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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 objected to because of the following informalities: “Antenna arrangement according to” in line 1. It appears that “The” is missing before “Antenna”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “the range” in line 3. It appears that “the” should be “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “sides” in line 3. It appears that it should be “side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-12 objected to because of the following informalities: “patch antennas” in line 3. It appears that “the” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 9-15 objected to because of the following informalities: “Radar array” in line 1. It appears that “The” is missing before “Radar”. Appropriate corrections are required.
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, 6-7, 10-15 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 4 recites the limitation: "the electrical impedance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “electrical impedance” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "[[the]] an electrical impedance". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each arranged on sides” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “each”, which is one, is “arranged on sides”, which is more than one side. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “each arranged on side[[s]]”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a parasitic patch” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a parasitic patch” in lines 2-3 relates to the “at least one pair of parasitic patches” mentioned in claim 1 lines 2-3. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a parasitic patch of the at least one pair of parasitic patches”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitations: 1) “a row” in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a row” in line 1 relates to the “a row” mentioned in claim 9 line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “[[a]] the row”. 2) “patch antennas” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “patch antennas” in line 2 relates to the “a patch antenna” mentioned in claim 1 line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the patch antennas”. 3) “parasitic patches” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “parasitic patches” in line 2 relates to the “at least one pair of parasitic patches” mentioned in claim 1 lines 2-3. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the parasitic patches”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 11-12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10 because each of dependent claims 11-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the feed line” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “feed line” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “[[the]] a feed line”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a row” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a row” in line 4 relates to the “two rows” mentioned in line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a row of the two rows”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the row” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear that “the row” in line 3 represents the “each row” mentioned in line 2 or the “a row” mentioned in claim 13 line 4. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the each row”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitations: 1) “these notches” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear “these notches” in line 4 represents “all notches of the patch antennas” mentioned in line 2, or “the parasitic patches each have at least one notch” mentioned in line 3, or both. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “[[these]] all notches of the patch antennas and all notches of the parasitic patches”. 2) “the row” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear that “the row” in line 5 represents one of the “two rows” mentioned in claim 13 line 2 or the “a row” mentioned in claim 13 line 4. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the row of the two rows”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patotski (US 11,837,791, hereafter Patotski).
Regarding claim 1, Patotski (‘791) discloses that Antenna arrangement having a patch antenna with multiple notches and at least one pair of parasitic patches which are arranged in mirror symmetry at opposite ends of the patch antenna {title (microstrip patch antenna with increased bandwidth); Fig.2A (adiating patch, parasitic patch)}.
Regrading claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Patotski (‘791) discloses that the Antenna arrangement characterised in that
the notches of the patch antenna are arranged in axial symmetry to a feed line of the patch antenna { Fig.1 items 102 (radiating patches), 110 (input ports); Fig.2A item 210 (input port), (TRP); col.5 lines 3-6 (The each of the plurality of radiating patches 102 are spaced along a common longitudinal axis C and are oriented so that the input ports 110 for each of the radiating patches 102); col.7 line 31 (input feedline)}.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patotski (‘791) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Vincenti Gatti et al. (Vincenti Gatti, Roberto, Riccardo Rossi, and Marco Dionigi. "Single-layer line-fed broadband microstrip patch antenna on thin substrates." Electronics 10, no. 1 (2020): 37, hereafter Vincenti Gatti).
Regrading claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, Patotski (‘791) discloses that the Antenna arrangement characterised in that
the patch antenna has first notches which adjoin the feed line { Fig.1 items 102 (radiating patches), 110 (input ports) }, and
.
However, Patotski (‘791) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “second notches which are arranged parallel to the first notches”. In the same field of endeavor, Vincenti Gatti (‘NPL) discloses that
second notches which are arranged parallel to the first notches {Fig.1(b)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Patotski (‘791) with the teachings of Vincenti Gatti (‘NPL) {use patch with multiple notch} to use patch with multiple notch. Doing so would provide a wideband patch antenna with simple effective design approach, as recognized by Vincenti Gatti (‘NPL) {title (broadband microstrip patch antenna); abstract line 2 (A simple yet effective design approach); Fig.1(b) (MPA2); Fig.2 (MPA2)}.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patotski (‘791) and Vincenti Gatti (‘NPL) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Marongiu et al. (E. Marongiu et al., "Design and Characterization of Modified Comb Patch Antennas," in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 36220-36232, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3164072, hereafter Marongiu).
Regrading claim 4, which depends on claims 1-3, Patotski (‘791) and Vincenti Gatti (‘NPL) do not explicitly disclose “an amount of the electrical impedance at a feed point of the patch antenna is in the range from 40 Ω to 60 Ω”. In the same field of endeavor, Marongiu (‘NPL) discloses that the Antenna arrangement characterised in that
an amount of the electrical impedance at a feed point of the patch antenna is in the range from 40 Ω to 60 Ω { Fig.2 (The feed is a 50 Ω microstrip line) }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Patotski (‘791) and Vincenti Gatti (‘NPL) with the teachings of Marongiu (‘NPL) {use a 50 Ω microstrip line } to use a 50 Ω microstrip line. Doing so would consider effects for adjacent conductors and match a system to the feeding line because the input impedance is fundamental to derive exactly how to design the device for working under resonance conditions and match the system to the feeding line, as recognized by Marongiu (‘NPL) {page 36223 left column lines 9-11 from bottom (the input impedance is fundamental to derive exactly how to design the device for working under resonance conditions and match the system to the feeding line.), 3-5 from bottom (the calculation of the radiation impedance considering the couling effects for adjacent conductors, thus introducing additional complexity) }.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patotski (‘791) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 115000695, hereafter Zhang).
Regrading claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Patotski (‘791) does not explicitly disclose that “the parasitic patches each have at least one notch”. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang (‘695) discloses that the Antenna arrangement characterised in that
the parasitic patches each have at least one notch { Fig.1 item 40, 41, 42, 43 (
PNG
media_image1.png
82
62
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); Fig.3 item 30 (radiation patch), 40 (parasitic patch); page 3 lines 13-14 (30-radiation patch, 40-embedded parasitic patch,)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
342
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Patotski (‘791) with the teachings of Zhang (‘695) {use parasitic patch with notch} to use parasitic patch with notch. Doing so would design a special parasitic patch structure so as to provide an ultra-wideband high gain patch antenna without reflecting back cavity, as recognized by Zhang (‘695) {abstract line 1 (an ultra-wideband high gain patch antenna without reflecting back cavity), 4-6 (the parasitic patch comprises a piece of radiation-room parasitic patch set between two pieces of radiation patch and two pieces of embedded parasitic patches set on the outer side of two pieces of radiation patch), 8-11 (the special embedded parasitic patch structure is matched with the concave of the radiation patch, then closing parasitic ground, can realize impedance bandwidth from 1486.3MHz to 3856.5MHz, bandwidth inner port reflection coefficient is less than -10dB, the gain of the antenna in the bandwidth is 9-11.94dBi)}.
Regrading claim 6, which depends on claims 1 and 5, Patotski (‘791) does not explicitly disclose that “the notches of the parasitic patches are each arranged on sides which do not adjoin the patch antenna”. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang (‘695) discloses that the Antenna arrangement characterised in that
the notches of the parasitic patches are each arranged on sides which do not adjoin the patch antenna { Fig.1 item 40, 41, 42, 43 (
PNG
media_image1.png
82
62
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); Fig.3 item 30 (radiation patch), 40 (parasitic patch); page 3 lines 13-14 (30-radiation patch, 40-embedded parasitic patch,)}
PNG
media_image2.png
342
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Patotski (‘791) with the teachings of Zhang (‘695) {use parasitic patch with notch arranged on sides which do not adjoin the patch antenna } to use parasitic patch with notch arranged on sides which do not adjoin the patch antenna. Doing so would design a special parasitic patch structure so as to provide an ultra-wideband high gain patch antenna without reflecting back cavity, as recognized by Zhang (‘695) {abstract line 1 (an ultra-wideband high gain patch antenna without reflecting back cavity), 4-6 (the parasitic patch comprises a piece of radiation-room parasitic patch set between two pieces of radiation patch and two pieces of embedded parasitic patches set on the outer side of two pieces of radiation patch), 8-11 (the special embedded parasitic patch structure is matched with the concave of the radiation patch, then closing parasitic ground, can realize impedance bandwidth from 1486.3MHz to 3856.5MHz, bandwidth inner port reflection coefficient is less than -10dB, the gain of the antenna in the bandwidth is 9-11.94dBi)}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patotski (‘791) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noor et al. (Noor, Shehab Khan, Muzammil Jusoh, Thennarasan Sabapathy, Ali Hanafiah Rambe, Hamsakutty Vettikalladi, Ali M. Albishi, and Mohamed Himdi. "A patch antenna with enhanced gain and bandwidth for sub-6 GHz and sub-7 GHz 5G wireless applications." Electronics 12, no. 12 (2023): 2555, hereafter Noor).
Regrading claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Patotski (‘791) does not explicitly disclose that “a width of an air gap between the patch antenna and a parasitic patch is less than 10% of a length of the side of the patch antenna facing the parasitic patch in each case”. In the same field of endeavor, Noor (‘NPL) discloses that the Antenna arrangement characterised in that
a width of an air gap between the patch antenna and a parasitic patch is less than 10% of a length of the side of the patch antenna facing the parasitic patch in each case { Fig.1 (d); Examiner’s note: visually see less than 10% according to the ruler in Fig.1(d)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Patotski (‘791) with the teachings of Noor (‘NPL) {arrange parasitic patch adjacent to radiation patch with an air gap about 1mm with respect to radiation patch size 22.5mm x 20mm} to arrange parasitic patch adjacent to radiation patch with an air gap about 1mm with respect to radiation patch size 22.5mm x 20mm. Doing so would use the effect of the parasitic strip on antenna performance so as to provide a patch antenna with enhanced gain and bandwidth, as recognized by Noor (‘NPL) {title (Patch Antenna with Enhanced Gain and Bandwidth); Fig.1(a)(b); abstract lines 1 (microstrip patch antenna design using slots and parasitic strips), 10-14 (the effect of the parasitic strip’s width and length on antenna performance, high-gain compact patch antennas, enhance performance and efficiency in these frequency bands); page 4 of 13 lines 1-3 from bottom (unit in mm, Wp = 22.5, Lp = 20, PL3 = 20)}.
Claims 8-9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 111710968, hereafter Wu) in view of Kishigami et al. (US12078745, hereafter Kishigami).
Regrading claim 8, Wu (‘968) discloses that {Fig.1; page 2 line 9 (The antenna is used as a device for receiving and transmitting electromagnetic wave); page 3 line 20 (the two main patches are E-shaped patch antenna; the two parasitic patches are respectively rectangular patch antenna); page 5 lines 6-7 (-patch antenna, application, frequency hopping radar); page 9 lines 2-3 from bottom (two parasitic patches, set on the outer side opposite to the two main patches); Examiner’s note: “frequency hopping radar” for “radar waves with an average wavelength” because radar operate at a frequency range corresponding to “an average wavelength”}.
However, Wu (‘968) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “Radar array which is set up to transmit and receive radar waves with an average wavelength”. In the same field of endeavor, Kishigami (‘745) discloses that
Radar array which is set up to transmit and receive radar waves with an average wavelength {Fig.4; col.2 line 44 (MIMO radar)},
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wu (‘968) with the teachings of Kishigami (‘745) {use MIMO radar} to use MIMO radar. Doing so would arrange transmit and receive antennas in a certain pattern so as to improve detection performance of a MIMO radar, as recognized by Kishigami (‘745) {col.2 lines 42-47 (detection performance of a radar, depending on the antenna arrangement of transmission and reception branches in a MIMO radar. improves detection performance), 58-59 (the plurality of transmission antenna groups is arranged), 63-64 (each of the plurality of reception antenna groups includes a plurality of reception antennas arranged); col.3 lines 12-13 (detection performance of the radar apparatus is improved.)}.
Regrading claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Wu (‘968) discloses that the Radar array characterised in that
the antenna arrangements are arranged in a row as receiving antennas or are arranged in a row as transmitting antennas {Fig.1 item 11; page 2 line 9 (The antenna is used as a device for receiving and transmitting electromagnetic wave); },
.
However, Wu (‘968) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “wherein the distance between two antenna arrangements within the row is λ”. In the same field of endeavor, Kishigami (‘745) discloses that
wherein the distance between two antenna arrangements within the row is λ {Fig.8 distance between Tx#1 and Tx#3 is 2 DH; col. 19 line 67 (in FIG, 8, when the spacing ); col.20 line 1 (DH and the spacing Dv are set to about 0.5 λ); Examiner’s note: Fig.8 distance between Tx#1 and Tx#3 is 2 DH , where DH is 0.5 λ }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wu (‘968) with the teachings of Kishigami (‘745) {arrange transmit antennas and receive antennas in a certain spacing (e.g. one wavelength between two transmit antennas)} to arrange transmit antennas and receive antennas in a certain spacing (e.g. one wavelength between two transmit antennas). Doing so would arrange transmit and receive antennas in a certain pattern so as to improve detection performance of a MIMO radar, as recognized by Kishigami (‘745) {col.2 lines 42-47 (detection performance of a radar, depending on the antenna arrangement of transmission and reception branches in a MIMO radar. improves detection performance), 58-59 (the plurality of transmission antenna groups is arranged), 63-64 (each of the plurality of reception antenna groups includes a plurality of reception antennas arranged); col.3 lines 12-13 (detection performance of the radar apparatus is improved.)}.
Regrading claim 13, which depends on claim 8, Wu (‘968) does not explicitly disclose “the antenna arrangements are arranged in two rows as receiving antennas or are arranged in two rows as transmitting antennas, wherein a distance between the rows is λ and a distance between two antenna arrangements within a row is 2 λ”. In the same field of endeavor, Kishigami (‘745) discloses that the Radar array characterised in that
the antenna arrangements are arranged in two rows as receiving antennas or are arranged in two rows as transmitting antennas,
wherein a distance between the rows is λ and
a distance between two antenna arrangements within a row is 2 λ.
{Fig.67 (see mark below); col.6 lines 59-64 (FIG. 66 is a diagram showing an example of an antenna arrangement according to Modification 2 of basic arrangement 3; FIG. 67 is a diagram showing an example of an antenna arrangement according to Modification 2 of basic arrangement 3;) col.60 lines 60-61 (shown in FIGS. 63 to 66, when, for example, DH and Dv are set to about 0.5 λ ); col.61 lines 45-46 (FIG. 67 shows an example of a MIMO array arrangement in a case); Examiner’s note: Fig.67 Rows that Rx#5 and Rx#6 are in are interpreted as “the rows”}
PNG
media_image3.png
552
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wu (‘968) with the teachings of Kishigami (‘745) {arrange transmit antennas and receive antennas in a certain spacing (e.g. one wavelength between two transmit antennas)} to arrange transmit antennas and receive antennas in a certain spacing (e.g. one wavelength between two transmit antennas). Doing so would arrange transmit and receive antennas in a certain pattern so as to improve detection performance of a MIMO radar, as recognized by Kishigami (‘745) {col.2 lines 42-47 (detection performance of a radar, depending on the antenna arrangement of transmission and reception branches in a MIMO radar. improves detection performance), 58-59 (the plurality of transmission antenna groups is arranged), 63-64 (each of the plurality of reception antenna groups includes a plurality of reception antennas arranged); col.3 lines 12-13 (detection performance of the radar apparatus is improved.)}.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Staker et al. (WO1991012637, hereafter Staker).
Regrading claim 10, which depends on claims 8-9, Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) do not explicitly disclose that “a row of patch antennas is arranged between two rows of parasitic patches”. In the same field of endeavor, Staker (‘637) discloses that array characterised in that
a row of patch antennas is arranged between two rows of parasitic patches {Fig.4 items 1 (fed patch), 3a, 3b (parasitic patches); Fig.6; page 1 abstract line 2 (fed patch (I) and a pair of parasitic patches (3a, 3b)); Examiner’s note: columns in Fig.6 is interpreted as “rows”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) with the teachings of Staker (‘637) {arrange patches with parasitic patches in an array} to arrange patches with parasitic patches in an array. Doing so would form an array antenna for microwave and/or millimetre wavebands at so as to achieve a broadband resonance (e.g. for receiver), as recognized by Staker (‘637) {page 1 abstract lines 1 (A patch array microwave antenna for microwave and millimetre wavebands), 4 (a broadband receiver); page 5 lines 7-8 from bottom (cause the antenna to exhibit a substantially broadband resonance); page 9 lines 6 from bottom (Figure 6, an array antenna for use at 29GHz)}.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Staker (‘637) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Patotski (‘791).
Regrading claim 11, which depends on claims 8-10, Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Staker (‘637) do not explicitly disclose “all notches of the patch antennas are arranged on the same side of the row of patch antennas”. In the same field of endeavor, Patotski (‘791) discloses that
all notches of the patch antennas are arranged on the same side of the row of patch antennas {Fig.2A}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Staker (‘637) with the teachings of Patotski (‘791) {arrange notch on one side of a row of patch antenna} to arrange notch on one side of a row of patch antenna. Doing so would provide a patch antenna array in a certain arrangement pattern with low profile, small size, and easily fabricated for use in applications where parameters such as space and weight is at a premium, as recognized by Patotski (‘791) {col.1 lines 31-34 (low profile and small size, applications where parameters such as space and weight is at a premium, easily fabricated), 38-39 (provides a microstrip antenna array); col.2 lines 60-63 (The radiating patches may be formed in single row on a substrate. Each radiating patch may be oriented in the same direction on the same substrate.)}.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Staker (‘637) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Song et al. (CN 116845545, hereafter Song).
Regrading claim 12, which depends on claims 8-10, Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Staker (‘637) do not explicitly disclose “the patch antennas have notches on both sides of the row of patch antennas, wherein the patch antennas each have an extension which is designed as an elongation of the feed line”. In the same field of endeavor, Song (‘545) discloses that
the patch antennas have notches on both sides of the row of patch antennas,
wherein the patch antennas each have an extension which is designed as an elongation of the feed line.
{Fig.2 items 303 (feeder line), 306 (radiation element), 32, 307, 308 (parasitic unit); page 4 lines 9-11 (303, micro-strip feeder line, 306. third radiation element, 32. parasitic unit; 307, parasitic patch one; 308. second parasitic patch.)}
PNG
media_image4.png
451
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Staker (‘637) with the teachings of Song (‘545) {arrange antenna array with notch on both sides of a row and with a feed line for each antenna} to arrange antenna array with notch on both sides of a row and with a feed line for each antenna. Doing so would provide a comb-shaped linear array antenna so as to obtain a broadband comb-shaped micro-strip antenna with small in size and easy to process to meet design requirement, as recognized by Song (‘545) { page 1 abstract lines 1 (broadband comb-shaped terahertz micro-strip antenna), 3 (a comb-shaped linear array antenna), 10-12 (the design requirement of the wide band width of the comb-shaped micro-strip antenna can be reached, small in size and easy to process) }.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Patotski (‘791).
Regrading claim 14, which depends on claims 8 and 13, Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) do not explicitly disclose that “in each row, the patch antennas and the parasitic patches lie on the longitudinal axis of the row”. In the same field of endeavor, Patotski (‘791) discloses that
in each row, the patch antennas and the parasitic patches lie on the longitudinal axis of the row {Fig.2A}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) with the teachings of Patotski (‘791) {arrange patch antenna and parasitic patches in a row pattern} to arrange patch antenna and parasitic patches in a row pattern. Doing so would provide a patch antenna array in a certain arrangement pattern with low profile, small size, and easily fabricated for use in applications where parameters such as space and weight is at a premium, as recognized by Patotski (‘791) {col.1 lines 31-34 (low profile and small size, applications where parameters such as space and weight is at a premium, easily fabricated), 38-39 (provides a microstrip antenna array); col.2 lines 60-63 (The radiating patches may be formed in single row on a substrate. Each radiating patch may be oriented in the same direction on the same substrate.)}.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Patotski (‘791) and Zhang (‘695).
Regrading claim 15, which depends on claims 8 and 13, Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) do not explicitly disclose that “all notches of the patch antennas are arranged on the same side of the radar array, and the parasitic patches each have at least one notch on two opposite sides, wherein these notches run orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of the row”. In the same field of endeavor, Patotski (‘791) discloses that
all notches of the patch antennas are arranged on the same side of the radar array {Fig.2A}, and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Wu (‘968) and Kishigami (‘745) with the teachings of Patotski (‘791) {arrange notch on one side of a row of patch antenna} to arrange notch on one side of a row of patch antenna. Doing so would provide a patch antenna array in a certain arrangement pattern with low profile, small size, and easily fabricated for use in applications where parameters such as space and weight is at a premium, as recognized by Patotski (‘791) {col.1 lines 31-34 (low profile and small size, applications where parameters such as space and weight is at a premium, easily fabricated), 38-39 (provides a microstrip antenna array); col.2 lines 60-63 (The radiating patches may be formed in single row on a substrate. Each radiating patch may be oriented in the same direction on the same substrate.)}.
However, Patotski (‘791) does not explicitly disclose “the parasitic patches each have at least one notch on two opposite sides, wherein these notches run orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of the row”. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang (‘695) discloses that
the parasitic patches each have at least one notch on two opposite sides,
wherein these notches run orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of the row.
{ Fig.1 item 40, 41, 42, 43 (
PNG
media_image1.png
82
62
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); Fig.3 item 30 (radiation patch), 40 (parasitic patch); page 3 lines 13-14 (30 -radiation patch, 40-embedded parasitic patch,)}
PNG
media_image2.png
342
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Wu (‘968), Kishigami (‘745), and Patotski (‘791) with the teachings of Zhang (‘695) {use parasitic patch with notch orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of a row} to use parasitic patch with notch orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of a row. Doing so would design a special parasitic patch structure so as to provide an ultra-wideband high gain patch antenna without reflecting back cavity, as recognized by Zhang (‘695) {abstract line 1 (an ultra-wideband high gain patch antenna without reflecting back cavity), 4-6 (the parasitic patch comprises a piece of radiation-room parasitic patch set between two pieces of radiation patch and two pieces of embedded parasitic patches set on the outer side of two pieces of radiation patch), 8-11 (the special embedded parasitic patch structure is matched with the concave of the radiation patch, then closing parasitic ground, can realize impedance bandwidth from 1486.3MHz to 3856.5MHz, bandwidth inner port reflection coefficient is less than -10dB, the gain of the antenna in the bandwidth is 9-11.94dBi)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US10224644 discloses that “Antenna arrangement having a patch antenna with multiple notches and at least one pair of parasitic patches which are arranged in mirror symmetry at opposite ends of the patch antenna” {Fig.2A}, which further support the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
US10224644 also discloses that “the notches of the patch antenna are arranged in axial symmetry to a feed line of the patch antenna” {Fig.2A}, which further support the rejection of claim 2.
US10224644 discloses that “a row of patch antennas is arranged between two rows of parasitic patches” {Fig.2A}, which further support the rejection of claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights