (07) and a second connection unit (03, figs. 3, 9) connecting the first plate (02) to the first feed line (051), and
the first connection unit and the second connection unit are formed integrally with the first plate (page 9, last para – page 10, para 1: the first and second connection units 03, 04 can be fixed in the grooves 020, 021 of the first plate 02 by injection molding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first connection unit and the second connection unit suggested in Tong to the dielectric plate taught in Sun as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process in order to save time and cost in manufacturing the antenna device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kim et al, US-20190165449-A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 8, Sun does not disclose the antenna device of claim 1, further comprising a second dielectric plate coupled to the other surface of the plate and a plurality of second feed lines configured to transmit signals to the first feed line.
Kim suggests the antenna device further comprising a second dielectric plate (M4, fig. 10) coupled to the other surface of the plate (M5-M6) and a plurality of second feed lines (144, fig. 3A) configured to transmit signals to the first feed line (1045b, para [0099]).
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 second dielectric plate and the second feed lines as suggested in Kim to the antenna device taught in Sun as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the distance between the radiation elements and other components without separating the components in order to reduce interference and filter the transmit/receive signals (Kim, para [0011]).
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.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sinsheimer et al, US-20040135656-A1 (hereinafter Sinsheimer).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the combination of Sun and Kim does not disclose wherein the second dielectric plate includes a third groove configured to penetrate upper and lower surfaces of the second dielectric plate in which the second feed line is disposed, and the second feed line is configured to float in the third groove.
Sinsheimer suggests wherein the second dielectric plate includes a third groove (356, fig. 3B) configured to penetrate upper and lower surfaces of the second dielectric plate (352) in which the second feed line is disposed (358), and the second feed line is configured to float in the third groove (fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second feed line floating in the third grove as suggested in Sinsheimer to the antenna device taught in Sun and Kim as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the distance between the feed line and the radiation elements depending on the desired operating frequency. Moreover, 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).
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.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gao et al, WO-2020238299-A1 (hereinafter Gao).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sun and Kim does not disclose wherein the first dielectric plate and the second dielectric plate are injection molded.
Gao suggests a plurality of antenna supporting structures are injection molded (page 3, para 5) and multiple antenna elements and their feeder network lines can be injection molded (page 7, para 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second dielectric plate taught in Sun and Kim to be injection molded as suggested in Gao as claimed for the purpose of improving the manufacturing process in order to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost (Gao, page 7, para 6).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Chan et al, US-20060033671-A1, fig. 3 could read on claim 1
Cook, US-20170324164-A1, fig. 23: support unit on bottom surface of the groove
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