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 .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a plurality of antenna cells, each of the plurality of antenna cells comprising: a driven element disposed on a first substrate, the first substrate comprising a first dielectric material; and a parasitic element disposed on a second substrate to provide a stacked patch topology, the second substrate comprising a second dielectric material, the second dielectric material being different than the first dielectric material.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells, an area of the driven element is different from an area of the parasitic element.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the driven element of each of the plurality of antenna cells is coupled to a radio frequency (RF) source via a phase shifter circuit.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells: the driven element comprises a first patch antenna; and the parasitic element comprises a second patch antenna.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a scan range of the wideband phased array antenna in an azimuth plane is wider than a scan range of the wideband phased array antenna in an elevation plane.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein: the first dielectric material comprises a first polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite; and the second dielectric material comprises a second PTFE composite, the second PTFE composite being different than the first PTFE.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the plurality of antenna cells are configured to communicate over a frequency band ranging from 24 GHz to 52 GHz.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a wideband phased array antenna electrically coupled to a phase shifter circuit, the wideband phased array antenna comprising a plurality of antenna cells, each of the plurality of antenna cells comprising: a driven element disposed on a first substrate, the first substrate comprising a first dielectric material; and a parasitic element disposed on a second substrate to provide a stacked patch topology, the second substrate comprising a second dielectric material, the second dielectric material being different than the first dielectric material.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells, an area of the driven element is different from an area of the parasitic element.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the second substrate is thicker than the first substrate.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein: the first dielectric material has a first permittivity; and the second dielectric material has a second permittivity, the second permittivity being different than the first permittivity.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the first permittivity is greater than the second permittivity.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a bandwidth of the plurality of antenna cells is about 1400 megahertz.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a gain associated with a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the wideband phased array antenna in an azimuth plane is substantially the same as a gain associated with a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the wideband phased array antenna in an elevation plane.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. USP 12,308,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12, 308,532 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells: the driven element comprises a first patch antenna; and the parasitic element comprises a second patch antenna.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a plurality of antenna cells, each of the plurality of antenna cells comprising: a driven element disposed on a first substrate, the first substrate comprising a first dielectric material; and a parasitic element disposed on a second substrate to provide a stacked patch topology, the second substrate comprising a second dielectric material, the second dielectric material being different than the first dielectric material.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells, a cross-sectional area of the driven element is different from a cross-sectional of the parasitic element.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein: the first dielectric material comprises a first polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite; and the second dielectric material comprises a second PTFE composite, the second PTFE composite being different than the first PTFE.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the plurality of antenna cells are configured to communicate over a frequency band ranging from 24 GHz to 52 GHz.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a wideband phased array antenna electrically coupled to a phase shifter circuit, the wideband phased array antenna comprising a plurality of antenna cells, each of the plurality of antenna cells comprising: a driven element disposed on a first substrate, the first substrate comprising a first dielectric material; and a parasitic element disposed on a second substrate to provide a stacked patch topology, the second substrate comprising a second dielectric material, the second dielectric material being different than the first dielectric material.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells, an area of the driven element is different from an area of the parasitic element.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells, a cross-sectional area of the driven element is different from a cross-sectional of the parasitic element.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the second substrate is thicker than the first substrate.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein: the first dielectric material has a first permittivity; and the second dielectric material has a second permittivity, the second permittivity being different than the first permittivity.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the first permittivity is greater than the second permittivity.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a bandwidth of the plurality of antenna cells is about 1400 megahertz.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a gain associated with a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the wideband phased array antenna in an azimuth plane is substantially the same as a gain associated with a main lobe of a radiation pattern of the wideband phased array antenna in an elevation plane.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. USP 11,688,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,688,944 discloses similar limitations and function as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein, for each of the plurality of antenna cells: the driven element comprises a first patch antenna; and the parasitic element comprises a second patch antenna.
Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights