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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P. 10-11 & P. 12-14, filed 7/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-5 & 13-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 & 13-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6-12 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference and newly found prior art reference(s). Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
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)(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 6, 7 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pance et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0013613.
Regarding Claim 6, Pance et al. teaches a dielectric resonator array structure (Figs. 1A, 35A-39B), comprising:
a plurality of dielectric resonators (3900 Figs. 39A, 39B Par. 02222), arranged along a first direction and a second direction (X and Y directions better seen in Fig. 39B), the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (Fig. 39B), each of the plurality of dielectric resonators comprising:
a resonator body (35100 Figs. 35A-39B Par. 0203, 0212); and
a transmission layer (35200 Figs. 35A-39B Par. 0212), connected to the resonator body (Par. 0034), wherein the resonator body and the transmission layer are integrally formed (“the volume 35102 and associated connecting structures 35200 of a unit cell 3510 form a single monolithic portion of the DRA 35100” Par. 0212), and the transmission layer is a cuboid structure with a plurality of corners (Figs. 35A-39B);
wherein two adjacent ones of the transmission layers are connected to each other through at least one of the plurality of corners (Par. 0207 better seen in Fig. 39B)).
Regarding Claim 7, Pance et al. teaches wherein the transmission layer has a first surface (top surface of 35200 Figs. 35A-39B) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (bottom surface of 35200 Figs. 35A-39B), the resonator body is connected to the first surface (Figs. 35A-39B), and a side edge of the transmission layer forms a 45-degree angle with the first direction or the second direction (45-degree angle of side edge of 35200 with either X or Y directions seen in Fig. 39B).
Regarding Claim 12, Pance et al. teaches wherein the resonator body is cylindrical (cylindrical Fig. 1A Par. 0093).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pance et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0013613 and Xiao et al. CN Patent Publication CN 106058447 A (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 8, Pance et al. teaches wherein a predetermined distance is defined between the first surface and the second surface (“h” Par. 0203, 0205 Figs. 35B).
Pance et al. is silent on the predetermined distance is between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm.
However, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the transmission layer (dielectric substrate 7 Fig. 1 P. 2) has a predetermined distance of 1.5 mm (P. 2).
In this particular case, setting the predetermined distance of the transmission layer to be between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm is common and well known in the art as evident by Xiao et al. in order to obtain the dielectric constant which corresponds to the frequency band of operation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the predetermined distance of the transmission layer of Pance et al. to be between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm based on the teachings of Xiao et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the dielectric constant which corresponds to the frequency band of operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 & 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, in view of Applicant’s Remarks P. 10-11 filed 7/11/2026, the prior art of record does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the plurality of grooves are evenly and symmetrically distributed on a side surface of the resonator body”, and “wherein the resonator body and the transmission layer are integrally formed, the plurality of through holes respectively correspond to and communicate with the plurality of grooves, and each of the plurality of through holes and a corresponding one of the plurality of grooves jointly form a hollow structure” in the arrangement as required by the claim. Claims 2-5 directly or indirectly depend therefrom.
Regarding Claim 13, in view of Applicant’s Remarks P. 12-14, filed 7/11/2026, the prior art of record does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the first feed line and the second feed line are not in direct physical contact with each other”, and “wherein the resonator body and the transmission layer are integrally formed, the resonator body is connected to the transmission layer, the transmission layer is disposed on the ground layer, and a projection area of the dielectric resonator on the ground layer overlaps the cross-shaped slot” in the arrangement as required by the claim. Claims 14-20 directly or indirectly depend therefrom.
Claims 9-11 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 9, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the resonator body comprises a plurality of grooves evenly and symmetrically distributed on a side surface of the resonator body, the transmission layer comprises a plurality of through holes respectively corresponding to and communicating with the plurality of grooves, each of the plurality of through holes penetrates the first surface and the second surface, and each of the plurality of through holes and a corresponding one of the plurality of grooves jointly form a hollow structure” as required by the claim. Claims 10 & 11 depend therefrom.
Conclusion
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
