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
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues on P. 7 that “The cited prior art references are silent about the maximum thickness of the covering part when cyclic olefin copolymer is used as a main component and the benefits thereof”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, specifically since as shown in the rejection below, Nagasawa et al. teaches a resin containing a cyclic olefin copolymer as a main component (“cyclic olefin copolymer” Par. 0044, “cyclic olefin copolymer modified to thermosetting type was used as organic resin” Par. 0048) and having a thickness of less than 5 mm (“the insulating layer 1 has a thickness of 75 μm or more and 1000 μm or less” Par. 0020); therefore the claim does not distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant argues on P. 7 that “amended claim 5 recites "wherein the cyclic olefin copolymer has a relative permittivity less than 3 at frequencies of 10 GHz or higher and 1 THz or lower" and that “none of the cited prior art references discloses, teaches or suggests this limitation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, specifically since as shown in the rejection below, Nagasaku et al. teaches “The relative permittivity of a material for the dielectric lens and the resin package should be about 3 to 6” (Par. 0016) which implies that the relative permittivity may be less than 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant argues on P. 8 that “claim 7 recites "wherein the covering part has an in-plane (X-Y direction) amount of change in relative permittivity of 0.005 or less". Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited prior art references disclose, teach or suggest this limitation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, specifically since as shown in the rejection below, Wu et al. is relied upon for the teaching to configure the shape of the surfaces of the dielectric material in the X-Y direction (the thickness T of cover layer 122) to reduce interference (Par. 0074-0076) which is separate from Applicant’s argument discussing the embodiment of Fig. 9 and Par. 0077-0078 which were not relied upon in the rejection. Thus as shown in the rejection below, the teachings of Wu et al. would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to improve antenna performance by reducing interference.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant argues on P. 9 that “claim 8 recites: "wherein, in the covering part, a region in which the antenna unit is disposed is thicker than other regions". Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited prior art references discloses, teaches or suggests this limitation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, specifically since as shown in the rejection below, elements 1 & 2 of Nagasaku et al. are deemed as a covering part (1, 2 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0010, 0033, 0035) in independent claim 1, and the claim language does not require the covering part to be a monolithic element / single structure that would distinguish over the combined elements 1 & 2 of Nagasaku et al.; thus the rejection is maintained. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaku et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0201930 (cited by applicant) and Nagasawa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0400809.
Regarding Claim 1, Nagasaku et al. teaches a communication apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 10-12) comprising:
a substrate (14 Fig. 1 Par. 0030);
an antenna unit (IC3, IC4 Figs. 1, 3 Par. 0030); and
a covering part (1, 2 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0010, 0033, 0035),
wherein the antenna unit is positioned on at least one main surface of the substrate (Figs. 1, 3), and
the covering part is positioned on the at least one main surface of the substrate so as to be in contact with at least a part of an upper portion of the antenna unit (implied from “the MMIC and the antenna are sealed with a resin package” Par. 0009 / “the IC 3 and IC4 being an MMIC are sealed in the resin package 1” Par. 0033 and as seen in Fig. 1),
wherein the covering part is made of a resin (resin Par. 0030, 0033).
Nagasaku et al. is silent on a resin containing a cyclic olefin copolymer as a main component and has a thickness of 5 mm or less.
However, Nagasawa et al. teaches a resin containing a cyclic olefin copolymer as a main component (“cyclic olefin copolymer” Par. 0044, “cyclic olefin copolymer modified to thermosetting type was used as organic resin” Par. 0048) and has a thickness of 5 mm or less (“the insulating layer 1 has a thickness of 75 μm or more and 1000 μm or less” Par. 0020).
In this particular case, a resin containing a main component such as a thermosetting cyclic olefin copolymer having a thickness of less than 5mm is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Nagasawa et al. due to being a suitable organic material with low relative permittivity and dielectric dissipation factor (Par. 0044)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the resin of Nagasaku et al. to contain a thermosetting cyclic olefin copolymer as a main component having a thickness of 5 mm or less based on the teachings of Nagasawa et al. as a suitable organic material for its low relative permittivity and dielectric dissipation factor.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagasaku et al. as modified teaches wherein the covering part is in contact with an entire surface of the upper portion of the antenna unit (implied from “the MMIC and the antenna are sealed with a resin package” Par. 0009 / “the IC 3 and IC4 being an MMIC are sealed in the resin package 1” Par. 0033 and as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagasaku et al. as modified teaches wherein the covering part is in contact with the upper portion and a side portion of the antenna unit (implied from “the MMIC and the antenna are sealed with a resin package” Par. 0009 / “the IC 3 and IC4 being an MMIC are sealed in the resin package 1” Par. 0033 and as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagasaku et al. as modified teaches wherein the cyclic olefin copolymer has a relative permittivity of less than 3 (“The relative permittivity of a material for the dielectric lens and the resin package should be about 3 to 6” (Par. 0016) which implies that the relative permittivity may be less than 3) at frequencies of 10 GHz or higher and 1 THz or lower (20 GHz Par. 0014).
Regarding Claim 6, Nagasaku et al. as modified teaches wherein the cyclic olefin copolymer comprises a thermosetting cyclic olefin copolymer (Nagasawa et al. “cyclic olefin copolymer modified to thermosetting type was used as organic resin” Par. 0048 as modified in claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagasaku et al. as modified teaches wherein, in the covering part, a region in which the antenna unit is disposed is thicker than other regions (region of 1 & 2 where antenna unit is disposed is thicker than other regions of 1 as seen in Fig. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaku et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0201930 (cited by applicant) and Nagasawa et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0400809 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0227821 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 7, Nagasaku et al. as modified teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Nagasaku et al. is silent on wherein the covering part has an in-plane (X-Y direction) amount of change in relative permittivity of 0.005 or less.
However, Wu et al. teaches to configure the shape of the surfaces of the dielectric material in the X-Y direction to reduce interference (Par. 0074-0076 Fig. 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the covering part of Nagasaku et al. to have an in-plane (X-Y direction) amount of change in relative permittivity of 0.005 or less based on the teachings of Wu et al. as a result effect in order to improve antenna performance by reducing interference.
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 MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights