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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No 18/192,275, filed on 3/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements claimed in the current application are also found in the claims of the ‘066 patent.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brigham (US 2020/0280140), hereinafter Brigham.
Regarding claim 1 Brigham discloses an antenna array (e.g., paragraph 0006) comprising: a plurality of antenna array elements (e.g., Fig. 4B, at the antenna elements shown in the X and Y axis; see also paragraph 0043); and a dielectric layer (e.g., paragraphs 0032 and 0052) formed at a specified spacing from the antenna array elements (Fig. 4B, at 17; see also paragraph 0043), wherein one or more conductive elements are disposed on a first side and a second side of the dielectric layer (the X and Y axis are aligned on different sides), respectively, and wherein the one or more conductive elements on the first side of the dielectric layer are orthogonally disposed to the one or more conductive elements on the second side of the dielectric layer (e.g., Fig. 4B shows this feature; see also paragraph 0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Brigham further discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein a distance between the antenna array elements and the dielectric layer is determined based on an operating wavelength of the antenna array elements(e.g., paragraph 0004 “over the desired operational frequency band”; also note inherent to antennas).
Regarding claim 3 Brigham further discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the one or more conductive elements are arranged parallel to one side of the antenna array elements (e.g., Fig. 4B at the elements shown; see also paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 5 Brigham further discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the operating wavelength of the antenna array elements is in a free space (e.g., paragraph 0004 “over the desired operational frequency band”; also note this characteristic is inherent to antennas).
Regarding claim 6 Brigham further discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the one or more conductive elements have a form of continuous straight conductive elements (e.g., Fig. 4B at the elements shown; see also paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 8 Brigham further discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the antenna array is a dual-polarized antenna array (e.g., paragraph 0024).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigham.
Regarding claim 4 Brigham further discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the one or more conductive elements have the form of multiple rectangular or oval elements (e.g., Fig. 4B at the elements shown; see also paragraph 0043), and wherein the one or more conductive elements are arranged in rows spaced apart at a specific distance (e.g., Fig. 4B at the elements shown; see also paragraph 0043),
Brigham does not explicitly disclose wherein while the distance between the one or more conductive elements in one row does not exceed a half of the operating wavelength of the antenna array elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to while the distance between the one or more conductive elements in one row does not exceed a half of the operating wavelength of the antenna array elements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigham in view of Deleniv et al., (US 2020/0287266), hereinafter Deleniv.
Regarding claim 7 Brigham does not explicitly disclose the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is implemented on a multilayer printed circuit board with different thickness and dielectric permittivity.
Deleniv discloses wherein the dielectric layer is implemented on a multilayer printed circuit board with different thickness and dielectric permittivity (e.g., paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the dielectric layer is implemented on a multilayer printed circuit board with different thickness and dielectric permittivity, and apply the teaching of Deleniv wherein the dielectric layer is implemented on a multilayer printed circuit board with different thickness and dielectric permittivity (e.g., Deleniv, paragraph 0024), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun (US 2020/0021015) also teaches wherein the dielectric layer is implemented on a multilayer printed circuit board with different thickness and dielectric permittivity.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights