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 amendments filed 6/29/26 are fully considered and are entered. These amendments have overcome the objections set forth in the non-final office action mailed 4/6/26, and have overcome some of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections set forth in said office action, however some aspects of the rejections of claims 3 and 17 are not addressed, and these aspects are maintained below.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claims 8-14 remain withdrawn from consideration in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. In detail, the references applied in the prior rejection of record are not relied upon to teach the limitation of “differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization”.
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, 5, 17, and 19 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite in scope as the “length” and “width” recited are in relation to an X-shaped antenna element, which does not have an obviously definable “length” and “width” as such terms may relate to the perspective height and width of the X shape interpreted as the letter, or the length corresponding to the extent of one arm and the width to the other, or the length corresponding to the length of either arm and the width to the lateral dimension of each arm; thus, without these aspects being clearly defined within the bounds of the claim nor the remainder of the disclosure, the limitation renders the claim indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 5 is included for its dependency upon claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is indefinite in scope as the “length” and “width” recited are in relation to an X-shaped antenna element, which does not have an obviously definable “length” and “width” as such terms may relate to the perspective height and width of the X shape interpreted as the letter, or the length corresponding to the extent of one arm and the width to the other, or the length corresponding to the length of either arm and the width to the lateral dimension of each arm; thus, without these aspects being clearly defined within the bounds of the claim nor the remainder of the disclosure, the limitation renders the claim indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 19 is included for its dependency upon claim 17.
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 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So et al. (US Patent No. 11,641,065) in view of Dufilie et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0421487) and Tehran et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0076078).
Regarding claim 1, So et al. teaches (Figs. 2, 3) an apparatus comprising: a via-fed dual-polarized patch (130; Col 11 lines 50-57); a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch (Col 6 lines 44-52); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (170) capacitively coupled to the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220b-220f).
So does not teach the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch being capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap.
Dufilie et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 3) an apparatus comprising: a via-fed dual-polarized patch (14; see ¶49, ¶76); and a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (12) capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of So such that the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch is capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap, employing the teachings of Dufilie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling high frequency operation of the apparatus (Dufilie, ¶8).
So does not teach the via-fed dual-polarized patch being differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization.
Tehran et al. teaches (Figs. 3A-3C and 4A-4B) an apparatus comprising: a dual-polarized patch (321, 322) that is differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization (351, 352) and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization (353, 354; see also analogous feeding lines in Fig. 4A: 431, 432, 433, 434; feeding lines 351, 352, 431, 432 comprise significant straight portions and may be construed as straight feeding lines; feeding lines 353, 354, 433, 434 comprise significant curved portions and may be construed as curved feeding lines; see ¶61); a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch capacitively coupled to the dual-polarized patch through an air gap (341 and 342 coupled through air gap 335).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of So such that the via-fed dual-polarized patch is differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization, employing the teachings of Tehran.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing cross-polarization and phase adjustment of both polarizations (Tehran, ¶61 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, So teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the via-fed dual-polarized patch (130) includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (element 130 is fed by vias 121a-d, which form an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration).
Regarding claim 15, So et al. teaches (Figs. 2, 3) a method of using an antenna comprising: capacitively coupling a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) to a via-fed dual-polarized patch (130; Col 11 lines 50-57); and capacitively coupling a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (170) to the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (140) through a dielectric layer (220b-220f).
So does not teach specifically coupling the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap.
Dufilie et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 3) a method of using an antenna comprising: capacitively coupling a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (12) to a via-fed dual-polarized patch (14; see ¶49, ¶76) through an air gap (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of So such that the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch is capacitively coupled to the via-fed dual-polarized patch through an air gap, employing the teachings of Dufilie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling high frequency operation of the antenna (Dufilie, ¶8).
So does not teach the via-fed dual-polarized patch being differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization.
Tehran et al. teaches (Figs. 3A-3C and 4A-4B) an apparatus comprising: a dual-polarized patch (321, 322) that is differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization (351, 352) and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization (353, 354; see also analogous feeding lines in Fig. 4A: 431, 432, 433, 434; feeding lines 351, 352, 431, 432 comprise significant straight portions and may be construed as straight feeding lines; feeding lines 353, 354, 433, 434 comprise significant curved portions and may be construed as curved feeding lines; see ¶61); a first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch capacitively coupled to the dual-polarized patch through an air gap (341 and 342 coupled through air gap 335).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of So such that the via-fed dual-polarized patch is differentially fed via a straight feeding line supporting a first polarization and a curved feeding line supporting a second polarization, employing the teachings of Tehran.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of reducing cross-polarization and phase adjustment of both polarizations (Tehran, ¶61 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 16, So teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the via-fed dual-polarized patch (130) includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (element 130 is fed by vias 121a-d, which form an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So et al. (US Patent No. 11,641,065) in view of Dufilie et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0421487) and Tehran et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0076078) as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Xie et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0303832).
Regarding claim 4, So teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
So does not teach wherein the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) an apparatus comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)), wherein: the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength (see ¶17, operating wavelength), and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands (see ¶60, a wide operating bandwidth may be understood to be a combination of different frequency bands).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 2 such that the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands, employing the teachings of Xie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of a relatively wide operating bandwidth (Xie, ¶60).
Regarding claim 18, So teaches the method of claim 16.
So does not teach wherein the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands.
Xie et al. teaches (Figs. 2(a), 2(b)) an method of using an antenna comprising: a first dual-polarized patch (230); and a second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch (210) capacitively coupled to the first dual-polarized patch through a dielectric layer (220); wherein the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch includes one or more antenna elements having an X-shaped dual-polarized configuration (see Fig. 2(b)), wherein: the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength (see ¶17, operating wavelength), and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands (see ¶60, a wide operating bandwidth may be understood to be a combination of different frequency bands).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of claim 16 such that the one or more antenna elements are configured with a given wavelength, and the one or more antenna elements are applicable in different frequency bands, employing the teachings of Xie.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of a relatively wide operating bandwidth (Xie, ¶60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 5, So does not teach wherein the via-fed dual-polarized patch has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0, the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0, and the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.35-0.4 λ0, wherein λ0 is a free-space wavelength at an operating frequency of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, So does not teach wherein the via-fed dual-polarized patch has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0, the first capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.3-0.35 λ0, and the second capacitive-fed dual-polarized patch has a width or a length in an inclusive range of 0.35-0.4 λ0, wherein λ0 is a free-space wavelength at an operating frequency of the antenna.
Claims 6-7 and 20 are 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, So does not teach wherein the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0, wherein λ0 is a free-space wavelength at an operating frequency of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, So does not teach wherein the dielectric layer has a thickness in an inclusive range of 0.01-0.015 λ0, wherein λ0 is a free-space wavelength at an operating frequency of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, So does not teach wherein the air gap has a distance in an inclusive range of 0.015-0.025 λ0, wherein λ0 is a free-space wavelength at an operating frequency of the apparatus.
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 Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 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, 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
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights