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 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on P. 6 that “Because the reflectors in Hayes are strictly parallel to the radiator, they do not "form an angle with the radiator relative to the ground plane" as explicitly required by Claim 1”, and “Because Hayes teaches reflectors that are strictly parallel to the radiator, it fails to disclose the angular structural relationship required by Claim 1” and on P. 7 “Because Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Hayes for the reasons set forth above, and because none of the secondary references relied upon by the Examiner cure the deficiencies of Hayes by teaching the missing limitation of "one or more reflectors, forming an angle with the radiator relative to the ground plane", the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent Claims 5, 8, and 9-14 are likewise improper”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the structure of Hayes et al. discloses the radiator (310 Fig. 3 Par. 0042) being in parallel with the one or more reflectors (R2, R8, R6, R4 Fig. 3 Par. 0045), it implies that the angle between them is 0°, and since the claim language does not preclude the angle 0°, the claim do not distinguish over the structure of Hayes et al. having one or more reflectors (R2, R8, R6, R4 Fig. 3) which form an angle 0° with the radiator (310 Fig. 3) relative to the ground plane (300 Fig. 3 Par. 0042). Additionally, the secondary reference Nakajima et al. WO Patent Application Publication WO2021149143 A1 previously relied upon for claim 8 discloses adjusting the angle between the reflectors and the ground plane to be within a range of 0 to 90 degrees as shown in the rejection below. Thus the rejection stands. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0029291.
Regarding Claim 1, Hayes et al. teaches an antenna structure (Figs. 3-6), comprising:
a ground plane (300 Fig. 3 Par. 0042),
a radiator (310 Fig. 3 Par. 0042), being arranged and suspended above the ground plane (Fig. 3);
one or more reflectors (R2, R8, R6, R4 Fig. 3 Par. 0045), forming an angle with the radiator relative to the ground plane (Fig. 3) and being arranged at a distance around the periphery of the radiator (Fig. 3); and
one or more switch elements (410 Fig. 4 Par. 0047, 0048), being respectively arranged between the one or more reflectors and the ground plane to control the connection between the one or more reflectors and the ground plane (“The second switch assembly 410 may include switches that are controllable by the selector module 250 to either ground out the corresponding antenna element” Par. 0048),
wherein the radiator is a dipole antenna radiator (dipole Par. 0005, 0020).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayes et al. teaches wherein the reflectors are symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Hayes et al. teaches wherein the antenna structure comprises a total of four reflectors and the four reflectors are respectively arranged at positions of 0 degree, 90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees relative to the radiator (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayes et al. teaches wherein the length of the radiator ranges from 0.45λ to 0.55λ (½ of the wavelength for dipole Par. 0020), the length of the one or more reflectors ranges from 0.5λ to 0.62λ (implied that length of reflectors would correspond to ½ of the wavelength of the dipole element as in Par. 0020 and would likewise have a similar length).
Regarding Claim 6, Hayes et al. teaches further comprising one or more wave directors (D1, D2, D8 Fig. 3 Par. 0045), wherein the one or more wave directors are arranged and suspended above the radiator (D1, D2 & D8 are suspended above the radiator 310 as seen in Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0029291.
Regarding Claim 5, Hayes et al. teaches wherein the length of the radiator is 0.5λ (½ of the wavelength for dipole Par. 0020).
Hayes et al. is silent on the length of the one or more reflectors is 0.56λ.
However, Hayes et al. teaches extending and shortening the length of the reflectors (Par. 0007, 0008, 0047-0049), and “the driven element 310 may have a length selected to be about a quarter wavelength for the frequency of operation of the radio circuitry” Par. 0042; and “other dimensions are possible for other frequencies of operation” Par. 0051.
In this particular case, selecting the length of antenna elements such as the length of the one or more reflectors to be 0.56λ is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Hayes et al. based on the frequency band of operation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the length of the one or more reflectors to be 0.56λ based on the teachings of Hayes et al. as a result effect based on the required frequency band of operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0029291 and Nakajima et al. WO Patent Application Publication WO2021149143 A1 (see attached machine translation for cited references).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayes et al. teaches the antenna structure according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on wherein the angle is a 45-degree angle.
However, Nakajima et al. teaches an angle between the reflectors and the base to be within a range of 0 to 90 degrees (Par. 0005-0007).
In this particular case, adjusting the angle between the reflectors and the ground plane to be within a range of 0 to 90 degrees such as 45 degrees is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Nakajima et al. to reduce variation in the radiation direction of radio waves (Par. 0005-0007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the angle of Hayes et al. to be a 45-degree angle based on the teachings of Nakajima et al. as a result effect in order to improve performance by reducing variation in the radiation direction of radio waves.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0029291 and Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0302081.
Regarding Claim 9, Hayes et al. teaches the antenna structure according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on further comprising a radiator substrate vertically arranged on the ground plane, and the radiator is arranged on the radiator substrate.
However, Liu et al. teaches a radiator substrate (75 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) vertically arranged on the ground plane (ground of 14 Fig. 7 Par. 0048), and the radiator (70 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) is arranged on the radiator substrate (Fig. 7 Par. 0048).
In this particular case, providing a radiator substrate is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Liu et al. to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements (Par. 0047-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the radiator of Hayes et al. on a radiator substrate vertically arranged on the ground plane based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements by providing additional support.
Regarding Claim 10, Hayes et al. teaches the antenna structure according to claim 6 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on further comprising a radiator substrate vertically arranged on the ground plane, and the radiator is arranged on the radiator substrate.
However, Liu et al. teaches a radiator substrate (75 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) vertically arranged on the ground plane (ground of 14 Fig. 7 Par. 0048), and the radiator (70 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) is arranged on the radiator substrate (Fig. 7 Par. 0048).
In this particular case, providing a radiator substrate is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Liu et al. to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements (Par. 0047-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the radiator of Hayes et al. on a radiator substrate vertically arranged on the ground plane based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements by providing additional support.
Regarding Claim 11, Hayes et al. as modified teaches the antenna structure according to claim 10 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on wherein the one or more wave directors are arranged on the radiator substrate.
However, Liu et al. teaches providing holders (75, 76 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) for the antenna elements (70, 71-74 Fig. 7 Par. 0048).
In this particular case, arranging the one or more wave directors on the radiator substrate is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Liu et al. to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements (Par. 0047-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the one or more wave directors of Hayes et al. on the radiator substrate along with the antenna based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements by providing additional support.
Regarding Claim 12, Hayes et al. as modified teaches the antenna structure according to claim 10 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on wherein some of the reflectors and some of the switch elements are arranged on the radiator substrate.
However, Liu et al. teaches providing holders (75, 76 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) for the antenna elements (70, 71-74 Fig. 7 Par. 0048).
In this particular case, arranging some of the reflectors and some of the switch elements on the radiator substrate is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Liu et al. to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements (Par. 0047-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange some of the reflectors and some of the switch elements of Hayes et al. on the radiator substrate based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements by providing additional support.
Regarding Claim 13, Hayes et al. teaches the antenna structure according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on further comprising one or more reflector substrates, wherein the reflector substrates are symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center, and the reflectors are respectively arranged on the reflector substrates.
However, Liu et al. teaches one or more reflector substrates (76 Fig. 7 Par. 0048), wherein the reflector substrates are symmetrically and equidistantly arranged (Fig. 7) around the periphery of the radiator (70 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) with the radiator as a center (Fig. 7), and the reflectors (71-74 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) are respectively arranged on the reflector substrates (Fig. 7).
In this particular case, providing one or more reflector substrates symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center and on which the reflectors are arranged is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Liu et al. to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements (Par. 0047-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the antenna structure of Hayes et al. with one or more reflector substrates symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center and on which the reflectors are arranged based on the teachings of Liu et al. a result effect in order to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements by providing additional support.
Regarding Claim 14, Hayes et al. as modified teaches the antenna structure according to claim 10 as shown in the rejection above.
Hayes et al. is silent on further comprising one or more reflector substrates, wherein the reflector substrates are symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center, and the reflectors are respectively arranged on the reflector substrates.
However, Liu et al. teaches one or more reflector substrates (76 Fig. 7 Par. 0048), wherein the reflector substrates are symmetrically and equidistantly arranged (Fig. 7) around the periphery of the radiator (70 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) with the radiator as a center (Fig. 7), and the reflectors (71-74 Fig. 7 Par. 0048) are respectively arranged on the reflector substrates (Fig. 7).
In this particular case, providing one or more reflector substrates symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center and on which the reflectors are arranged is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Liu et al. to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements (Par. 0047-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the antenna structure of Hayes et al. with one or more reflector substrates symmetrically and equidistantly arranged around the periphery of the radiator with the radiator as a center and on which the reflectors are arranged based on the teachings of Liu et al. a result effect in order to enhance the firmness of the antenna elements by providing additional support.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7, Hayes et al. the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the wave directors comprise a first herringbone wave director with a length of 0.45λ and arranged and suspended at a distance of 0.125λ above the radiator, and a second herringbone wave director with a length of 0.4λ and arranged and suspended at a distance of 0.2λ above the first herringbone wave director” as required by the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights