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 7/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,2, 4-11 remain pending.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1, as amended, recites in part, “…said magneto-electric dipole antenna further comprising four parasitic resonators that are entirely disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate and that are respectively spaced apart from said sector patches”.
However, the Specification does not recite that the four parasitic resonators that are “entirely” disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0233310 A1), hereinafter known as Lin et al in view of Zhang et al (CN 110429374 A) hereinafter Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses (Fig. 1C, 2C) A magneto-electric dipole antenna (1a) comprising: a first substrate (10d1), a second substrate (10d2), a ground layer (10g) and a third substrate (11d) that are stacked from top to bottom; four sector patches (10p1, 10p2, 10p4, 10p5) disposed on an upper surface of said first substrate (10d1); four ground plates (11p of 10p1, 10p2, 10p4, and 10p5) disposed on a lower surface of said third substrate (11d); four vias (10v1, 11v of 10p1, 10p2, 10p4, and 10p5), each of which extends from top to bottom and penetrates said second substrate (10d2), said ground layer (10g) and said third substrate (11d); a first feed-in line (12e connected to 10f1) and a second feed-in line (12e connected to 10f5) that are disposed on said lower surface of said third substrate (11d); a first feed-out line (10f1) disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate (10d1); a second feed-out line (10f5) disposed on an upper surface of said second substrate (10d2); and a first feed-out probe (10v2) and a second feed-out probe (10v3), each of which extends from top to bottom and penetrates said first substrate (10d1), said second substrate (10d2), said ground layer (10g) and said third substrate (11d), said first feed-out probe (10v2) being connected to said first feed-in line (12e connected to 10f1) and said first feed-out line (10f1), said second feed-out probe (10v3) being connected to said second feed-in line (12e connected to 10f5) and said second feed-out line (10f5); wherein, when two signals ([0066]) are respectively fed to said first feed-in line (12e connected to 10f1) and said second feed-in line (12e connected to 10f5), the signals are transmitted respectively to said first feed-out line (10f1) and said second feed-out line (10f5) respectively through said first feed-out probe (10v2) and said second feed-out probe (10v3), and two electromagnetic waves are radiated ([0096]).
Lin does not specifically teach said magneto-electric dipole antenna further comprising four parasitic resonators that are entirely disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate and that are respectively spaced apart from said sector patches.
However, Zhang et al teaches (see Fig. 4) four parasitic resonators (7, 8, 9, 10) that are entirely disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate (1) and that are respectively spaced apart from said sector patches (4,5,3,6 respectively)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin with Zhang et al to include “four parasitic resonators that are entirely disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate and that are respectively spaced apart from said sector patches,” as taught by Zhang et al, for the purpose to achieve good band-pass filter characteristics and almost without introducing extra loss, (see Zhang et al, Example 1 and accompanying paragraphs with descriptions relative to Fig 4)
Regarding claim 2, Lin further discloses (Fig. 2C) wherein: said sector patches (10p1, 10p2, 10p4, 10p5) are spaced apart from each other, and includes a first sector patch (10p1), a second sector patch (10p4), a third sector patch (10p5) and a fourth sector patch (10p2); said second sector patch (10p4) is aligned with said first sector patch (10p1) in a first direction, and is offset from said first sector patch (10p1) in a counterclockwise orientation by 90 degrees; said third sector patch (10p5) is aligned with said second sector patch (10p4) in a second direction, and is offset from said second sector patch (10p4) in a counterclockwise orientation by 90 degrees; and said fourth sector patch (10p2) is aligned with said third sector patch (10p5) in the first direction, and is offset from said third sector patch (10p5) in a counterclockwise orientation by 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 9, Lin further discloses (Fig. 1C) wherein said first substrate (10d1), said second substrate (10d2) and said third substrate (11d) are made of a dielectric material ([0055], [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin further discloses (Fig. 1C and 2C) wherein said ground layer (10g), said sector patches (10p1, 10p2, 10p4, 10p5), said ground plates (11p of 10p1, 10p2, 10p4, and 10p5), said first feed-out line (10f1), said first feed-in line (12e connected to 10f1), said first feed-out probe (10v2), said second feed-out line (10f5), said second feed-in line (12e connected to 10f5) and said first feed-out probe (10v2) are made of metal ([0046]).
Claims 4,5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0233310 A1), hereinafter known as Lin et al in view of Zhang et al (CN 110429374 A) hereinafter Zhang et al. and further in view of Xiang et al. (WO 2023001031 A1), hereinafter known as Xiang.
Regarding claim 4, Lin, as modified, does not specifically teach wherein said parasitic resonators each have an L shape, and cooperatively enclose said sector patches.
However, Xiang teaches (Fig. 5B) wherein said parasitic resonators (508) each have an L shape, and cooperatively enclose said sector patches (502).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin and Zhang et al with Xiang to include “wherein said parasitic resonators each have an L shape, and cooperatively enclose said sector patches,” as taught by Xiang, for the purpose of expanding bandwidth (see also [0146] of machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Lin, as modified, does not specifically teach wherein said parasitic resonators are made of metal.
However, Xiang teaches (Fig. 5B) wherein said parasitic resonators (508) are made of metal ([0146] of machine translation).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin and Zhang et al with Xiang to include “wherein said parasitic resonators are made of metal,” as taught by Xiang, for the purpose of expanding bandwidth (see also [0146] of machine translation).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view Zhang et al in further view of He et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0055776 A1), hereinafter known as He.
Regarding claim 6, Lin further teaches (Fig. 1A, 1C, 2C) further comprising: a feed-out plate (10f5 plate) disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate (10d1), and connected to said second feed-out probe (10v corresponding to 10f5);
Lin as modified with Zhang et al does not specifically teach and a feed-out ring disposed on said upper surface of said second substrate, and connected to said first feed-out probe.
However, He teaches (Fig. 1 and 2) a feed-out ring (208) disposed on said upper surface of said second substrate (130), and connected to said first feed-out probe (206).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin and Zhang et al with He to include “a feed-out ring disposed on said upper surface of said second substrate, and connected to said first feed-out probe,” as taught by He, for the purpose of improving return loss and bandwidth (see also [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Lin further teaches (Fig. 2C) wherein said feed-out plate (10f5 plate) is made of metal ([0046]).
Lin as modified with Zhang et al does not specifically teach and said feed-out ring are made of metal.
However, He teaches (Fig. 1 and 2) said feed-out ring (208) is made of metal ([0073]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin and Zhang et al with He to include “said feed-out ring are made of metal,” as taught by He, for the purpose of improving return loss and bandwidth (see also [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin further teaches (Fig. 2C) wherein: a projection of a center of said first feed-out line (10f1) on said second feed-out line (10f5) coincides with a center of said second feed-out line (10f5); said first feed-out line (10f1) extends in a first direction, and is aligned with said feed-out plate (10f5 plate) in a second direction; said first feed-out probe (10v2) is connected to an end portion of said first feed-out line (10f1);
Lin, as modified with Zhang et al, does not specifically teach said second feed-out line extends in the second direction, and is aligned with said feed-out ring in the first direction; and said second feed-out probe is connected to an end portion of said second feed-out line.
However, He teaches (Fig. 1 and 2) said second feed-out line (206) extends in the second direction, and is aligned with said feed-out ring (208) in the first direction; and said second feed-out probe (205) is connected to an end portion of said second feed-out line (206).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin and Zhang et al with He to include “said second feed-out line extends in the second direction, and is aligned with said feed-out ring in the first direction; and said second feed-out probe is connected to an end portion of said second feed-out line,” as taught by He, for the purpose of improving return loss and bandwidth (see also [0052]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Zhang et al in further view of Xiang et al. (CN 111180886 A), hereinafter known as Xiang 2.
Regarding claim 11, Lin further teaches (Fig. 2C) An antenna array comprising: a first antenna (14), a second antenna (15), a third antenna (16) and a fourth antenna (17), each of which is a magneto-electric dipole antenna;
Lin as modified with Zhang et al does not specifically teach wherein said fourth antenna is aligned with said first antenna in a first direction, and has mirror symmetry with said first antenna with respect to a first plane perpendicular to the first direction; wherein said second antenna is aligned with said first antenna in a second direction, and has mirror symmetry with said first antenna with respect to a second plane perpendicular to the second direction; and wherein said third antenna is aligned with said fourth antenna in the second direction, and has mirror symmetry with said fourth antenna with respect to the second plane.
However, Xiang 2 teaches (Fig. 3) wherein said fourth antenna (202) is aligned with said first antenna (201) in a first direction, and has mirror symmetry with said first antenna (201) with respect to a first plane perpendicular to the first direction; wherein said second antenna (203) is aligned with said first antenna (201) in a second direction, and has mirror symmetry with said first antenna (201) with respect to a second plane perpendicular to the second direction; and wherein said third antenna (204) is aligned with said fourth antenna (202) in the second direction, and has mirror symmetry with said fourth antenna (202) with respect to the second plane.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magneto-electric dipole antenna of Lin and Zhang et alwith Xiang 2 to include “wherein said fourth antenna is aligned with said first antenna in a first direction, and has mirror symmetry with said first antenna with respect to a first plane perpendicular to the first direction; wherein said second antenna is aligned with said first antenna in a second direction, and has mirror symmetry with said first antenna with respect to a second plane perpendicular to the second direction; and wherein said third antenna is aligned with said fourth antenna in the second direction, and has mirror symmetry with said fourth antenna with respect to the second plane,” as taught by Xiang 2, for the purpose of improving gain and bandwidth (see also [0041] and [0042] of machine translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, for completeness of response, it is noted that Applicants argue the following:
“Claim 1 includes the features of previous claim 3 (with additional features), and thus the features of claim 1 are discussed below instead.
The magneto-electric dipole antenna of claim 1 includes a first substrate having an upper surface and includes four sector patches and four parasitic resonators. The four parasitic resonators are entirely disposed on the upper surface of the first substrate and are respectively spaced apart from the sector patches.
Figs. 1-4 of the application show a non-limiting embodiment of the above features of claim 1. As shown in Fig. 3 of the application below, the magneto-electric dipole antenna includes four sector patches 21 (each having a sector shape).
FIG. 3 of the Application Annotated Fig. 2C of Lin The rejection relied on Lin and interpreted 10p1, 110p4, 1Op5 of Lin as the claimed sector patches. See item 3 on page 2 of the Office Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As shown in the annotated Fig. 2C of Lin above, none of the patterns 10pi, 1Op2, lOp4, 10p5 has a sector shape. Therefore, Lin does not disclose or teach "four sector patches", as recited in claim 1. Xiang does not remedy the deficiencies of Lin relative to claim 1.
In addition, in rejecting the features of previous claim 3 (now in claim 1), the rejection acknowledged that Lin does not disclose or teach the claimed parasitic resonators (see item 8 on page 4 of the Office Action) but contended that Xiang teaches alleged parasitic resonators (the parasitic metal pillars 508). See page 4 of the Office Action.”
The examiner disagrees:
Claim 1 does not recite that the four sector patches each having a sector shape. Thus, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sector shape) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, claim 1 is amended to recite, “…further comprising four parasitic resonators that are entirely disposed on said upper surface of said first substrate and that are respectively spaced apart from said sector patches”.
Newly cited reference Zhang et al is applied herein to teach the claimed features as indicated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed on the PTOL 892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights