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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No 11,769,954. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements in the current application are also claimed in the ‘954 Patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No 12,027,775. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements in the current application are also claimed in the ‘775 Patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No 12,316,010. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed elements in the current application are also claimed in the ‘010 Patent.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 19 both recite “a main lob”. These claims should recite “a main lobe”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is ‘configured to’ perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ali (US 2011/0285474), hereinafter Ali.
Regarding claim 1 Ali discloses an antenna array system, comprising: a ground plane (e.g., Fig. 3D, at 201 and 202); a signal trace (e.g., Fig. 3D, at 104); at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm and a second transmit curved arm (Fig. 3D, at 331,332), the first transmit curved arm connected to the signal trace and the second transmit curved arm connected to the ground plane (Fig. 3D, at 332); at least two receive antenna elements, wherein a first one of the receive antenna elements is connected to the signal trace and a second one of the receive antenna elements is connected to the ground plane (Fig. 3D, at 201, 202); and a chip (Fig. 5, at 503, 504, 505) configured to generate different amplitude and phase signals to each of the at least two transmit antenna elements to transmit different antenna radiation patterns (e.g., paragraphs 0054-0055).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Ali further discloses the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein the chip is a time-domain beamformer chip configured to introduce different time delays to signals provided to different transmit antenna elements (e.g., paragraphs 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 3 Ali further discloses the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein the chip is a frequency beamformer configured to separate different frequency components of a signal into multiple frequency bins, facilitating pointing of a main lob in different directions simultaneously when different delay and sum beam formers are applied to each frequency bin (e.g., paragraphs 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 4 Ali further discloses the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein the chip is a spatial frequency beamformer configured to process discrete samples from one or more signals to generate multiple different discrete phase shifts and simultaneously form evenly spaced beams (e.g., paragraphs 0054-0055).
Regarding claim 5 Ali further discloses the antenna array system of claim 1, further comprising a ground element including two metal layers covering at least a portion of one or more of the at least two transmit antenna elements, wherein the two metal layers are connected using one or more vias.
Regarding claim 9 Ali further discloses the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein each first transmit curved arm has a uniform width (e.g., Fig. 3D, at 331, 332).
Regarding claim 11 Ali further discloses the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein the chip is configured to apply different amplitude and phase to each signal from the at least two receive antenna elements to steer a direction of receiver sensitivity patterns (e.g., paragraphs 0054-0055).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Jo et al., (US 6,469,675), hereinafter Jo.
Regarding claim 6 Ali does not disclose the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein the ground plane has a curved outline.
Jo discloses wherein the ground plane has a curved outline (e.g., Fig. 12, at 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Ali in accordance with the teaching of Jo regarding curved ground planes in order to increase antenna gain and/or achieve a change in the characteristic impedance of the antenna (Jo, column 12, line 62 – column 13, line 21).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Jeong (US 2015/0002347), hereinafter Jeong.
Regarding claim 10 Ali does not disclose the antenna array system of claim 1, wherein each first transmit curved arm has a non-uniform width.
Jeong discloses wherein each first transmit curved arm has a non-uniform width (e.g., paragraph 0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the curved antenna elements disclosed by Ali in accordance with the teaching of Jeong regarding using non-uniform widths for antenna arms in order that resonances of antenna can be changed; furthermore, antenna efficiency and bandwidth can be increased (Jeong, paragraph 0099).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 8 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 8, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of a plurality of surrounding vias configured to control an impedance of one or more feeding lines.
Ali and Jo are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a method of making an antenna array system having at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm plane and a second transmit curved arm plane, a signal trace, and a ground plane. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 12, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the at least two transmit antenna elements and the at least two receive antenna elements are positioned in a linear arrangement with respect to one another.
Ali and Jo are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a method of making an antenna array system having at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm plane and a second transmit curved arm plane, a signal trace, and a ground plane. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 13, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the at least two transmit antenna elements and the at least two receive antenna elements are positioned in a non-linear arrangement with respect to one another.
Ali and Jo are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a method of making an antenna array system having at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm plane and a second transmit curved arm plane, a signal trace, and a ground plane. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 14-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 14, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of a method of making an antenna array system having at least one transmit antenna element and at least two receive antenna elements, the method comprising: connecting a first transmit arm of the at least one transmit antenna element to a signal trace; connecting a second transmit arm of the at least one transmit antenna element to the ground plane; connecting a first receive curved arm of each receive antenna element to the signal trace; and connecting a second receive curved arm of each receive antenna element to the ground plane, wherein the at least one transmit antenna element and the at least two receive antenna elements are positioned in a non-linear arrangement with respect to one another.
Ali and Jo are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a method of making an antenna array system having at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm plane and a second transmit curved arm plane, a signal trace, and a ground plane.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding independent claim 17, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of a ground plane; a signal trace; at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm and a second transmit curved arm, the first transmit curved arm connected to the signal trace and the second transmit curved arm connected to the ground plane; one or more feeding lines having different line widths; a plurality of surrounding vias configured to control an impedance of the one or more feeding lines; and a chip configured to electronically steer a generated beam of radio waves transmitted by the at least two transmit antenna elements to point in different directions without physically moving the at least two transmit antenna elements.
Ali and Jo are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including at least two transmit antenna elements each including a first transmit curved arm plane and a second transmit curved arm plane, a signal trace, a chip, and a ground plane.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Negus (US 2015/0223082) at paragraph 0120 teaches optimizing spatial and frequency parameters.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights