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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/13/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the documents of the cited art that are crossed out are not legible or contain parts that are not legible and should be replaced with legible copies. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 07/15/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the documents of the cited art that are crossed out are not legible or contain parts that are not legible and should be replaced with legible copies. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-31 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include element numbering which should be omitted. Appropriate correction is 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 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the non-DRA space" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 20 & 21 are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-4, 6, 19-24, 26 & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pandey et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0078966.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Pandey et al. teaches an electromagnetic, EM, device (Par. 0006-0011 Figs. 1A-5B) configured to be operational at a defined center frequency, f, having a free space wavelength, λ (Par. 0051), the EM device comprising:
a plurality of dielectric resonator antennas, DRAs (312 Figs. 1A-2B Par. 0046), that can resonate at the same frequency, f, (Par. 0051) forming a unit cell (Figs. 1A-2B) having an overall footprint of equal to or less than λ/2 in both x and y directions of an orthogonal x-y-z coordinate system, as observed in a plan view of the EM device (Par. 0051), where the z-direction is a direction of vertical extension of each DRA of the plurality of DRAs (Figs. 1A-2B), the unit cell (3200) defining a DRA subarray (Figs. 1A-2B).
Regarding Claim 2, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: the unit cell is a monolithic construct (monolithic Par. 0051).
Regarding Claim 3, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: each DRA of the plurality of DRAs is a solid, non-hollow, construct (Figs. 1A-2B).
Regarding Claim 4, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: the unit cell is a dielectric-only construct (Par. 0046).
Regarding Claim 6, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: each DRA of the plurality of DRAs has a same 3D shape and size (Figs. 1A-2B).
Regarding Claim 19, Pandey et al. teaches further comprising: an encapsulant (300 Figs. 1A-2B Par. 0052) disposed encapsulating the DRA subarray and the non-DRA space between each adjacent DRA of the plurality of DRAs (Figs. 1A-2B).
Regarding Claim 20, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: the encapsulant comprises a dielectric material (Par. 0052).
Regarding Claim 21, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: the dielectric material of the encapsulant has a Dk value greater than 1 and equal to or less than 5, alternatively equal to or greater than 2 and equal to or less than 4 (Par. 0053).
Regarding Claim 22, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: f is equal to or greater than 50 KHz and equal to or less than 50 MHZ, alternatively f is equal to or greater than 1 GHz, and equal to or less than 1000 GHz (Par. 0051).
Regarding Claim 23, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: the DRA subarray is at least a 2×2 array of the plurality of DRAs (Figs. 1A-2B).
Regarding Claim 24, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: each DRA of the plurality of DRAs has a 3D rectangular pyramid shape (Figs. 1A-2B).
Regarding Claim 26, Pandey et al. teaches further comprising: a plurality of signal feeds disposed in a one-to-one relationship with a respective one of the plurality of DRAs (250 Figs. 3A-5B Par. 0055).
Regarding Claim 31, Pandey et al. teaches wherein: each signal feed of the plurality of signal feeds comprises any one of: a slotted aperture (254 Fig. 3A Par. 0055).
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 obvious over Pandey et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0078966 and Ohmi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2006/0119518 (cited by applicant).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 5, Pandey et al. teaches the EM device of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Pandey et al. is silent on wherein: the unit cell comprises a magneto-dielectric material.
However, Ohmi et al. teaches a magneto-dielectric material (Par. 0050, 0055, 0062).
In this particular case, providing the unit cell to comprise a magneto-dielectric material is common and well known in the art as evident by Ohmi et al. to lower the Q value of the resonance and broaden the antenna band (Par. 0062).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the unit cell of Pandey et al. to comprise a magneto-dielectric material based on the teachings of Ohmi et al. as a result effect in order to lower the Q value of the resonance and broaden the antenna band.
Claims 25, 27 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pandey et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0078966 and Kingsley et al. EP Patent Publication EP 1232538 B1 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 25, Pandey et al. teaches the EM device of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Pandey et al. is silent on wherein: each DRA of the plurality of DRAs has a 3D triangular pyramid shape.
However, Kingsley et al. teaches a 3D triangular pyramid shape (Fig. 18 Par. 0013).
In this particular case, forming a dielectric resonator in a 3D triangular pyramid shape is common and well known in the art as evident by Kingsley et al. due to their increased bandwidth (Par. 0013).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide each DRA of the plurality of DRAs of Pandey et al. to as a 3D triangular pyramid shape based on the teachings of Kingsley et al. as a result effect due to their increased bandwidth.
Regarding Claim 27, Pandey et al. teaches further comprising: a plurality of signal feeds (250 Figs. 3A-5B Par. 0055).
Pandey et al. is silent on a plurality of signal feeds disposed in a two-to-one relationship with a respective one of the plurality of DRAs forming a pair of the plurality of signal feeds; wherein each pair of the plurality of signal feeds for each respective DRA of the plurality of DRAs are disposed to electromagnetically excite the respective DRA in two different directions.
However, Kingsley et al. teaches “A few publications have reported on experiments using two probes fed simultaneously in a circular dielectric slab. These probes were installed on radials at 90° to each other and fed in anti-phase so as to create circular polarisation” Par. 0002.
In this particular case, providing two feeds perpendicular to each other is common and well known in the art as evident by Kingsley et al. in order to create circular polarization.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the plurality of signal feeds of Pandey et al. to be disposed in a two-to-one relationship with a respective one of the plurality of DRAs forming a pair of the plurality of signal feeds and in two different directions based on the teachings of Kingsley et al. as a result effect in order to create circular polarization.
Regarding Claim 28, Pandey et al. teaches further comprising: a plurality of signal feeds (250 Figs. 3A-5B Par. 0055).
Pandey et al. is silent on a plurality of signal feeds disposed in a two-to-one relationship with a respective one of the plurality of DRAs forming a pair of the plurality of signal feeds; wherein each pair of the plurality of signal feeds for each respective DRA of the plurality of DRAs are disposed to electromagnetically excite the respective DRA in two orthogonal directions.
However, Kingsley et al. teaches “A few publications have reported on experiments using two probes fed simultaneously in a circular dielectric slab. These probes were installed on radials at 90° to each other and fed in anti-phase so as to create circular polarisation” Par. 0002.
In this particular case, providing two feeds perpendicular to each other is common and well known in the art as evident by Kingsley et al. in order to create circular polarization.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the plurality of signal feeds of Pandey et al. to be disposed in a two-to-one relationship with a respective one of the plurality of DRAs forming a pair of the plurality of signal feeds and in two orthogonal directions based on the teachings of Kingsley et al. as a result effect in order to create circular polarization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-18, 29 & 30 are 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, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitation “a base of the unit cell, the base being monolithic with each DRA” combined with the structure as required by the claim. Claims 8-18 directly or indirectly depend therefrom.
Regarding Claim 29, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein each signal feed of the plurality of signal feeds in combination with an opposing edge of the 3D triangular pyramid shape for each respective DRA of the plurality of DRAs are disposed to electromagnetically excite the respective DRA to facilitate circular polarization EM radiation” as required by the claim. Claim 30 depends therefrom.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
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