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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 05, 2025, and on June 25, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The “underlying reflector” of claim 18, line 2
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
The “underlying reflector” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 3; paragraph 7, line 3; and paragraph 9, line 8
The “hybrid reflector 40” as described in the specifications, paragraph 25, lines 1-3 and line 12
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to because:
The unlabeled “first dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 2
The unlabeled “second dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 3-4
The unlabeled “first one” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 5 and 10
The unlabeled “electrically conductive isolation frame” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 11
The unlabeled “first and second pairs of radiating arms” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 7-9
The unlabeled “forward facing surface” of a dielectric substrate, as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 9-10
The unlabeled “dielectric substrate” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 10
The unlabeled “rectangular-shaped loop” not described in the specifications (see claim 5, line 2; and claim 6, line 2)
The unlabeled “dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 2
The unlabeled “first cross-polarized dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 3 and 7-10
The unlabeled “pair of radiating arms” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 4-5, 7 and 9
The unlabeled “first radiating arm” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 4 and 8
The unlabeled “first isolation frame” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 6-7 and 10
The unlabeled “second cross-polarized dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 5
The unlabeled “second radiating arm” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 6
The unlabeled “forward facing surface” of the reflector, as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 12
The unlabeled “second regions” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 14
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the document submitted as an abstract consists of two pages from International Publication Number WO 2024/030880 A1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The “rectangular-shaped loop” not described in the specifications (see claim 5, line 2; and claim 6, line 2)
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The unlabeled “first dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 2
The unlabeled “second dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 3-4
The unlabeled “first one” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 5 and 10
The unlabeled “electrically conductive isolation frame” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 11
The unlabeled “first and second pairs of radiating arms” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 7-9
The unlabeled “forward facing surface” of a dielectric substrate, as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, lines 9-10
The unlabeled “dielectric substrate” as described in the specifications, paragraph 6, line 10
The unlabeled “rectangular-shaped loop” not described in the specifications (see claim 5, line 2; and claim 6, line 2)
The unlabeled “dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 2
The unlabeled “first cross-polarized dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 3 and 7-10
The unlabeled “pair of radiating arms” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 4-5, 7 and 9
The unlabeled “first radiating arm” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 4 and 8
The unlabeled “first isolation frame” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, lines 6-7 and 10
The unlabeled “second cross-polarized dipole radiating element” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 5
The unlabeled “second radiating arm” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 6
The unlabeled “forward facing surface” of the reflector, as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 12
The unlabeled “second regions” as described in the specifications, paragraph 7, line 14
When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter). (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.74 ).
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 1-20 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example:
a second dipole radiating element having a second pair of radiating arms extending within an opening in a first one of the first pair of radiating arms, see claim 1, lines 4-5
wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms and isolation frame are coplanar, see claim 3, lines 1-2
wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms and isolation frame are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate, see claim 4, lines 1-3
wherein the first and second radiating arms, the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, see claim 10, lines 1-2
wherein the first and second radiating arms, the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, see claim 11, lines 1-2
wherein the first and second radiating arms, and the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized dipole radiating elements are coplanar, see claim 12, lines 1-3
wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector has first regions spaced closer to the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized radiating elements relative to second regions extending opposite the first and second radiating arms, see claim 12, lines 3-6
The term “relative” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relative” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “wherein the first and second radiating arms, and the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized dipole radiating elements are coplanar; and wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector has first regions spaced closer to the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized radiating elements relative to second regions extending opposite the first and second radiating arms” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “relative”. Claim 13 depend therefrom and is included in the rejection.
The term “relatively” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “A multi-band antenna, comprising: a relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element including first through fourth radiating arms; and first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms in respective first through fourth openings within the first through fourth radiating arms” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “relatively”. Claims 15-20 depend therefrom and are included in the rejection.
The term “relatively” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “wherein the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms and the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element are coplanar” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “relatively”. Claims 16-20 depend therefrom and are included in the rejection.
The term “relatively” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “further comprising a dielectric substrate upon which: (i) the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms, (ii) the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element, and (iii) the first through fourth isolation frames within the first through fourth openings, respectively, are patterned as metallized traces” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “relatively”. Claims 18-19 depend therefrom and are included in the rejection.
The terms “relatively” and “relative” in claim 18 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively” and “relative” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “wherein the dielectric substrate is supported by a feed stalk, which extends forwardly of an underlying reflector; and wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector has first regions spaced closer to the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms relative to second regions extending opposite the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the terms “relatively” and “relative”. Claim 19 depend therefrom and is included in the rejection.
The terms “relatively” and “relative” in claim 20 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively” and “relative” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations “wherein the first isolation frame is spaced closer to an outer perimeter of the first relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms relative to an inner perimeter of the first radiating arm of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element.” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the terms “relatively” and “relative”.
Independent Claims 1, 7 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
“an antenna” and “a multi-band antenna”.
Thus, for independent claims 1, 7, and 14, it is unclear how “an antenna” and “a multi-band antenna” are respectively obtained or can operate without any feed element, which is an essential component. While these claims recite a “radiating element” and “radiating arms”, it is not understood how the “radiating element” and “radiating arms” can radiate and properly function as an antenna without essential elements such as a feed element. Claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20, respectively, depend therefrom and are included in the rejection.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "isolation frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-6 depend therefrom and are included in the rejection.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "isolation frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5-6 depend therefrom and are included in the rejection.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "first and second cross-polarized radiating elements" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depend therefrom and is included in the rejection.
For purpose of examination the examiner interprets the claims as best understood.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Yoon et al. teaches An antenna (fig. 2-3), comprising:
a first dipole radiating element (fig. 2 [210]; Figure 3 shows all the radiation elements on all the surface plates, ¶ 58.) having a first pair of radiating arms (¶ 61; fig. 3-5 [310, 350a]) extending forwardly of a reflector (¶ 49; fig. 2 [230]);
a second dipole radiating element (fig. 2 [220]; Figure 3 shows all the radiation elements on all the surface plates, ¶ 58.) having a second pair of radiating arms (¶ 62; fig. 3 [330, 350b]) extending within an opening (¶ 59; fig. 2 [395a]) in a first one (fig. 3 [350a]) of the first pair of radiating arms (¶ 61; fig. 3-5 [310, 350a]); and
an electrically conductive isolation frame (¶ 58-59; fig. 3 [360]) surrounding the second pair of radiating arms (fig. 3 [310, 350a]).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230076440 (The reference is a family member of the foreign document WO-2020140130-A2 provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Ahmed Hassan Abdelaziz et al. (hereinafter Abdelaziz et al.).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. teaches A multi-band antenna (fig. 4A-4C), comprising:
a dipole radiating element (fig. 4A-4C [400]) including first and second radiating arms (fig. 4A [405, 407]) extending forwardly of a reflector (fig. 4C [480]); and
a first cross-polarized dipole radiating element (fig. 4A-4C [430]) having a pair of radiating arms (fig. 4B [450, 452]) extending within an opening (fig. 4A [425]) in the first radiating arm (fig. 4A [405]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. teaches further comprising: a second cross-polarized dipole radiating element (fig. 4A-4C [430]) having a pair of radiating arms (fig. 4B [451, 453]) extending within an opening (fig. 4B opening opposite to the opening 425) in the second radiating arm (fig. 4A [407]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180323513 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Mohammad Vatankhah Varnoosfaderani et al. (hereinafter Varnoosfaderani et al.).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. teaches A multi-band antenna (fig. 1-4 [200]), comprising:
a relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element (fig. 5-6 [300]) including first through fourth radiating arms (fig. 7-8 [330-1-330-4]); and
first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms (fig. 12 [430]) in respective first through fourth openings (fig. 12) within the first through fourth radiating arms (fig. 12 [430]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.) in view of US 20250055178 by Lijun Pan et al. (hereinafter Pan et al.).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Yoon et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms are coplanar.
However, as best understood, Pan et al. teaches wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 53]) are coplanar (¶ 113; fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms are coplanar as taught by Pan et al. in the antenna of Yoon et al. for the benefit of providing a simpler structure that takes up less space and, at the same time, transmits and receives electromagnetic signals (Pan et al., ¶ 113).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Yoon et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms and isolation frame are coplanar.
However, as best understood, Pan et al. teaches wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 53] annotate hereinbelow) and isolation frame (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow) are coplanar (¶ 113; fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image1.png
965
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms and isolation frame are coplanar as taught by Pan et al. in the antenna of Yoon et al. for the benefit of providing a simpler structure that takes up less space and, at the same time, transmits and receives electromagnetic signals, while reducing mutual interference (Pan et al., ¶ 113).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Yoon et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms and isolation frame are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate.
However, as best understood, Pan et al. teaches wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 53] annotate hereinbelow) and isolation frame (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow) are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate (fig. 6 [60] annotate hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image1.png
965
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include teach wherein the first and second pairs of radiating arms and isolation frame are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate as taught by Pan et al. in the antenna of Yoon et al. for the benefit of simultaneously transmitting and receiving electromagnetic signals across multiple distinct frequency bands while maintaining high integration and polarization isolation.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Yoon et al. teaches wherein the first one (fig. 3 [350a]) of the first pair of radiating arms (¶ 61; fig. 3-5 [310, 350a]) is configured as a rectangular-shaped loop (fig. 3 [350a], As shown in figure 3, the radiation element 350a is configured in a rectangular-shaped loop.).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.) in view of US 20250055178 by Lijun Pan et al. (hereinafter Pan et al.) and in further view of US 20210234284 by Takeshi Sampo et al. (hereinafter Sampo et al.).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Yoon et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the electrically conductive isolation frame is configured as a rectangular-shaped loop.
However, as best understood, Sampo et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive isolation frame (fig. 31 [PB2]) is configured as a rectangular-shaped loop (rectangular shape, ¶ 221).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include teach wherein the electrically conductive isolation frame is configured as a rectangular-shaped loop as taught by Sampo et al. in the antenna of Yoon et al. and Pan et al. for the benefit of suppressing mutual coupling between elements (Sampo et al., ¶ 7).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230076440 (The reference is a family member of the foreign document WO-2020140130-A2 provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Ahmed Hassan Abdelaziz et al. (hereinafter Abdelaziz et al.) in view of US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising: a first isolation frame surrounding the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, and extending within the opening in the first radiating arm.
However, as best understood, Yoon et al. teaches further comprising: a first isolation frame (¶ 58-59; fig. 3 [360]) surrounding the pair of radiating arms (fig. 3 [310, 350a]) of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element (fig. 2 [210]; Figure 3 shows all the radiation elements on all the surface plates, ¶ 58.), and extending within the opening (¶ 59; fig. 2 [395a]) in the first radiating arm (fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include further comprising: a first isolation frame surrounding the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, and extending within the opening in the first radiating arm as taught by Yoon et al. in the antenna of Abdelaziz et al. for the benefit of suppressing unwanted coupling or cross-talk and optimizing radiation efficiency.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230076440 (The reference is a family member of the foreign document WO-2020140130-A2 provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Ahmed Hassan Abdelaziz et al. (hereinafter Abdelaziz et al.) in view of US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.) and in further view of US 20250055178 by Lijun Pan et al. (hereinafter Pan et al.).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second radiating arms, the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, and the first isolation frame are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate.
However, as best understood, Pan et al. teaches wherein the first and second radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 52] annotate hereinbelow), the pair of radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 53] annotate hereinbelow) of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow), and the first isolation frame (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow) are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate (fig. 6 [60] annotate hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image2.png
1030
1105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include teach wherein the first and second radiating arms, the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, and the first isolation frame are patterned on a forward facing surface of a dielectric substrate as taught by Pan et al. in the antenna of Abdelaziz et al. and Yoon et al. for the benefit of providing a compact, integrated arrangement therein.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second radiating arms, the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, and the first isolation frame are coplanar.
However, as best understood, Pan et al. teaches wherein the first and second radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 52] annotate hereinbelow), the pair of radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 53] annotate hereinbelow) of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow), and the first isolation frame (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow) are coplanar (¶ 113; fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image3.png
909
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first and second radiating arms, the pair of radiating arms of the first cross-polarized dipole radiating element, and the first isolation frame are coplanar as taught by Pan et al. in the antenna of Abdelaziz et al. and Yoon et al. for the benefit of providing a simpler structure that takes up less space and, at the same time, transmits and receives electromagnetic signals, while reducing mutual interference (Pan et al., ¶ 113).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230076440 (The reference is a family member of the foreign document WO-2020140130-A2 provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Ahmed Hassan Abdelaziz et al. (hereinafter Abdelaziz et al.) in view of US 20250055178 by Lijun Pan et al. (hereinafter Pan et al.) and in further view of US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second radiating arms, and the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized dipole radiating elements are coplanar; and wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector has first regions spaced closer to the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized radiating elements relative to second regions extending opposite the first and second radiating arms.
However, as best understood, Pan et al. teaches wherein the first and second radiating arms (fig. 6 [51, 52] annotate hereinbelow), and the radiating arms (fig. 6 [51-54] annotate hereinbelow) of the first and second cross-polarized dipole radiating elements (fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow) are coplanar (¶ 113; fig. 6 annotate hereinbelow);
PNG
media_image4.png
1030
1105
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first and second radiating arms, and the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized dipole radiating elements are coplanar as taught by Pan et al. in the antenna of Abdelaziz et al. for the benefit of providing a simpler structure that takes up less space and, at the same time, transmits and receives electromagnetic signals (Pan et al., ¶ 113).
As best understood, Abdelaziz et al. and Pan et al. do not explicitly teach and wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector has first regions spaced closer to the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized radiating elements relative to second regions extending opposite the first and second radiating arms.
However, as best understood, Yoon et al. teaches and wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector (fig. 2 [230] annotated hereinbelow) has first regions (¶ 49; fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow) spaced closer to the radiating arms (fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow) of the first and second cross-polarized radiating elements (fig. 2 [210, 220] annotated hereinbelow) relative to second regions extending opposite the first and second radiating arms (fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image5.png
771
1029
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and wherein a forward facing surface of the reflector has first regions spaced closer to the radiating arms of the first and second cross-polarized radiating elements relative to second regions extending opposite the first and second radiating arms as taught by Yoon et al. in the antenna of Abdelaziz et al. and Pan et al. for the benefit of simultaneously transmitting and receiving electromagnetic signals across multiple distinct frequency bands while maintaining high integration and polarization isolation.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230076440 (The reference is a family member of the foreign document WO-2020140130-A2 provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Ahmed Hassan Abdelaziz et al. (hereinafter Abdelaziz et al.) in view of US 20250055178 by Lijun Pan et al. (hereinafter Pan et al.) in view of US 20030218571 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Won-Sang Yoon et al. (hereinafter Yoon et al.) and in further view of US 20210305717 by XiaoHua Hou et al. (hereinafter Hou et al.).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Abdelaziz et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the forward facing surface of the reflector functions as a frequency-selective surface (FSS).
However, as best understood, Hou et al. teaches wherein the forward facing surface of the reflector functions as a frequency-selective surface (FSS) (The reflector has a frequency selective surface(s), ¶ 94).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the forward facing surface of the reflector functions as a frequency-selective surface (FSS) as taught by Hou et al. in the antenna of Abdelaziz et al., Pan et al. and Yoon et al. for the benefit of blocking electromagnetic waves within a specific operational frequency band (Hou et al., ¶ 94).
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180323513 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Mohammad Vatankhah Varnoosfaderani et al. (hereinafter Varnoosfaderani et al.) in view of US 20240275047 by Nicolas Attaja et al. (hereinafter Attaja et al.).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms and the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element are coplanar.
However, as best understood, Attaja et al. teaches wherein the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms (¶ 54; fig. 1 [141a-141d] annotated hereinbelow) and the first through fourth radiating arms (fig. 1 [111a-111d] annotated hereinbelow) of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element (¶ 54; fig. 1 [111] annotated hereinbelow) are coplanar (¶ 53).
PNG
media_image6.png
954
1141
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms and the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element are coplanar as taught by Attaja et al. in the antenna of Varnoosfaderani et al. for the benefit of providing a low-profile multi-band polarized radiator.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising first through fourth isolation frames within the first through fourth openings, respectively.
However, as best understood, Attaja et al. teaches further comprising first through fourth isolation frames (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) within the first through fourth openings (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow), respectively.
PNG
media_image7.png
954
1213
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include further comprising first through fourth isolation frames within the first through fourth openings, respectively as taught by Attaja et al. in the antenna of Varnoosfaderani et al. for the benefit of electrically separate the high‑band elements from the low‑band elements.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising a dielectric substrate upon which: (i) the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms, (ii) the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element, and (iii) the first through fourth isolation frames within the first through fourth openings, respectively, are patterned as metallized traces.
However, as best understood, Attaja et al. teaches further comprising a dielectric substrate (substrate, ¶ 69-70, 75) upon which: (i) the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms (¶ 54; fig. 1 [141a-141d] annotated hereinbelow), (ii) the first through fourth radiating arms (fig. 1 [111a-111d] annotated hereinbelow) of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element (¶ 54; fig. 1 [111] annotated hereinbelow), and (iii) the first through fourth isolation frames (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) within the first through fourth openings (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow), respectively (¶ 69), are patterned as metallized traces (¶ 69).
PNG
media_image8.png
963
1226
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include further comprising a dielectric substrate upon which: (i) the first through fourth relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms, (ii) the first through fourth radiating arms of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element, and (iii) the first through fourth isolation frames within the first through fourth openings, respectively, are patterned as metallized traces as taught by Attaja et al. in the antenna of Varnoosfaderani et al. for the benefit of providing a compact, integrated arrangement therein.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. teaches wherein the dielectric substrate (fig. 7, 12 [252, 262]) is supported by a feed stalk (fig. 7, 12 [310-1, 310-2, 410]), which extends forwardly of an underlying reflector (fig. 2-3 [214]); and wherein a forward facing surface (fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow) of the reflector surface (fig. 2 [214] annotated hereinbelow) has first regions (fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow) spaced closer to the first through fourth (fig. 12 [430]) relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms (fig. 2, 12 [400, 430], The radiating element (400) have four radiating arms (430).) relative to second regions (fig. 2 annotated hereinbelow) extending opposite the first through fourth radiating arms (fig. 2, 7-8 [300, 330-1-330-4], The radiating element (300) have four radiating arms (330-1-330-4).) of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element (fig. 2 [300] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image9.png
958
980
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first isolation frame is spaced closer to an outer perimeter of the first relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms relative to an inner perimeter of the first radiating arm of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element.
However, as best understood, Attaja et al. teaches wherein the first isolation frame (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) is spaced closer to an outer perimeter (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the first relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms (¶ 54; fig. 1 [141a-141d] annotated hereinbelow) relative to an inner perimeter (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the first radiating arm (fig. 1 [111a] annotated hereinbelow) of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element (¶ 54; fig. 1 [111] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image10.png
963
1226
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first isolation frame is spaced closer to an outer perimeter of the first relatively high-band cross-dipole radiating arms relative to an inner perimeter of the first radiating arm of the relatively low-band cross-dipole radiating element as taught by Attaja et al. in the antenna of Varnoosfaderani et al. for the benefit of physically separating the radiating elements to reduce electromagnetic coupling between them.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180323513 (Reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Mohammad Vatankhah Varnoosfaderani et al. (hereinafter Varnoosfaderani et al.) in view of US 20240275047 by Nicolas Attaja et al. (hereinafter Attaja et al.) and in further view of US 20210305717 by XiaoHua Hou et al. (hereinafter Hou et al.).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Varnoosfaderani et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the forward facing surface of the reflector functions as a frequency-selective surface (FSS).
However, as best understood, Hou et al. teaches wherein the forward facing surface of the reflector functions as a frequency-selective surface (FSS) (The reflector has a frequency selective surface(s), ¶ 94).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the forward facing surface of the reflector functions as a frequency-selective surface (FSS) as taught by Hou et al. in the antenna of Varnoosfaderani et al. and Attaja et al. for the benefit of blocking electromagnetic waves within a specific operational frequency band (Hou et al., ¶ 94).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-11888218 by Behrooz Abiri et al.
US-20220285857 by Lakshminarayana Pollayi et al.
US-20200185838 by YueMin Li et al.
US-9496624 by Peng-Hao Juan et al.
US-20160254594 by Bevan Beresford Jones et al.
US-20160248171 by Stewart Wilson John et al.
US-20120133567 by Jean-Pierre Harel et al.
US-20080036674 by Matthias Riedel et al.
US-7132995 by Maximilian Gottl et al.
JP-2002043838-A by Hiroyuki Omine et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 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 E. 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
/JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
