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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites “the length” of multiple antenna components composed of orthogonal radiation elements. It is not clear what the length of such components would be. Is it the length of one of the radiation elements? The length of both together? Or something else. Without a clear idea of what counts as the length, as person of skill would not be put on notice of the metes and bounds of the claims and would not know how to avoid infringement.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0335894 (“Kamyshev” or “K”).
Regarding claim 1, K teaches an antenna system (that of fig 13) comprising: a base layer (that of 103) consisting of a first antenna component (103) having at least a first set of two radiation elements joined together in an orthogonal arrangement (any two sides of 103 are orthogonal): a middle layer (that of 104) consisting of a second antenna component (104) having at least a second set of two radiation elements joined together in an orthogonal arrangement (any two sides of 104 are orthogonal); and a feed port (101); wherein the length of the first set of two radiation elements is longer than the second set of two radiation elements (the length of the area occupied by the 103 is larger than the area occupied by the 104, as shown).
However, K fails to teach that fig 13 contains a top layer consisting of a third antenna component having at least a third set of two radiation elements joined together in an orthogonal arrangement and the length of the second set of two radiation elements is longer than the third set of two radiation elements.
Nevertheless, K teaches that features of K’s embodiments can be combined together (0067). In addition, K teaches that a third, smaller layer can be added in order to add another resonance frequency (0057 and fig 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a top layer consisting of a third antenna component (by adding a rectangular element to a top layer of fig 13, like the top annular element shown in fig 10) having at least a third set of two radiation elements joined together in an orthogonal arrangement (two sides of the top rectangular elements would be orthogonal) and the length of the second set of two radiation elements is longer than the third set of two radiation elements (the length of a side of the area occupied by the added top rectangular element would be smaller than the area occupied by the 104s of fig 13, similar to that shown in fig 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRAHAM P SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 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, Dameon Levi can be reached on 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.
/GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845