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 Amendment
The amendments filed 8/14/26 are fully considered and are entered. The amendments overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection set forth in the non-final office action mailed 6/2/26, and these objections and rejections are withdrawn herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the art of record given the referenced art’s failure to disclose “wherein the lens unit is disposed in at least one of the plurality of side regions and on a side surface side of at least one radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements, such that an electromagnetic wave signal radiated in a side direction from the at least one radiating element passes through the lens unit, and wherein the lens unit is configured to refract the electromagnetic wave signal radiated in the side direction to broaden an electromagnetic wave beam of the antenna apparatus”, citing in particular that “the Office Action does not identify any disclosure in Kashino” of these limitations, not previously claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. An amended rejection over the art of record is included below. With respect to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner notes that the recited limitation of “on a side surface side” is not disclosed within the specification text of the instant application. In ¶[0069], Applicant recites “the lens unit 20 is located on a side surface of the plurality of radiating elements” which to the Examiner is not clear as to whether it refers to the now claimed “side surface side”, and further, it is not made evident within the disclosed drawings that the lens unit 20 is located “on a side surface” of the plurality of radiating elements.
The claims are examined given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the rejections detailed below.
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 8 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “at least a part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating of the plurality of radiating elements” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact the correspondence shared between the “at least a part of the lens substructures” referred to in the plural in context of the claim language, and “a corresponding radiating element” referred to in the singular in context of the claim language. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation of “at least a part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating of the plurality of radiating elements” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact the correspondence shared between the “at least a part of the lens substructures” referred to in the plural in context of the claim language, and “a corresponding radiating element” referred to in the singular in context of the claim language. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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 1-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105).
Regarding claim 1, Kashino et al. teaches (Fig. 9) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (92); a plurality of radiating elements (311), spaced from each other and arranged in an array to form an array structure having at least four columns (#1-#4), wherein each column comprises at least one radiating element (see Fig. 9); and a plurality of side regions (left side region, right side region, in X direction) located on a circumferential outer side of the array structure, wherein the lens unit is disposed in at least one of the plurality of side regions and on a side surface side of at least one radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements (see Fig. 9; 311 #1, for example, possesses a side surface, 92b is disposed on the side surface side of 311 #1), such that an electromagnetic wave signal radiated in a side direction from the at least one radiating element passes through the lens unit (given the physical disposition of the lens 92b and element 311 #1, an electromagnetic wave signal radiated in a side direction from 311 #1 would pass through 92b), and wherein the lens unit is configured to refract the electromagnetic wave signal radiated in the side direction to broaden an electromagnetic wave beam of the antenna apparatus (see ¶122, curved shape of surface 922 of 92 affects broadening of refracted electromagnetic wave signal by Snell’s law).
Regarding claim 2, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a height direction of the array structure (X direction) the two ends of the lens units are respectively located on upper and lower sides of radiating surfaces of the plurality of radiating elements (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of side regions comprise a first side region (left in Fig. 9) and a second side region (right in Fig. 9) opposite to each other; and the first side region and the second side region are distributed in a width direction of the array structure (consider Y direction to be a width direction, elements 92 are distributed along direction Y), and lens units are separately disposed in the first side region and the second side region (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the lens unit comprises a dielectric lens (see ¶163).
Regarding claim 7, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the lens unit completely covers the array structure in a length direction (Z direction) of the array structure (see Fig. 9, span of 92 in Z direction completely covers span of array structure of elements 311 in Z direction).
Regarding claim 10, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a reflection plate (312), wherein at least one radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements is disposed on the reflection plate (see Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Britz et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0098033).
Regarding claim 5, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 3.
Kashino does not teach wherein the lens unit comprises an electromagnetic metamaterial layer.
Britz et al. teaches (Fig. 4) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (401), wherein the lens unit comprises an electromagnetic metamaterial layer (see ¶45: 401 comprises a stack of layers 410a-410n of metamaterial layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna apparatus of Kashino by simply substituting the lens unit of Kashino with the lens unit comprising an electromagnetic metamaterial layer, employing the teachings of Britz.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of controllably adjusting permeability of the lens to a desired effect (Britz, ¶25).
