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 July 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Regarding Arguments on Pages 13-14 directed towards the spacing arrangement of Claim 1, Applicant argues the references do not teach adjacent first element units separated by 2dy, adjacent second element units separated by 2dy, first and second element units separated by dy, or two elements within a unit separated by dy plus a predetermined amount. Each feature is disclosed by Crockett.
The 2dy spacing is dimensioned in FIG. 6 and follows from each split element unit cell 540 spanning two single element unit cells 510 with the phase center 530 between the two antennas (e.g., see Para. 51). The inter-column dy offset falls within Crockett’s expressly disclosed range of more than half of a 510 up to and including 1.5 of a 510 (e.g., see Para. 55 and Crockett claim 1), and is dimensioned “dy” in FIG. 7. A prior art disclosure of a range renders obvious a value within that range. See MPEP §§ 2131.03 and 2144.05. The intra-unit spacing differing from dy is dimensioned “dy +/- offset” in FIG. 8, where Crockett states the antenna-to-antenna spacing within a 540 can be adjusted and the offset “can be positive or negative depending on the scan requirement and lattice design” (e.g., see Para. 57).
Crockett is further directed to the same object as Applicant. Crockett teaches that increased offset reduces the maximum spacing of split element phase centers “which can lead to reduced grating lobes” and that the combined offset and adjusted spacing decreases grating lobes “due to a more uniform spacing between the phase centers” (e.g., see Para. 55, 58) similar to Applicant’s Para. 53-59.
Regarding Arguments on Page 14 directed towards Peng and the dummy patch limitation, Applicant argues Peng does not disclose dummy patches incorporated into the specific element arrangement of claim 1. The argument is moot as Peng and those rejections are withdrawn. The limitation is now met by Ueda, whose non-fed patch antenna elements are per-element structures loaded to and sandwiching each fed patch antenna element (e.g., see 12 and 11 in FIG. 1).
Regarding Arguments on Page 15 directed towards Claim 8, Applicant argues the references fail to teach both first type dummy patches positioned relative to the connection patch and second type dummy patches symmetric about the element unit center. Ueda teaches the first type directly (e.g., see two 12 sandwiching each 11 at spacing S in FIG. 1) and teaches a second set in the orthogonal orientation (e.g., see 12 between 11 in both x and y directions in FIG. 12). Lee likewise teaches dummy patch antenna patterns surrounding the patch antenna patterns in plural directions (e.g., see FIGS. 3A-3C). Regarding symmetry about the unit center, Crockett’s two elements are already symmetric about the phase center of the unit (e.g., see Para. 51), so loading each element as Ueda teaches necessarily produces the recited symmetry. Applicant has identified no unexpected result attributable to that symmetry. Applicant’s assertion that the two classes of dummy patches address different aspects of the structure is noted. The claims are directed to an apparatus, and the intended purpose of a structural element does not distinguish the claim from prior art disclosing that structure. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding Arguments on Page 15 directed towards Lee and claim 2, Applicant argues Lee does not cure the deficiencies of Crockett and Peng as to claim 2. The argument is moot in view of the withdrawal of Peng and the substitution of Ueda, which supplies the dummy patch limitation of claim 1.
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 8-14 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.
Claim 8 recites that “each of the two elements constituting each of the first and second element units comprises … second type dummy patches,” and then recites “wherein the second type dummy patches of a first element of the two elements and the second type dummy patches of a second element of the two elements are symmetrically disposed with respect to a center of a corresponding element unit in the column direction.” The limitation is indefinite because the body of the claim assigns the second type dummy patches to each individual element, whereas the wherein clause defines those same patches by reference to the center of the element unit, which is a different structure encompassing both elements. It is therefore unclear whether the second type dummy patches are a per-element structure whose positions happen to be mirrored across the unit, or whether they are a per-unit structure shared between the two elements. The two readings are not coextensive and lead to different claim scope.
The specification does not resolve the ambiguity. Para. 101 states that the second type dummy patches “may be symmetrically disposed relative to each other on a per-antenna element unit basis,” which describes the patches as a per-element-unit structure and is inconsistent with the body of claim 8 assigning them to each of the two elements. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation.
Claims 9-14 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim under this section.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250343364 A1 (hereinafter “Crockett”) in view of US Patent 10476149 B1 (hereinafter “Ueda”).
Claim 1: Crockett teaches an array antenna (e.g., see 470 in FIG. 7, 480 in FIG. 8) comprising: a plurality of first element units disposed in a first column (e.g., see 540 in a first column), each of the first element units having a center that is spaced apart from a center of an adjacent first element unit by twice a predetermined distance (dy) (e.g., see “2*dy” between phase centers 530 in a column in FIG. 6; each 540 spans two 510, see Para. 51), each of the plurality of first element units comprising two elements having respective centers disposed apart from each other by a specific distance that differs from the predetermined distance (dy) by a predetermined amount (e.g., see “dy +/- offset” in FIG. 8, reduced or negative antenna-to-antenna spacing within 540, see Para. 57); and a plurality of second element units disposed in a second column adjacent to the first column (e.g., see 540 in a second column), each of the second element units having a center that is spaced apart from a center of an adjacent second element unit by twice the predetermined distance (dy) (e.g., see “2*dy”, like column geometry as shown), each of the plurality of second element units comprising two elements having respective centers disposed apart from each other by the specific distance (as shown), wherein the centers of adjacent second element units of the plurality of second element units are spaced apart from the centers of the plurality of first element units by the predetermined distance (dy) (e.g., see “dy” between phase centers 530 of adjacent columns in FIG. 7; offset of more than half of a 510 up to and including 1.5 of a 510, see Para. 55 and Crockett claim 1), the plurality of first element units and the plurality of second element units being alternately and repeatedly disposed in a row direction (as shown, see Para. 52).
Crockett does not teach wherein each of the first and second element units comprises one or more dummy patches configured to have no electrical signal connection.
However Ueda teaches an array antenna wherein two non-fed patch antenna elements are loaded to and sandwich each fed patch antenna element, the non-fed elements having no feed line connection (e.g., see 12 sandwiching 11 in FIG. 1, see also FIG. 5, FIG. 7, FIG. 9; only 11 is connected to feed line 13 at feed point 14) in order to generate multi-resonance and increase bandwidth ratio from about 3.7% to about 10.8% (e.g., compare FIG. 4B with FIG. 6B), increase beam scanning angle when operated as a phased array, and miniaturize the array.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form each of the first and second element units of Crockett comprising one or more dummy patches configured to have no electrical signal connection as taught by Ueda in order to increase the operating bandwidth through multi-resonance, increase the beam scanning angle of the phased array, and reduce the array dimensions, particularly as Crockett seeks optimal directivity and reduced grating lobes over a given scan volume (e.g., see Para. 57-58).
Claim 2: Crockett does not explicitly teach the array antenna according to claim 1, wherein each of the two elements of each of the first and second element units comprises the one or more dummy patches.
However Ueda teaches wherein each fed element of the array is loaded with its own pair of non-fed dummy patches (e.g., see two 12 loaded to each 11 in FIG. 1, see also FIG. 5, FIG. 7) in order to increase bandwidth and beam scanning angle.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan to form each of the two elements of each of the first and second element units of Crockett comprising the one or more dummy patches as taught by Ueda in order to increase the operating bandwidth and beam scanning angle of the array.
Claim(s) 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crockett in view of Ueda and US 20210044028 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Claim 4: Crockett does not teach the array antenna according to claim 1, wherein each of the two elements comprises: a multilayer board; a first patch disposed in at least one first layer of the multilayer board for electrical signal connection to a first polarization (POL_1) antenna and a second polarization (POL_2) antenna included in a corresponding element of the two elements; and a staggered via disposed so as to connect the first layer to at least one second layer of the multilayer board.
However Ueda teaches a multilayer board and a dual-polarized fed patch (e.g., see substrate 10 with conductor layers L1-L4 in FIGS. 2A-2B, fed element 11 in uppermost L4; see feed point 14A offset in y and feed point 14B offset in x on each 11 in FIG. 12, polarization changed by adjusting the phases applied to 14A and 14B) and an inter-layer connection conductor formed of a post between L2 and L3, a land in L3, and a post between L3 and L4 (e.g., see 24 passing through cavity 25 in FIGS. 2A-2B).
Further Lee teaches a multilayer board and a staggered via (e.g., see 121a, 122a, and 200 in FIG. 5C).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form a multilayer board, a dual-polarization connection patch, and a staggered via for the element units of Crockett as taught by Ueda and Lee in order to form additional pathways to navigate the feed line around the different elements of the array, form additional components on the multilayer board of the substrate of the element units, provide additional structural support layers, and/or enable polarization control of the radiated waves.
Claim 5: Crockett does not teach the array antenna according to claim 4, wherein the one or more dummy patches comprise a second patch spaced apart from the first patch by a predetermined distance.
However Ueda further teaches the dummy patch spaced from the connection patch by a predetermined distance (e.g., see spacing S between non-fed element 12 and fed element 11, S = 0.2 mm in FIG. 5 and S = 0.27 mm in FIG. 9).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to space the dummy patch of Crockett as modified from the connection patch by a predetermined distance as taught by Ueda in order to obtain the multi-resonance and bandwidth increase that Ueda attributes to the dimensions and relative position of the fed and non-fed elements.
Claim 6: Crockett does not teach the array antenna according to claim 4, wherein the multiple layers comprise a core layer located between the first layer and the second layer, and the staggered via comprises: a first via formed in the core layer; and a second via formed at a position spaced apart from the first via by a predetermined distance in a layer direction.
However Ueda teaches a multilayer board having an intermediate layer disposed between the layer carrying the connection patch and the layer carrying the feed line, and an interlayer connection conductor formed of two separate conductor posts joined through a land in that intermediate layer (e.g., see substrate 10 with conductor layers L1-L4 in FIGS. 2A-2B, fed element 11 in uppermost L4, feed line 13 in L2, ground conductor 23 in L3; see 24 comprising a conductor post between L2 and L3, a land in L3, and a conductor post between L3 and L4, the conductor 24 passing through cavity 25 formed in ground conductor 23). The first post of Ueda is formed in the intermediate layer between the patch layer and the feed line layer and corresponds to the recited first via, and the second post joined to it through the land corresponds to the recited second via.
Further Lee teaches a multilayer board in which the feed vias connecting the integrated circuit to the patch antenna patterns are disposed in different insulating layers and at laterally spaced positions (e.g., see 121a, 122a, and insulating layers 201a, 202a, 203a, 204a of multilayer board 200 in FIGS. 5A-5C).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the staggered via of Crockett as modified with a first via in the intermediate layer disposed between the connection patch layer and the feed line layer, and a second via spaced apart from the first via by a predetermined distance in the layer direction, as taught by Ueda and Lee, in order to route the feed conductor around the intervening ground conductor and through the cavity formed therein, to permit each via segment to be formed in its own layer during a layer by layer manufacturing of the board, and to form additional pathways to navigate the feed line around the different elements of the array.
Claim 7: Crockett as modified by Ueda and Lee teaches the array antenna according to claim 5, wherein the second patch is configured such that a difference between a waveform peak of the first polarization antenna and a waveform peak of the second polarization antenna observed at the first polarization antenna is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.
The limitation is functional and recites no threshold value. The resulting structure, a dual-polarized fed patch (e.g., see 14A, 14B on 11 in Ueda FIG. 12) flanked by a symmetrically disposed pair of non-fed patches (e.g., see 12 in Ueda FIG. 1), necessarily exhibits some difference between the matched and cross polarization waveform peaks, which satisfies the recited relationship for some predetermined threshold. Where the prior art structure is substantially identical to that claimed, the burden shifts to Applicant to show the prior art does not possess the recited characteristic. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 and 2114(II).
Note: Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. The following rejection is based on the Examiner’s best interpretation of the indefinite subject matter.
Claim 8: Crockett teaches an array antenna (e.g., see 460 in FIG. 6, 470 in FIG. 7, 480 in FIG. 8) comprising: a plurality of first element units disposed in a first column (e.g., see 540 in a first column), each of the plurality of first element units comprising two elements (e.g., see two 520 in each 540, see Para. 51); and a plurality of second element units disposed in a second column adjacent to the first column (e.g., see 540 in a second column), each of the plurality of second element units comprising two elements, the centers of the plurality of second element units respectively being spaced apart from the centers of the plurality of first element units by a first predetermined distance (e.g., see “dy” between phase centers 530 of adjacent columns in FIGS. 6-8, see Para. 55), the plurality of first element units and the plurality of second element units being alternately and repeatedly disposed in a row direction (as shown, see Para. 52), wherein each of the two elements constituting each of the first and second element units comprises: a first patch for antenna connection (e.g., see 520 of each 540 as shown).
Crockett does not teach first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions spaced apart from the first patch by a second predetermined distance in a column direction; and second type dummy patches, wherein the second type dummy patches of a first element of the two elements and the second type dummy patches of a second element of the two elements are symmetrically disposed with respect to a center of a corresponding element unit in the column direction.
However Ueda teaches first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions spaced apart from the connection patch by a predetermined distance in a direction of arrangement (e.g., see two 12 sandwiching each 11 at spacing S in FIG. 1, FIG. 5, FIG. 9) and second type dummy patches disposed in the orthogonal direction (e.g., see 12 arranged both between 11 in the x-direction and between 11 in the y-direction in the matrix arrangement of FIG. 12) in order to generate multi-resonance, increase bandwidth, increase beam scanning angle, and miniaturize the array in two directions.
Further Lee teaches dummy patch antenna patterns not fed with RF signals and arranged to surround the patch antenna patterns in plural directions (e.g., see 112b in FIGS. 1-2, see 112c and 112d in FIG. 3A, see 112c, 112e in FIG. 3B, see 112d, 112e in FIG. 3C, and FIGS. 4C-4D, see Para. 89, 91, 93, 135) in order to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between adjacent patch radiators.
As to the recited symmetry about the center of the element unit, Crockett’s two elements are themselves symmetrically disposed about the phase center of the element unit (e.g., see two 520 with 530 between them in 540, see Para. 51), so loading each of the two elements with dummy patches as taught by Ueda necessarily yields dummy patch sets symmetric about the unit center. Arranging paired dummy structures symmetrically about a unit center is further a matter of routine engineering design to preserve the symmetry of the unit.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed relative to the connection patch of each element of Crockett and second type dummy patches symmetrically disposed relative to the center of each element unit of Crockett as taught by Ueda and Lee in order to increase bandwidth and beam scanning angle as taught by Ueda and to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between adjacent patch radiators as taught by Lee, including in different vertical and horizontal directions to surround the antenna.
Claim 9: Crockett further teaches the array antenna according to claim 8, wherein the first predetermined distance corresponds to a distance (dy) of one element (e.g., see “dy” in FIG. 7; offset range of more than half of a 510 up to and including 1.5 of a 510, see Para. 55).
Claim 10: Crockett further teaches the array antenna according to claim 8, wherein a first distance that is greater by a predetermined offset than a distance (dy) of one element and a second distance less by the predetermined offset than the distance (dy) of one element are alternately applied as the first predetermined distance (e.g., see “0.5*dy” vs “1.5*dy” in FIG. 6).
Claim 11: Crockett further teaches the array antenna according to claim 8, wherein the two elements constituting each of the first and second element units are spaced apart from each other by a distance that differs from a distance (dy) of one element by a predetermined value (e.g., see “dy +/- offset” in FIG. 8, see Para. 57).
Claim 12: Crockett further teaches the array antenna according to claim 8, wherein the two elements constituting each of the first and second element units are spaced apart from each other by a distance of one element (e.g., see “dy” between the two 520 of a 540 in FIG. 7, standard antenna-to-antenna spacing, see Para. 57).
Claim 13: Crockett does not teach the array antenna according to claim 8, wherein each of the first and second element units comprises: a multilayer board; a patch disposed in at least one first layer of the multilayer board for electrical signal connection to a first polarization (POL_1) antenna and a second polarization (POL_2) antenna included in a corresponding element; and a staggered via.
However Ueda teaches the multilayer board and the dual-polarization connection patch (e.g., see 10 with L1-L4 in FIGS. 2A-2B; see 14A and 14B on each 11 in FIG. 12) and Lee further teaches a multilayer board and a staggered via (e.g., see 121a, 122a, and 200 in FIG. 5C).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form a multilayer board, dual-polarization connection patch, and staggered via for the element units of Crockett as taught by Ueda and Lee in order to form additional pathways to navigate the feed line around the different elements of the array, form additional components on the multilayer board, provide additional structural support layers, and enable polarization control.
Claim 14: Crockett as modified by Ueda and Lee teaches the array antenna according to claim 13, wherein the first type dummy patches are configured to reduce a cross waveform between polarization antennas caused by the staggered via to a predetermined threshold or less.
As with claim 7, the limitation is functional and recites no threshold value. The combination yields a dual-polarized patch fed through a staggered via and flanked by a symmetrically disposed pair of non-fed patches, which necessarily reduces the cross polarization component to some level. See MPEP 2112.01 and 2114(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims are allowed and no allowable subject matter is presently identified.
The Examiner has found no prior art teaching or suggesting a dummy patch formed so as to correspond to the planar position at which the staggered via is formed, for the purpose of compensating the asymmetry introduced by that staggered via (e.g., see Para. 82-83, 91 and FIGS. 11, 13). Claims 7 and 14 presently reach that subject matter only in functional terms. A claim reciting the positional relationship between the dummy patch and the staggered via in structural terms would be in a materially different posture with respect to the art of record.
Final Action
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/AMAL PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights