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 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onaka et al. (WO 2017203918).
Regarding Claim 18, Onaka teaches an integrated antenna-array-and-filter, comprising: a plurality of dielectric resonators (Page 2, 1st paragraph, dielectric waveguide coupling dielectric resonators); a first antenna (Page 8, 2nd paragraph, dielectric waveguide filter connected to an antenna element); and a dielectric waveguide coupled between the plurality of dielectric resonators and the first antenna (Page 25, Figure 6A, 4th paragraph, coupling window of dielectric waveguide filter, Page 26, Figures 6A, 6B, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, resonators coupled to dielectric waveguide filter).
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(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaka et al. (WO 2017203918) in view of Manzoni et al. (US 2022/0285810) and in further view of Motohashi et al. (US 2024/0128994).
Regarding Claim 18, Onaka teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 17. Onaka further teaches a second antenna (Page 9, 3rd paragraph, massive MIMO comprises a plurality of antennas), a dielectric waveguide coupled to the plurality of dielectric resonators (Page 25, Figure 6A, 4th paragraph, coupling window of dielectric waveguide filter, Page 26, Figures 6A, 6B, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, resonators coupled to dielectric waveguide filter).
Onaka does not teach wherein the dielectric waveguide comprises a lower dielectric waveguide coupled to the plurality of dielectric resonators and a second dielectric waveguide having a first end coupled to the first antenna and a second end coupled to the second antenna.
Manzoni, which also teaches dielectric waveguides, teaches a lower dielectric waveguide (Section 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Onaka with the above features of Manzoni for the purpose of reducing manufacturing costs as taught by Manzoni.
Onaka in view of Manzoni does not teach a second dielectric waveguide having a first end coupled to the first antenna and a second end coupled to the second antenna.
Motohashi, which also teaches dielectric waveguides, teaches a dielectric waveguide having a first end coupled to the first antenna and a second end coupled to the second antenna (Section 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Onaka in view of Manzoni with the above features of Motohashi for the purpose of suppressing signal interference as taught by Motohashi.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaka et al. (WO 2017203918) in view of Manzoni et al. (US 2022/0285810) in view of Motohashi et al. (US 2024/0128994) and in further view of Avser et al. (US 2020/0280133)
Regarding Claim 19, Onaka in view of Manzoni in view of Motohashi and in further view of Avser teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 18. Onaka does not teach wherein the lower dielectric waveguide and an upper dielectric waveguide each comprises a rectangular dielectric waveguide, and wherein the first antenna and the second antenna each comprises a dielectric resonator antenna.
Manzoni, which also teaches dielectric waveguides, teaches wherein the lower dielectric waveguide and an upper dielectric waveguide each comprises a rectangular dielectric waveguide (Section 0107, rectangular).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Onaka with the above features of Manzoni for the purpose of reducing manufacturing costs as taught by Manzoni.
Onaka in view of Manzoni in view of Motohashi does not teach wherein the first antenna and the second antenna each comprises a dielectric resonator antenna.
Avser, which also teaches the use of resonators, teaches an antenna comprising a dielectric resonator antenna (Section 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Onaka in view of Manzoni in view of Motohashi with the above features of Avser for the purpose of having the flexibility of handling millimeter and centimeter wave communications as taught by Avser.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaka et al. (WO 2017203918) in view of Manzoni et al. (US 2022/0285810) in view of Motohashi et al. (US 2024/0128994) in view of Avser et al. (US 2020/0280133) and in further view of Hendry (US 10,727,555)
Regarding Claim 20, Onaka in view of Manzoni in view of Motohashi in view of Avser teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 19. Onaka in view of Manzoni in view of Motohashi in view of Avser does not teach wherein the integrated antenna-array-and-filter is included within a base station.
Hendry, which also teaches the use of antennas, teaches wherein the integrated antenna-array-and-filter is included within a base station (Col. 15 lines 10 – 14, Col. 16 lines 58 – 65, mobile radio communications network comprises base stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Onaka in view of Manzoni in view of Motohashi in view of Avser with the above features of Hendry for the purpose of producing an antenna that effectively combines an antenna element and a filter element in a compact design while concurrently providing adequate port isolation, a low ECC, a low insertion loss (and a corresponding high efficiency) and a similar radiation pattern for each antenna element in order to allow for multi-channel beam forming as taught by Hendry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Yatabe (US 2016/0268662) Section 0109 teaches a massive MIMO system including a dielectric waveguide. The prior art of record, however fails to teach or render obvious the following features:
Regarding Claim 1, a plurality of antennas coupled to the dielectric waveguide network, wherein the dielectric waveguide network and the plurality of antennas are configured to function as a resonator providing at least one pole in a filter frequency response of the integrated antenna-array-and-filter. and wherein the first plurality of dielectric resonators is configured to provide a remaining plurality of poles in the filter frequency response. All claims that depend from Claim 1 are allowed for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12, generating a remaining pole in the filter frequency response by coupling the first RF signal from the first plurality of dielectric resonators through a first dielectric waveguide to a first antenna and transmitting the first RF signal from the first antenna. All claims that depend from Claim 12 are allowed for the same reasons set forth above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Raymond S. Dean July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights