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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 8 NOV 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/941,734, filed on 8 NOV 2024, is a continuation of national an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of CT/CN2022/092046, filed on 10 MAY 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 30 DEC 20204 and 10 JUN 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 403. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 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 4 is 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.
The term “high” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the examiner what is considered a “high relative permittivity.” For the purpose of prosecution, any material with any value of permittivity will be considered to meet this limitation.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10-13, 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kosaka et al. (US 2018/0269577 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kosaka et al. discloses:
A radiating element (Kosaka et al. multiband antenna 1, Fig. 1), comprising:
a first radiating structure (Kosaka et al. first antenna element 101, Fig. 1) disposed in spaced relation from a ground plane (Kosaka et al. conductive reflection plate 103, Fig. 1);
a second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. second antenna element 102, Fig. 1) disposed in spaced relation from the first radiating structure; and
a passive structure (Kosaka et al. FSS 104, Fig. 1) disposed between the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. FSS 104 is disposed between first antenna element 101 and second antenna element 102, Fig. 1), configured to introduce a phase delay to a propagated field between the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. “The FSS 104 works as a conductive reflection plate for the second antenna elements 102…” - ¶ 0099]; “The conductive reflection plate 103 of the present example embodiment may be a metamaterial reflection plate 1031, as illustrated in Fig. 66… The metamaterial reflection plate 1031 is capable of shifting the reflecting phase of a reflected electromagnetic wave to a value different from a reflection phase of 180° when reflected by a regular metal plate. By controlling the reflection phase at the operating frequency of the first antenna elements 101, the metamaterial reflection plate 1031 may suppress variation in the resonance characteristics of the first antenna elements…” - ¶ [0093]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kosaka et al. discloses:
The radiating element of claim 1, further comprising at least one port configured to supply a feed signal to the first radiating structure or the second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. feeders 105, 106, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kosaka et al. discloses:
The radiating element of claim 1, further comprising at least one port configured to receive a phase shifted signal (Kosaka et al. “Each of the first antenna elements 101 includes a feeder 105. Similarly, each of the second antenna elements 102 includes a feeder 106.” - ¶ [0088]; (functional language)).
Regarding claim 10, Kosaka et al. discloses:
The radiating element of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure comprises a dipole (Kosaka et al. “each antenna element 200 is configured with a dipole antenna element 230.” - ¶ [0203]; Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 11, Kosaka et al. discloses:
The radiating element of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure are dual polarized (Kosaka et al. “two antenna elements that are orthogonal to each other constitute an orthogonal dual polarization antenna (equivalent to a first antenna element group 501 and a second antenna element group 502)” - ¶ [0292]; Fig. 50).
Regarding claim 12, Kosaka et al. discloses:
The radiating element of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure are planar structures (Kosaka et al. “other antenna structures, such as a patch antenna, may also be employed” - ¶ [0284]).
Regarding claim 13, Kosaka et al. discloses:
An antenna array (Kosaka et al. antenna array, Fig. 1), comprising a plurality of radiating elements (Kosaka et al. first antenna elements 101 and second antenna elements 102, Fig. 1), each of the plurality of radiating elements comprising:
a first radiating structure (Kosaka et al. first antenna element 101, Fig. 1) disposed in spaced relation from a ground plane (Kosaka et al. conductive reflection plate 103, Fig. 1);
a second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. second antenna element 102, Fig. 1) disposed in spaced relation from the first radiating structure; and
a passive structure (Kosaka et al. FSS 104, Fig. 1) disposed between the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. FSS 104 is disposed between first antenna element 101 and second antenna element 102, Fig. 1), configured to introduce a phase delay to a propagated field between the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. FSS 104 shifts the phase of the electromagnetic waves, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, Kosaka et al. discloses:
A method, comprising:
disposing a passive structure between a first radiating structure and a second radiating structure (Kosaka et al. FSS 104 is disposed between first antenna element 101 and second antenna element 102, Fig. 1) of a radiating element (Kosaka et al. multiband antenna 1, Fig. 1), wherein the passive structure introduces a first phase delay to a propagated field between the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure of the radiating element (Kosaka et al. FSS 104 shifts the phase of the electromagnetic waves, Fig. 1).
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.
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(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 2018/0269577 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025) in view of (NPL: “Design of Multilayer Frequency-Selective Surfaces by Equivalent Circuit Method and Basic Building Blocks,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025).
Regarding claim 2, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The radiating element of claim 1
Xu et al. discloses:
wherein the passive structure comprises at least one metasurface (Xu et al. FSS can comprise multilayer metasurfaces, Fig. 2; Section 3. Design Procedure of Multilayer FSS by the ECM, p. 4-11).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Xu et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 2 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Xu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose frequency selective surfaces. Kosaka et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. Although Kosaka et al. does not explicitly disclose that the passive structure comprises at least on metasurface, Kosaka et al. does disclose that the “The FSS 104 works as a conductive reflection plate for the second antenna elements 102…” (Kosaka et al. ¶ 0099]) and “The conductive reflection plate 103 of the present example embodiment may be a metamaterial reflection plate 1031…” (Kosaka et al. ¶ [0093]). Xu et al. discloses that an FSS can comprise multilayer metasurfaces (Xu et al. Fig. 2; Section 3. Design Procedure of Multilayer FSS by the ECM, p. 4-11). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Xu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to configure the passive structure to have a desired frequency response in order to enhance performance of the radiating element (Xu et al. “we try to present a fast and simple design method for the multilayer FSS with desired frequency response.” – p. 1, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 3, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The radiating element of claim 1
Xu et al. discloses:
wherein the passive structure comprises multiple stacked metasurfaces (Xu et al. FSS can comprise multilayer metasurfaces, Fig. 2; Section 3. Design Procedure of Multilayer FSS by the ECM, p. 4-11).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Xu et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 3 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Xu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose frequency selective surfaces. Kosaka et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. Although Kosaka et al. does not explicitly disclose that the passive structure comprises multiple stacked metasurfaces, Kosaka et al. does disclose that the “The FSS 104 works as a conductive reflection plate for the second antenna elements 102…” (Kosaka et al. ¶ 0099]) and “The conductive reflection plate 103 of the present example embodiment may be a metamaterial reflection plate 1031…” (Kosaka et al. ¶ [0093]). Xu et al. discloses that an FSS can comprise multilayer metasurfaces (Xu et al. Fig. 2; Section 3. Design Procedure of Multilayer FSS by the ECM, p. 4-11). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Xu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to configure the passive structure to have a desired frequency response in order to enhance performance of the radiating element (Xu et al. “we try to present a fast and simple design method for the multilayer FSS with desired frequency response.” – p. 1, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 5, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The radiating element of claim 1
Xu et al. discloses:
wherein the passive structure comprises a metamaterial structure (Xu et al. FSS can comprise multilayer metasurfaces, Fig. 2; Section 3. Design Procedure of Multilayer FSS by the ECM, p. 4-11).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Xu et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 5 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Xu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose frequency selective surfaces. Kosaka et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. Although Kosaka et al. does not explicitly disclose that the passive structure comprises a metamaterial structure, Kosaka et al. does disclose that the “The FSS 104 works as a conductive reflection plate for the second antenna elements 102…” (Kosaka et al. ¶ 0099]) and “The conductive reflection plate 103 of the present example embodiment may be a metamaterial reflection plate 1031…” (Kosaka et al. ¶ [0093]). Xu et al. discloses that an FSS can comprise multilayer metasurfaces (Xu et al. Fig. 2; Section 3. Design Procedure of Multilayer FSS by the ECM, p. 4-11). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Xu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to configure the passive structure to have a desired frequency response in order to enhance performance of the radiating element (Xu et al. “we try to present a fast and simple design method for the multilayer FSS with desired frequency response.” – p. 1, right-hand column).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 2018/0269577 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025) in view of Agarwal et al. (NPL: “Triple-band compact circularly polarized stacked microstrip antenna over reactive impedance meta-surface for GPS applications,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025).
Regarding claim 4, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The radiating element of claim 1
Agarwal et al. discloses:
wherein the passive structure comprises a monolithic block of material of high relative permittivity (Agarwal et al. dielectric layers are disposed between the three stacked square patches, Fig. 1a; Section 2 Proposed antenna geometry and design, p. 1058).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Agarwal et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Agarwal et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose stacked patch antennas. Kosaka et al. discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Kosaka et al. fails to explicitly disclose the passive structure comprises a monolithic block of material of high relative permittivity. This feature is disclosed by Agarwal et al. where dielectric layers are disposed between the three stacked square patches (Agarwal et al. Fig. 1a; Section 2 Proposed antenna geometry and design, p. 1058). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Agarwal et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide improve the front-to-back ratio and reduce the size of the antenna, while maintaining a wide radiation beamwidth (Agarwal et al. p. 1057, right-hand column).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 2018/0269577 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025) in view of Veihl et al. (US 2019/0115664 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The radiating element of claim 6
Veihl et al. discloses:
a phase shifter configured to modify a phase of the feed signal for at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure (Veihl et al. “The output of the variable phase shifter 454 is passed to a high power amplifier 456 that amplifies the sub-component of the RF signal to an appropriate transmit level. The amplified sub-component of the RF signal is then passed to the first linear array 380-1 of radiating elements 300 for over the air transmission.” - ¶ [0163]; Fig. 12; “A feed line 234 is coupled to the patch radiator 230.” - ¶ [0108]; Figs. 7A-7B).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Veihl et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 8 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Veihl et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose stacked patch antenna arrays. Kosaka et al. discloses the radiating element of claim 6. However, Kosaka et al. fails to explicitly disclose a phase shifter configured to modify a phase of the feed signal for at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure. This feature is disclosed by Veihl et al. where variable phase shifter 434 modifies a phase of the feed signal for the patch radiator 230 (Veihl et al. ¶ [0163]; Fig. 12; ¶ [0108]; Figs. 7A-7B). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Veihl et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to perform beam-steering and generate highly-focused antenna beams (Veihl et al. ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The radiating element of claim 6
Veihl et al. discloses:
an amplifier configured to modify an amplitude of the feed signal for at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure (Veihl et al. “The output of the variable phase shifter 454 is passed to a high power amplifier 456 that amplifies the sub-component of the RF signal to an appropriate transmit level. The amplified sub-component of the RF signal is then passed to the first linear array 380-1 of radiating elements 300 for over the air transmission.” - ¶ [0163]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Veihl et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 9 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Veihl et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose stacked patch antenna arrays. Kosaka et al. discloses the radiating element of claim 6. However, Kosaka et al. fails to explicitly disclose an amplifier configured to modify an amplitude of the feed signal for at least one of the first radiating structure and the second radiating structure. This feature is disclosed by Veihl et al. where amplifier 456 amplifies the RF signal to an appropriate transmit level for transmission from the patch radiator 230 (Veihl et al. ¶ [0163]; Fig. 12; ¶ [0108]; Figs. 7A-7B). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Veihl et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to perform beam-steering and generate highly-focused antenna beams (Veihl et al. ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 9 is applied.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka et al. (US 2018/0269577 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 10 JUN 2025) in view of Gonzalez et al. (WO 2020/011348 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 30 DEC 2024).
Regarding claim 14, Kosaka et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Kosaka et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna array of claim 13
Gonzalez et al. discloses:
wherein the plurality of radiating elements form a massive multiple-input and multiple-output, mMIMO, antenna array (Gonzalez et al. “The radiating device 100 can thus be used in a (multi-band) antenna that integrates different antenna arrays, e.g. a mMIMO antenna array...” – p. 9, lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Gonzalez et al. into the invention of Kosaka et al. to yield the invention of claim 14 above. Both Kosaka et al. and Gonzalez et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose antennas for mobile communications. Kosaka et al. discloses the invention of claim 13. However, Kosaka et al. fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of radiating elements form a massive multiple-input and multiple-output, mMIMO, antenna array. This feature is disclosed by Gonzalez et al. where “The radiating device 100 can thus be used in a (multi-band) antenna that integrates different antenna arrays, e.g. a mMIMO antenna array...” (Gonzalez et al. p. 9, lines 5-7). The combination of Kosaka et al. and Gonzalez et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to integrate high-frequency and lo-frequency elements to provide a multiband antenna array that has a flexible configuration, easy assembly and small size (Gonzalez et al. p. 2, lines 23-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
23 JUN 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights