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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This Office Action is a response to Applicant’s communication (or preliminary’s amendment) filed on 10/28/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-34 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner.
If applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.97 to disclose the same.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 10/28/2024 are accepted as part of the formal application.
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 1-19 and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
The recitation “all radiation modes” in line 4 is considered vague because it’s confused with “a first and a second set of radiation modes” in line 4. Clarification is required.
The recitation “a common boundary curve” in lines 4-5 is considered vague because it’s confused with a boundary of electric field E. Clarification is required.
The recitation “a common boundary curve” in lines 4-5 is considered vague because it’s confused with a boundary of magnetic field M. Clarification is required.
The recitation “a common boundary curve” in lines 4-5 is considered vague because it’s unclear that it is a real boundary or a virtual boundary. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the first set” in line 7 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the second set” in line 9 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2,
The recitation “the electric field's tangential component” in lines 1-2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3,
The recitation “the electric field's tangential component” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4,
The recitation “the first and second sets” in line 3 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5,
The recitation “the first and second sets” in lines 2-3, line 4 and line 6 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6,
The recitation “a total radiation bandwidth of at least 24 GHz, preferably at least 28 GHz, more preferably at least 32 GHz, more preferably at least 36 GHZ, and most preferably at least 40 GHz” in lines 2-4 is considered vague because a frequency bandwidth should have at least two frequencies. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7,
The recitation “the first set” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the second set” in lines 2-3 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10,
The recitation “the first (set)” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “(the) second set” in lines 2-3 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11,
The recitation “each feed point of the first antenna port” in lines 1-2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 24,
The recitation “a common boundary curve” in lines 4-5 is considered vague because it’s confused with a boundary of electric field E. Clarification is required.
The recitation “a common boundary curve” in lines 4-5 is considered vague because it’s confused with a boundary of magnetic field M. Clarification is required.
The recitation “a common boundary curve” in lines 4-5 is considered vague because it’s unclear that it is a imaginary boundary or a real boundary. Clarification is required.
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 1-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, III et al (US 20130335280), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1,
Chen discloses multimode antenna (an antenna structure 400, Fig 4) comprising:
a conducting body (a counter poise 402, Fig 4; paragraph [0073]); and
a first (a port 418, Fig 4) and a second antenna port (a port 412, Fig 4), which are respectively adapted for excitation of a first and a second set of radiation modes.
Chen does not explicitly teach all radiation modes sharing a common boundary curve at which an electric boundary condition, EBC, or a magnetic boundary condition, MBC, is satisfied, wherein the first set consists of multiple radiation modes for which the EBC is satisfied at the common boundary curve, and wherein the second set consists of multiple radiation modes for which the MBC is satisfied at the common boundary curve.
However, Chen teaches a multimode antenna (a multimode antenna structure 1800, Fig 18A) comprises three radiation modes producing three gain patterns (Fig 18B). It’s well known in the art that electric boundary conditions and magnetic boundary conditions are satisfied for electromagnetic radiations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all radiation modes sharing a common boundary curve at which an electric boundary condition, EBC, or a magnetic boundary condition, MBC, being satisfied, wherein a first set consisting of multiple radiation modes for which the EBC being satisfied at a common boundary curve, and wherein a second set consisting of multiple radiation modes for which the MBC being satisfied at the common boundary curve in Chen, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
[AltContent: textbox (Chen (US 20130335280))]
PNG
media_image1.png
360
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Chen (US 20130335280))]
PNG
media_image2.png
766
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Chen (US 20130335280))]
PNG
media_image3.png
481
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach the EBC is satisfied if the electric field's tangential component vanishes at the common boundary curve.
However, it’s well known in the art that an EBC is satisfied if an electric field's tangential component vanishes at an interface between two media.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an EBC being satisfied if an electric field's tangential component vanishing at a common boundary curve in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 3,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach the MBC is satisfied if the electric field's tangential component is continuous across the common boundary curve.
However, it’s well known in the art that a MBC is satisfied if an electric field's tangential component is continuous across an interface between two media.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a MBC being satisfied if an electric field's tangential component being continuous across a common boundary curve in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 4,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach the first and second antenna ports are adapted for simultaneous excitation of multiple radiation modes of the first and second sets.
However, Chen teaches a multimode antenna (a multimode antenna structure 1800, Fig 18A) comprises three radiation modes (paragraph [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second antenna ports being adapted for simultaneous excitation of multiple radiation modes of first and second sets in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 5,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach the first and second antenna ports are adapted for simultaneous excitation of at least three radiation modes of the first and second sets, respectively, wherein preferably the first and second antenna ports are adapted for simultaneous excitation of at least four radiation modes of the first and second sets, respectively, wherein preferably the first and second antenna ports are adapted for simultaneous excitation of at least six radiation modes of the first and second sets, respectively.
However, Chen teaches a multimode antenna (a multimode antenna structure 1800, Fig 18A) comprises three radiation modes producing three gain patterns (Fig 18B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second antenna ports being adapted for simultaneous excitation of at least three radiation modes of first and second sets, respectively, wherein preferably the first and second antenna ports being adapted for simultaneous excitation of at least four radiation modes of the first and second sets, respectively, wherein preferably the first and second antenna ports being adapted for simultaneous excitation of at least six radiation modes of the first and second sets, respectively in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 6,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 5.
Chen does not explicitly teach each of the first and second sets of radiation modes has a total radiation bandwidth of at least 24 GHz, preferably at least 28 GHz, more preferably at least 32 GHz, more preferably at least 36 GHZ, and most preferably at least 40 GHz.
However, Chen teaches the bandwidth and resonant frequencies of the combined antenna structure can be controlled by the bandwidth and resonance frequencies of the antenna elements (paragraph [0077]). This teaching is result effect in order to produce a broader bandwidth for the modes of the combined structure (paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second sets of radiation modes having a total radiation bandwidth of at least 24 GHz, preferably at least 28 GHz, more preferably at least 32 GHz, more preferably at least 36 GHZ, and most preferably at least 40 GHz in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 7,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach each radiation mode of the first set is orthogonal to each radiation mode of the second set.
However, it’s well known in the art that the electric field and magnetic field are orthogonal to each other in electromagnetic waves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use each radiation mode of a first set being orthogonal to each radiation mode of a second set in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 8,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach the common boundary curve coincides with a symmetry line of the conducting body.
However, Chen teaches antenna elements 402 and 404 are vertically symmetrical about the counter poise 402 (Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a common boundary curve coinciding with a symmetry line of a conducting body in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 9,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen teaches each of the antenna ports has at least one feed point suitable for accepting a signal; and said at least one feed point of each antenna port is so positioned on the conducting body as to favor excitation of either the first or the second set of radiation modes (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 10,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 9.
Chen does not explicitly teach said at least one feed point of each antenna port is positioned at a current maximum in radiation modes of either the first or second set.
It’s well known in the art that a current maximum in a radiation mode is at a feed point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use at least one feed point of each antenna port being positioned at a current maximum in radiation modes of either a first or a second set in Chen as modified, in order to provide a multimode antenna having a good isolation between antenna ports and a diversity of well-defined radiation patterns.
Regarding claim 11,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 9.
Chen teaches each feed point of the first antenna port is positioned in separation from all feed points of the second antenna port (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 12,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 9.
Chen teaches the second antenna port has two or more feed points (Fig 4).
Claims 17-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, III et al (US 20130335280), hereinafter Chen, in view of Kim et al (US 20070229366), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 17,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 9.
Chen does not teach at least one of the antenna ports comprises two or more feed points coupled by a co-planar wave guide.
However, Kim teaches a multimode antenna (an antenna circuit, Fig 7) comprises a conducting body (a ground plate 504, Fig 7), and a first antenna port (a first antenna port P501A, Fig 7) and a second antenna port (a second antenna port P501B, Fig 7), wherein at least one of the antenna ports comprises two or more feed points (two feed points F501A and G501A, Fig 7) coupled by a co-planar wave guide (Fig 7; paragraph [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use at least one of antenna ports comprising two or more feed points coupled by a co-planar wave guide in Chen as modified, as taught by Kim, in order to provide an antenna having high data bandwidth and good signal quality.
[AltContent: textbox (Kim (US 20070229366))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (G501A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Antenna circuit)][AltContent: textbox (F501A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P501B)][AltContent: textbox (P501A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
589
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not teach the conducting body is planar.
However, Kim teaches a multimode antenna (an antenna circuit, Fig 7) comprises a conducting body (a ground plate 504, Fig 7), and a first antenna port (a first antenna port P501A, Fig 7) and a second antenna port (a second antenna port P501B, Fig 7), wherein the conducting body is planar (Fig 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conducting body being planar in Chen as modified, as taught by Kim, in order to provide an antenna having high data bandwidth and good signal quality.
Regarding claim 19,
Chen as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Chen does not teach the conducting body comprises at least one planar region and one curved region.
However, Kim teaches a multimode antenna (an antenna circuit, Fig 7) comprises a conducting body (a ground plate 504, Fig 7), and a first antenna port (a first antenna port P501A, Fig 7) and a second antenna port (a second antenna port P501B, Fig 7), wherein the conducting body comprises at least one planar region and one curved region (Fig 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conducting body comprising at least one planar region and one curved region in Chen as modified, as taught by Kim, in order to provide an antenna having high data bandwidth and good signal quality.
Claim 24, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 20200212582), hereinafter Rogers.
Regarding claim 24,
Rogers discloses a method of designing a multimode antenna (an antenna 300, Fig 7) which includes a conducting body (a ground plane 320, Fig 7), the method comprising:
obtaining a geometric description of the conducting body (Fig 7; paragraph [0054]);
simulating, based on the geometric description, a plurality of radiation modes of the conducting body (a plurality of paired dipoles antenna elements 310A-F and 312A-F, Fig 4);
identifying a first set of radiation modes (a first set S1 of radiation modes, Fig 4);
identifying a second set of radiation modes (a second set S2 of radiation modes, Fig 4); and
providing a geometric description of a first (a power divider 316B1, Fig 4) and a second antenna port (a power divider 316B2, Fig 4), which are respectively adapted for excitation of the first and the second set of radiation modes (Fig 4).
Rogers does not explicitly teach the first set S1 of radiation modes each of which satisfies an electric boundary condition, EBC, at a common boundary curve, and the second set S2 of radiation modes each of which satisfies a magnetic boundary condition, MBC, at said common boundary curve.
However, it’s well known in the art that electric boundary conditions and magnetic boundary conditions are satisfied for electromagnetic radiations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first set of radiation modes each of which satisfying an electric boundary condition, EBC, at a common boundary curve, and a second set of radiation modes each of which satisfying a magnetic boundary condition, MBC, at said common boundary curve in Rogers, in order to provide a conformal antenna having minimal signal loss.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (316B2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (316B1)][AltContent: textbox (S2)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S1)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Rogers (US 20200212582))]
PNG
media_image5.png
506
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Rogers (US 20200212582))]
PNG
media_image6.png
733
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16, 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 13, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the conducting body is rectangle-shaped and monolithic; the first antenna port has a single feed point dividing a first rectangle edge in a ratio 1:1; and the second antenna port has two feed points dividing an opposite rectangle edge in a ratio 1:2:1”.
Regarding claim 14, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the conducting body is rectangle-shaped and monolithic; the first antenna port has two feed points dividing a first rectangle edge in a ratio 1:2:1; and the second antenna port has two feed points dividing an opposite rectangle edge in a ratio 1:2:1”.
Regarding claim 15, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the conducting body is rectangle-shaped and segmented; the first antenna port has a single feed point dividing a first rectangle edge in a ratio 1:1, said single feed point connected to a first segment of the conducting body; and the second antenna port has two feed points dividing an opposite rectangle edge in a ratio 1:2:1, each of said two feed points connected between the first segment and a second segment of the conducting body”.
Regarding claim 16, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the conducting body is rectangle-shaped and segmented; the first antenna port has two feed points dividing a first rectangle edge in a ratio 1:2:1, each of said two feed points connected between a first segment and a second segment of the conducting body; and the second antenna port has two feed points dividing an opposite rectangle edge in a ratio 1:2:1, each of said two feed points connected between the first segment and a third segment of the conducting body”.
Conclusion
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 aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-7650. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights