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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1010a” and “1010b” has been used to designate a top center dummy patch of the arrangement show in FIG. 10 and 12, a bottom center dummy patch in FIG. 13, and adjacent dummy patches in FIG. 16 on sides of center patch (which seem to be designated dummy patches “1110” in the other Figures). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “positions space apart” should be “positions spaced apart” in line 13 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for ‘the center of the plurality of second element units being disposed apart from the center of the plurality of first element units by the distance (dy) of one element’, does not reasonably provide enablement for “the plurality of second element units being disposed spaced apart from the plurality of first element units by the distance (dy) of one element” (as recited in Claim 1). Claim 8 recites “the plurality of second element units being disposed spaced apart from the plurality of first element units by a predetermined distance”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. For example, the specification clearly discloses the plurality of first element units in a first column being disposed spaced apart from the plurality of second element units directly adjacent to each other without any distance rather than being spaced apart by the distance of one element or a predetermined distance. Rather the center of the units is spaced apart by the distance of one element (e.g., see Para. 48, 51, 55 of the specification) or a predetermined distance. Concurrently for Claim 8, there is no predetermined distance discussed in the specification with regard to the distance between adjacent element units in the columns. Rather the specification discusses the predetermined distance with regard to the center of the element units in the columns. Accordingly a skilled artisan would not be apprised of making or using the scope of the invention as claimed.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the predetermined distance corresponds to a distance (dy) of one element” and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 recites the limitation regarding “the predetermined distance” which is inconsistent and not enabled by the specification for the same reasons.
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 1-14 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 1 recites “each of the plurality of second element units comprises two elements having the specific distance”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if the two elements have the specific distance or each of the elements of the two elements have the specification distance. If the former, it is unclear how two elements have the specific distance. Accordingly a skilled artisan would not be able to determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim 3 and 8 recite “second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically…on a per-element unit basis”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the term “per-element unit basis” is intended to mean or capture. The limitation amounts to a conditional term dependent on a ‘unit basis’ causing some confusion regarding if each unit does or does not include the second type dummy patches. A skilled artisan would not be apprised of the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim 3 recites “a patch for antenna connection” which is indefinite and unclear because it is not apparent what antenna connection the patch is used for or how the arrangement of ‘a patch for antenna connection’ is implemented with the antenna elements of claim 1. For example, it is unclear what connection ‘a patch for antenna connection’ has in relation to the two elements of the first and second element units. The specification does not make clear/apparent the implementation of this embodiment to make the claim definite. A skilled artisan would not be apprised of the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim 4 recites “each of the first and second element units comprise…a first patch disposed in at least one first layer of the multilayer board for electrical signal connection to a first polarization antenna and a second polarization antenna; and a staggered via disposed so as to connect the first layer to at least one second layer of the multilayer board”. The limitation is indefinite because it is not clear or apparent how the first patch in the first layer of the multilayer board, the first polarization antenna and the second polarization antenna or the staggered via in the second layer is arranged or related to any of the elements of the first and second element units recited in claim 1. For example, it is unclear if the two elements of the element unit are the first polarization antenna and the second polarization antenna or different additional elements of the element units and if so, how they are arranged with respect to the two elements of the element units. The specification does not make clear this arrangement because the FIGS. 11-13 and 16 embodiment of the invention seem to stand apart of are not interrelated to the FIGS. 1-7 embodiment. For example, FIG. 12(c) seems to show first and second polarization antennas which are dummy patches adjacent the central patch 1010a, 1010b, but it is unclear if these are the two elements of the first and second units or different elements since the Figures and its related discussion does not discuss the unit elements.
Claims 5-7 and 13-14 are rejected for the reasons outlined in the claim 4 rejection with regard to the arrangement of the dummy patches and the polarization antenna with respect to the element units including the two elements of the element units.
Claim 8 recites “a predetermined distance” twice for two separate distances – a distance between the plurality of second element units and plurality of first element units and a distance between the dummy patches; subsequently Claims 9-10 recite “the predetermined distance” which causes confusion as to which of the two predetermined distances defined in Claim 8 is being referred to in Claim 9-10.
Claim 8 recites “first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions space apart from the first by a predetermined distance”. The limitation “the first” is indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred to the claim, e.g., a first patch or first type dummy patches or first element units.
Claim 14 recites “polarization antennas” for which there is insufficient antecedent basis or the limitation in the claim. The specification further fails to make the limitation clear as discussed in the claim 4 rejection under this section.
Claim 2-7 and 9-14 are each further at least rejected for being dependent on 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250343364 A1 (hereinafter “Crockett”) in view of EP4207495A1 (hereinafter “Peng”).
Claim 1: Crockett teaches an array antenna (e.g., see 470 in FIG. 7) 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 having a specific distance that differs from a distance (two elements in each column as shown spaced apart by “dy”) of one element by a predetermined value (e.g., see dy in FIG. 7); 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 having the specific distance, the plurality of second element units being disposed spaced apart from the plurality of first element units by the distance (dy) of one element (e.g., see dy as shown distance between adjacent elements in adjacent columns), the plurality of first element units and the plurality of second element units being alternately and repeatedly disposed in a row direction (as shown).
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 Peng teaches staggered or interleaved columns of antenna elements forming units including forming dummy patches configured to have no electrical signal connection (e.g., see 2 in FIG. 14, see Para. 109-110) in order to improve radiation patterns of the units.
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 comprises one or more dummy patches configured to have no electrical signal connection as taught by Peng in order to improve the radiation pattern and form a more improved and stable radiation pattern.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crockett in view of Peng and US 20210044028 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
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 Lee teaches an array antenna wherein each of the antenna elements comprises at least one dummy patch (e.g., see 112b in FIG. 1-2) in order to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between two antenna patches or adjacent patch radiations (e.g., see Para. 91, 93, 135).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan to form wherein each of the two elements of each of the first and second element units of Crockett comprises the one or more dummy patches as taught by Lee in order to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between two antenna patches or adjacent patch radiators as taught by Lee or in order to further stabilize the antenna pattern and form a more stable radiation pattern.
Claim 3: Crockett does not teach the array antenna according to claim 2, wherein the dummy patches comprise: first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions space apart from a patch for antenna connection by a predetermined distance in a column direction in each of the two elements; and second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically in the column direction on a per-element unit basis in each of the first and second element units.
However Lee further teaches wherein the dummy patches comprise: first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions space apart from a patch for antenna connection by a predetermined distance in a column direction in each of the two elements; and second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically in the column direction on a per-element unit basis in each of the first and second element units (e.g., see 112c and 112d in FIG. 3A, see 112c, 112e in FIG. 3B, see 112d, 112e in FIG. 3C, and FIGS. 4C-4D).
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 at positions space apart from a patch for antenna connection such as unit element patches of Crockett by a predetermined distance in a column direction in each of the two elements of Crockett and second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically in the column direction on a per-element unit basis in each of the first and second element units of Crockett based on the teachings of Lee in order to further to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between two antenna patches or adjacent patch radiators as taught by Lee or in order to further stabilize the antenna pattern and form a more stable radiation pattern including in different vertical and horizontal directions to surround the antenna.
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 9e.g., see 540 in a first column), each of the plurality of first element units comprising two elements; 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 plurality of second element units being disposed spaced apart from the plurality of first element units by a predetermined distance (e.g., see “dy” in FIG. 6-8 between adjacent columns), the plurality of first element units and the plurality of second element units being alternately and repeatedly disposed in a row direction (as shown), wherein each of the two elements constituting each of the first and second element units comprises: a first patch for antenna connection (e.g., patches of element units as shown).
Crockett does not teach each of the first and second element units comprises: first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions space apart from the first by a predetermined distance in a column direction; and second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically in the column direction on a per-element unit basis.
However Peng teaches staggered or interleaved columns of antenna elements forming units including forming dummy patches configured to have no electrical signal connection (e.g., see 2 in FIG. 14, see Para. 109-110) in order to improve radiation patterns of the units.
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 comprises one or more dummy patches configured to have no electrical signal connection as taught by Peng in order to improve the radiation pattern and form a more improved and stable radiation pattern.
Further Lee teaches an array antenna wherein each of the antenna elements comprises at least one dummy patch (e.g., see 112b in FIG. 1-2) in order to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between two antenna patches or adjacent patch radiations (e.g., see Para. 91, 93, 135). Lee further teaches wherein the dummy patches comprise: first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions space apart from a patch for antenna connection by a predetermined distance in a column direction in each of the two elements; and second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically in the column direction on a per-element unit basis in each of the first and second element units (e.g., see 112c and 112d in FIG. 3A, see 112c, 112e in FIG. 3B, see 112d, 112e in FIG. 3C, and FIGS. 4C-4D).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to a skilled artisan to form wherein each of the two elements of each of the first and second element units of Crockett comprises the one or more dummy patches as taught by Lee and form first type dummy patches symmetrically disposed at positions space apart from a patch for antenna connection such as unit element patches of Crockett by a predetermined distance in a column direction in each of the two elements of Crockett and second type dummy patches disposed symmetrically in the column direction on a per-element unit basis in each of the first and second element units of Crockett based on the teachings of Lee in order to further to improve the antenna pattern and reduce distortion of the integrated pattern between two antenna patches or adjacent patch radiators as taught by Lee or in order to further stabilize the antenna pattern and form a more stable radiation pattern 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 predetermined distance corresponds to a distance (dy) of one element (e.g., see dy in FIG. 7).
Claim 10: Crockett further teaches the array antenna according to claim 8, wherein a first distance 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 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 disposed 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” or “dy2” in FIG. 7-9).
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 disposed spaced apart from each other by a distance of one element (e.g., see dy in FIG. 7 or dy2 in FIG. 9).
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 and a staggered via.
However Lee further teaches the antenna array comprises 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 and staggered via for the element units of Crockett as taught by Lee in order to form additional pathways to navigate the feed line around the different elements of the array and form additional components on the multilayer board of the substrate of the element units or to provide additional structural support layers to the element units.
Conclusion
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