Regarding claim 6, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 5.
Kashino does not teach the antenna apparatus wherein the lens unit further comprises a plurality of electromagnetic metamaterial layers arranged in a stack.
Britz et al. teaches (Fig. 4) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (401), wherein the lens unit comprises a plurality of electromagnetic metamaterial layers arranged in a stack (see ¶45: 401 comprises a stack of layers 410a-410n of metamaterial layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna apparatus of Kashino by simply substituting the lens unit of Kashino with the lens unit comprising a plurality of electromagnetic metamaterial layers arranged in a stack, employing the teachings of Britz.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of controllably adjusting permeability of the lens to a desired effect (Britz, ¶25).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0013517).
Regarding claim 8, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 3.
Kashino does not teach wherein the lens unit comprises a plurality of lens substructures that are distributed in a length direction of the array structure and spaced from each other, and at least part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (102); a plurality of radiating elements (108), spaced from each other and arranged in an array to form an array structure having at least four columns (see Fig. 1), wherein each column comprises at least one radiating element; and wherein the lens unit comprises a plurality of lens substructures (208) that are distributed in a length direction of the array structure and spaced from each other (see Fig. 1), and at least part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements (see relative position of elements 108 and 208, opposite one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna apparatus of Kashino such that the lens unit comprises a plurality of lens substructures that are distributed in a length direction of the array structure and spaced from each other, and at least a part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of ensuring a lens structure is present within the electromagnetic path of the signals traveling to and from each of the radiating elements of the plurality of radiating elements (Lee, ¶27 lines 6-9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer (US Patent No. 11,387,539).
Regarding claim 11, Kashino teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1.
Kashino does not teach the antenna apparatus further comprising a radome covering the array structure.
Meyer teaches (Fig. 3) an antenna apparatus, comprising: an array structure of radiating elements (321), and further comprising a radome (320) covering the array structure (see Fig. 3; Col 7 lines 59-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Kashino such that it further comprises a radome covering the array structure, employing the teachings of Meyer.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of protectively housing and containing the array structure while permitting transmission and reception by the array structure (Meyer, Col 4 lines 14-18).
Claims 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105) in view of Meyer (US Patent No. 11,387,539).
Regarding claim 12, Kashino et al. teaches (Fig. 9) a communication device, comprising: an antenna apparatus (90), comprising: a lens unit (92); a plurality of radiating elements (311), spaced from each other and arranged in an array to form an array structure having at least four columns (#1-#4), wherein each column comprises at least one radiating element (see Fig. 9); and a plurality of side regions (left side region, right side region, in X direction) located on an circumferential outer side of the array structure, wherein the lens unit is disposed in at least one of the plurality of side regions and on a side surface side of at least one radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements (see Fig. 9; 311 #1, for example, possesses a side surface, 92b is disposed on the side surface side of 311 #1), such that an electromagnetic wave signal radiated in a side direction from the at least one radiating element passes through the lens unit (given the physical disposition of the lens 92b and element 311 #1, an electromagnetic wave signal radiated in a side direction from 311 #1 would pass through 92b), and wherein the lens unit is configured to refract the electromagnetic wave signal radiated in the side direction to broaden an electromagnetic wave beam of the antenna apparatus (see ¶122, curved shape of surface 922 of 92 affects broadening of refracted electromagnetic wave signal by Snell’s law).
Kashino does not teach the communication device comprising at least a pole, a grounding apparatus, and the antenna apparatus disposed on the pole, and the antenna apparatus electrically connected to the grounding apparatus.
Meyer teaches (Fig. 3) a communication device, comprising: at least a pole (350), a grounding apparatus (323 comprises a connector for connecting to a power supply, which constitutes a ground, thus 323 is a grounding apparatus), and an antenna apparatus (302), the antenna apparatus is disposed on the pole (see Fig. 3), and the antenna apparatus is electrically connected to the grounding apparatus (see Fig. 3; Col 8 lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication device of Kashino such that it comprises at least a pole, and a grounding apparatus, such that the antenna apparatus is disposed on the pole, and the antenna apparatus is electrically connected to the grounding apparatus, employing the teachings of Meyer.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of suitably mounting the communication device for incorporation into a public wireless communication network (Meyer, Col 1 lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 13, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 12, wherein in a height direction of the array structure (X direction) the two ends of the lens units are respectively located on upper and lower sides of radiating surfaces of the plurality of radiating elements (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of side regions comprise a first side region (left in Fig. 9) and a second side region (right in Fig. 9) opposite to each other; and the first side region and the second side region are distributed in a width direction of the array structure (consider Y direction to be a width direction, elements 92 are distributed along direction Y), and lens units are separately disposed in the first side region and the second side region (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 14, wherein the lens unit comprises a dielectric lens (see ¶163).
Regarding claim 18, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 14, wherein the lens unit completely covers the array structure in a length direction (Z direction) of the array structure (see Fig. 9, span of 92 in Z direction completely covers span of array structure of elements 311 in Z direction).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105) in view of Meyer (US Patent No. 11,387,539) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Britz et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0098033).
Regarding claim 16, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 14.
Kashino does not teach wherein the lens unit comprises an electromagnetic metamaterial layer.
Britz et al. teaches (Fig. 4) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (401), wherein the lens unit comprises an electromagnetic metamaterial layer (see ¶45: 401 comprises a stack of layers 410a-410n of metamaterial layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication device of Kashino by simply substituting the lens unit of Kashino with the lens unit comprising an electromagnetic metamaterial layer, employing the teachings of Britz.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of controllably adjusting permeability of the lens to a desired effect (Britz, ¶25).
Regarding claim 17, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 16.
Kashino does not teach the lens unit comprising a plurality of electromagnetic metamaterial layers arranged in a stack.
Britz et al. teaches (Fig. 4) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (401), wherein the lens unit comprises a plurality of electromagnetic metamaterial layers arranged in a stack (see ¶45: 401 comprises a stack of layers 410a-410n of metamaterial layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication device of Kashino by simply substituting the lens unit of Kashino with the lens unit comprising a plurality of electromagnetic metamaterial layers arranged in a stack, employing the teachings of Britz.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of controllably adjusting permeability of the lens to a desired effect (Britz, ¶25).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashino et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0075105) in view of Meyer (US Patent No. 11,387,539) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0013517).
Regarding claim 19, Kashino teaches the communication device according to claim 14.
Kashino does not teach wherein the lens unit comprises a plurality of lens substructures that are distributed in a length direction of the array structure and spaced from each other, and at least part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements.
Lee et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna apparatus, comprising: a lens unit (102); a plurality of radiating elements (108), spaced from each other and arranged in an array to form an array structure having at least four columns (see Fig. 1), wherein each column comprises at least one radiating element; and wherein the lens unit comprises a plurality of lens substructures (208) that are distributed in a length direction of the array structure and spaced from each other (see Fig. 1), and at least part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements (see relative position of elements 108 and 208, opposite one another).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication device of Kashino such that the lens unit comprises a plurality of lens substructures that are distributed in a length direction of the array structure and spaced from each other, and at least a part of the lens substructures are opposite to a corresponding radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements, employing the teachings of Lee.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of ensuring a lens structure is present within the electromagnetic path of the signals traveling to and from each of the radiating elements of the plurality of radiating elements (Lee, ¶27 lines 6-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 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: the pertinent prior art, as a whole, when taken alone, or in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the elements and features of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant. In detail,
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein in a height direction of the array structure, a distance between a top surface of the lens unit and a radiating surface of the at least one radiating element and a distance between a bottom surface of the lens unit and the radiating surface of the at least one radiating element each are 0.15 to 1.0 times a wavelength, wherein the wavelength is a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave signal radiated in the side direction”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein in a height direction of the array structure, a distance between a top surface of the lens unit and a radiating surface of the at least one radiating element and a distance between a bottom surface of the lens unit and the radiating surface of the at least one radiating element each are 0.15 to 1.0 times a wavelength, wherein the wavelength is a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave signal radiated in the side direction”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
