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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wherein the dipole antenna is vertically connected with a short-circuit pin of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “430” in figure 4 has been used to designate both the dipole antenna and another element which is not clear.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 both claim a spatial filter device. It is claimed that the spatial filter device comprises “a first substrate having a first parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the spatial filter device; a second substrate having a second parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed under the spatial filter device”. However, it is unclear how the first substrate or the first parasitic element can be disposed on the spatial filter device, when the first substrate and the first parasitic element are a part of the spatial filter device itself. Similarity it is unclear how the second substrate or the second parasitic element can be disposed under the spatial filter device, when the second substrate are the second parasitic element are a part of the spatial filter device itself. Based on the specification, it appears that the applicant may be wanting to claim that the first substrate is disposed on the top of the spatial filter device, and the second substrate is disposed on the bottom of the spatial filter device, and it will be construed as such for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 11, and therefore are also rejected.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the dipole antenna being configured as two crossed-shaped dipole connected to each other by a plurality of vias. Figure 4 which shows the simplest version of the claimed invention requires a cross dipole antenna on top of the ground plane and another cross dipole antenna on the bottom of the ground plane. If the claimed invention does not include this, there would not be a reason to have one of the substrates since it would only be transmitting/receiving in one direction. The independent claims currently read as just a single dipole antenna, The disclosed invention is using two cross dipole antennas, one on each side of the ground plane, and two substrates substrate with a parasitic element to provide the filtering for each individual cross dipole antenna, one on each side of the ground plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (US 11075452, hereby referred as Crouch) in view of Xu et al. (CN 115064877, hereby referred as Xu).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Crouch teaches the following:
a spatial filter device comprising:
a first substrate (element 216, figures 2) having a first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the spatial filter device;
a second substrate (element 226, figures 2) having a second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function and disposed under the spatial filter device; and
a dipole antenna (elements 212 and 222, figures 2) configured to transmit and receive radio waves in free space, coupled to each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element (as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7 and 15-23; column 5, line 62-67), and disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (as shown in figures 2).
Crouch does not teach the dipole antenna so as not to be aligned therewith.
Xu suggests the teachings of the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) so as not to be aligned with the parasitic elements (elements 102/202, figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have dipole antenna of Crouch to not be aligned therewith the parasitic elements as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as a cross-shaped metal or a modified cross-shaped metal, and
wherein the second parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as the cross-shaped metal or the modified cross-shaped metal.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
a third substrate having a third parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the first substrate (column 4, lines 15-23),
wherein the third parasitic element is coupled to the dipole antenna so as not to be aligned therewith (as explained in claim 1, column 4, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of the dipole antenna are configured as cross-shaped metals that are perpendicular to each other (as shown in figures 2), and
wherein the dipole antenna is vertically connected with a short-circuit pin (elements that connect to elements 214 or 224, figures 2; column 5, lines 52-54; column 6, lines 12-13)
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 4 teaches the device with the exception of explicitly teaching the following:
wherein a length of the dipole antenna is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of the dipole antenna of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency as it is well known in the art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing maximum power transfer which makes it a highly effective radiator, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of each of the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) and the second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) are connected perpendicularly to each other at a center (as shown in figures 2).
Crouch does not explicitly teach wherein a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces, such as the one in Crouch, are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency as it is well known in the art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing it to be tuned to filter out certain frequencies, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°, and wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured in a range of 25° to 65° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured as 45°, and wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured as 45°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured as 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured as 45° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a cutoff frequency of the first parasitic element is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch), and
wherein a cutoff frequency of the second parasitic element is determined based on a length of the second parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Crouch teaches the following:
an electronic device comprising:
a spatial filter device (figures 2); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the spatial filter device (column 4, line 66 – column 5, line 3),
a spatial filter device comprising:
a first substrate (element 216, figures 2) having a first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the spatial filter device;
a second substrate (element 226, figures 2) having a second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) configured to provide a filtering function and disposed under the spatial filter device; and
a dipole antenna (elements 212 and 222, figures 2) configured to transmit and receive radio waves in free space, coupled to each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element (as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7 and 15-23; column 5, line 62-67), and disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (as shown in figures 2).
Crouch does not teach the dipole antenna so as not to be aligned therewith.
Xu suggests the teachings of the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) so as not to be aligned with the parasitic elements (elements 102/202, figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have dipole antenna of Crouch to not be aligned therewith the parasitic elements as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as a cross-shaped metal or a modified cross-shaped metal, and
wherein the second parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) is configured as the cross-shaped metal or the modified cross-shaped metal.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
a third substrate having a third parasitic element configured to provide a filtering function and disposed on the first substrate (column 4, lines 15-23),
wherein the third parasitic element is coupled to the dipole antenna so as not to be aligned therewith (as explained in claim 1, column 4, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of the dipole antenna are configured as cross-shaped metals that are perpendicular to each other (as shown in figures 2), and
wherein the dipole antenna is vertically connected with a short-circuit pin (elements that connect to elements 214 or 224, figures 2; column 5, lines 52-54; column 6, lines 12-13)
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 14 teaches the device with the exception of explicitly teaching the following:
wherein a length of the dipole antenna is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of the dipole antenna of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency as it is well known in the art that dipole antennas are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing maximum power transfer which makes it a highly effective radiator, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein two axes of each of the first parasitic element (combination of the patches of element 216, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) and the second parasitic element (combination of the individual patches of element 226, as shown in figure 2B; column 3, lines 44-54; column 4, line 1-7; column 5, line 62-67) are connected perpendicularly to each other at a center (as shown in figures 2).
Crouch does not explicitly teach wherein a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element is configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency.
However, it is well known in the antenna art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces, such as the one in Crouch, are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a length of each of the first parasitic element and the second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of a cutoff frequency as it is well known in the art that elements of a frequency selective surfaces are most commonly configured as half of a wavelength in waveguide of an operating frequency when they are dipoles since that is the length where its length where current and voltage peaks align perfectly and allowing it to be tuned to filter out certain frequencies, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°, and wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured in a range of 25° to 65°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured in a range of 25° to 65° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the device with the exception of the following:
wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first parasitic element is configured as 45°, and wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the second parasitic element is configured as 45°.
Xu suggests the teachings of wherein an alignment angle between the dipole antenna (elements 3, figures 1-4) and the parasitic element (elements 102/202, figures 1-4) is configured as 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an alignment angle between the dipole antenna and the first and second parasitic element of Crouch to be configured as 45° as suggested by the teachings of Xu which can be used to control the transmission coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the FSS, and the polarization of the desired signals to filter/reflect out.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein a cutoff frequency of the first parasitic element is determined based on a length of the first parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch), and
wherein a cutoff frequency of the second parasitic element is determined based on a length of the second parasitic element (the cutoff frequency of an element of a frequency selective surface is inherently based on a length of the elements, such as the ones shown in Crouch).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (US 11075452, hereby referred as Crouch) in view of Xu et al. (CN 115064877, hereby referred as Xu), and further in view of Gimeno Martin et al. (US 2022/0399643, hereby referred as Gimeno).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
a plurality of vias (elements 218, figures 2) connecting a first portion of the dipole antenna (elements 212, figures 2) connected to the first parasitic element and a second portion of the dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2) connected to the second parasitic element.
Crouch does not teach a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias.
Gimeno suggests the teachings of a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias (“A via fence 82 has been implemented as an additional countermeasure to overcome inter-element couplings and mutual coupling.”, paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Crouch as modified to include a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias as suggested by the teachings of Gimeno to reduce any inter-element couplings and mutual coupling so as to reduce any interference/noise that may occur (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Crouch as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
a plurality of vias (elements 218, figures 2) connecting a first portion of the dipole antenna (elements 212, figures 2) connected to the first parasitic element and a second portion of the dipole antenna (elements 222, figures 2) connected to the second parasitic element.
Crouch does not teach a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias.
Gimeno suggests the teachings of a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias (“A via fence 82 has been implemented as an additional countermeasure to overcome inter-element couplings and mutual coupling.”, paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Crouch as modified to include a via wall configured to surround the plurality of vias as suggested by the teachings of Gimeno to reduce any inter-element couplings and mutual coupling so as to reduce any interference/noise that may occur (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gottl et al. (US 2018/0040948) also teaches a dipole antenna that is not aligned with the parasitic elements of a spatial filter, and could be used in place of Xu to teach the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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 at (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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845