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
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on February 25, 2026. The Remarks of February 25, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered and the replacement sheets to Figs. 1A-B are accepted. There are no further objections to the Drawings.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specification are considered and the respective amendments are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of the Claims are considered. The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive. The amendments to the claims are accepted and the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: “the half circular resonator sections are configured around a frequency threshold (fh) where, for input frequencies above the frequency threshold, the half circular resonator sections are configured so that for frequencies above the frequency threshold (fh) the half circular resonator section are the dominant resonators of the dipole” should be amended to “the half circular resonator sections are configured around a frequency threshold (fh) so that for frequencies above the frequency threshold (fh) the half circular resonator sections are dominant resonators of the dipole”;
Claim 5 (lines 2-3): “ds is the diameter of the half circular resonator section and c is the speed of light in vacuum” should be amended to “(ds) is a diameter of the half circular resonator section and (c) is the speed of light in vacuum”;
Claim 16 (lines 2-3): “an input impedance of the dipole antenna and a radiation pattern” should be amended to “an input impedance and a radiation pattern of the dipole antenna”;
Claim 18 (lines 2-3): “cross bar” should be amended to “the cross bar”.
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 6, 9, and 12 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.
Claims 6 and 12 recite: “having the dimensions … as shown in FIGs. 2A-2E”. It is unclear what dimensions are required by the claim and, therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 9 (line 2) recites “different sized/shaped”. It is unclear if sized/shaped refers to sized, or shaped, or both, which makes the scope of the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 9, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
In response to the arguments submitted February 25, 2026 and upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Lamminen (US 20200058999 A1) and Sadler et al. (US 6417816 B2, hereinafter Sadler) are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including: a substate having a top surface and a bottom surface; a dipole having two symmetric poles.
However, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s Disclosure.
Harrell et al. (US 6320548 B1), and Rogers et al. (US 20210288408 A1) are cited to teach a planar dipole antenna relevant to claims 1 and 19 of the claimed invention.
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845