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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey et al. (US20240154312; hereinafter Pandey) in view of Yang et al. (US20220190482; hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Pandey discloses “An antenna assembly, comprising: a substrate stack comprising a magnetodielectric material (150); at least one patch radiating element (102) on an upper surface of the substrate stack”.
Pandey does not disclose “a dielectric cover including a gradient lens disposed over the substrate stack, wherein the gradient lens includes a first lens portion having a first dielectric constant and a second lens portion having a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant”.
However, Yang teaches “a dielectric cover (332) including a gradient lens (¶[0100]; As illustrated, a Luneburg lens is a spherically symmetric, gradient-index lens with dielectric layers) disposed over the substrate stack, wherein the gradient lens includes a first lens portion having a first dielectric constant and a second lens portion having a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant (¶[0100])”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly with a dielectric cover including a gradient lens disposed over the substrate stack, wherein the gradient lens includes a first lens portion having a first dielectric constant and a second lens portion having a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant, in order to focus the signal from the antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Pandey discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one patch radiating element (102) comprises metal (¶[0048]; In an embodiment, the EM radiator 102 comprises an electrically conductive material)”.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Yang, further in view of Fanfelle et al. (US20200280138; hereinafter Fanfelle).
Regarding claim 3, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 2 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the at least one patch radiating element includes a plurality of patch radiating elements”.
However, Fanfelle teaches “wherein the at least one patch radiating element 102 includes a plurality of patch radiating elements (502/504)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fanfelle and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the at least one patch radiating element includes a plurality of patch radiating elements, in order to generate the desired antenna signal.
Regarding claim 4, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 3 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the plurality of patch radiating elements are arranged as orthogonal patch dipole radiating elements to establish a cross- dipole”.
However, Fanfelle teaches “wherein the plurality of patch radiating elements are arranged as orthogonal patch dipole radiating elements to establish a cross- dipole (fig. 4)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fanfelle and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the plurality of patch radiating elements are arranged as orthogonal patch dipole radiating elements to establish a cross- dipole, in order to generate the desired antenna signal.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Yang, further in view of Mallegol et al. (US20230352844; hereinafter Mallegol).
Regarding claim 5, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 1 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the substrate stack comprises: a low-loss substrate comprising a low-loss material; and a magnetodielectric substrate comprising the magnetodielectric material”.
However, Mallegol teaches “wherein the substrate stack comprises: a low-loss substrate comprising a low-loss material; and a magnetodielectric substrate comprising the magnetodielectric material (¶[0064]; The material of layer 16 is preferentially a dielectric or (magneto)dielectric material. The material has a low dielectric constant, typically less than or equal to 2. The material is a low-loss material. The choice of such a material contributes to attenuation of creeping waves, in particular by not enhancing propagation of creeping waves at lower face 41 of radome 14)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mallegol and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the substrate stack comprises: a low-loss substrate comprising a low-loss material; and a magnetodielectric substrate comprising the magnetodielectric material, in order to allow propagation of EM signals.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the low-loss substrate has a dielectric constant, Dki, ranging from 2.9 to 3.1”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the low-loss substrate has a dielectric constant, Dki, ranging from 2.9 to 3.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the magnetodielectric material has a dielectric constant, Dk3, ranging from 11.90 to 12.05, and permeability, p, ranging from 6.50 to 7.60”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the magnetodielectric material has a dielectric constant, Dk3, ranging from 11.90 to 12.05, and permeability, p, ranging from 6.50 to 7.60, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 5 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the low-loss substrate and the magnetodielectric substrate are separated from one another by a layer of air with a dielectric constant of 1.0”.
However, Yang teaches “wherein the low-loss substrate and the magnetodielectric substrate are separated from one another by a layer of air with a dielectric constant of 1.0 (fig. 8 and ¶[0079]; The mm-wave radiating elements 820 are supported by the package 810, through which connections (not shown) to the mm-wave radio head 830 are used to drive the mm-wave radiating elements 820. The edges of the package 810 are attached to a PCB 850. The mm-wave radiating elements 820 are disposed to radiate towards a FZP lens 854 and may be separated from the FZP lens 854 by about the focal length of the FZP lens 854 using air or a dielectric (e.g., plastic) layer 852 that is substantially permeable at the mm-wave and WiFi frequencies. If an air gap is used, the FZP lens 854 may be supported, for example, by a thin dielectric layer attached to the opposite side of the PCB 850 as the mm-wave radiating elements 820)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the low-loss substrate and the magnetodielectric substrate are separated from one another by a layer of air with a dielectric constant of 1.0, in order to allow flow of the EM signals.
Claims 9-15, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Yang and Mallegol, further in view of Wang et al. (US8264410; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 9, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 5 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “further comprising a dielectric substrate interposed between the low-loss substrate and the magnetodielectric substrate”.
However, Wang teaches “further comprising a dielectric substrate interposed between the low-loss substrate and the magnetodielectric substrate (col. 3 lines 18-22; One or more layers of dielectric or magneto-dielectric substrates can be placed between the planar TW antenna elements and the ground plane, or as superstrate placed above the TW antenna elements, or both, for enhancement of specific performances)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly further comprising a dielectric substrate interposed between the low-loss substrate and the magnetodielectric substrate, in order to support the dielectric lens.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the dielectric substrate 106 comprises a dielectric material having a dielectric constant, Dk2, ranging from 1.0 to 1.4”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the dielectric substrate 106 comprises a dielectric material having a dielectric constant, Dk2, ranging from 1.0 to 1.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the dielectric constant, Dk2, is 1.3”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the dielectric constant, Dk2, is 1.3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 5 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “further comprising a ground plane on which the magnetodielectric substrate is disposed”.
However, Wang teaches “further comprising a ground plane on which the magnetodielectric substrate is disposed (col. 3 lines 18-22; One or more layers of dielectric or magneto-dielectric substrates can be placed between the planar TW antenna elements and the ground plane, or as superstrate placed above the TW antenna elements, or both, for enhancement of specific performances)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly further comprising a ground plane on which the magnetodielectric substrate is disposed, in order to provide an area to ground the antenna.
Regarding claim 13, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 9 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the second lens portion surrounds the first lens portion”.
However, Yang teaches “wherein the second lens portion surrounds the first lens portion (fig. 1)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the second lens portion surrounds the first lens portion, in order to focus the beam properly.
Regarding claim 14, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 13 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the second dielectric constant is greater than the first dielectric constant”.
However, Yang teaches “wherein the second dielectric constant is greater than the first dielectric constant (graph in fig. 1)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the second dielectric constant is greater than the first dielectric constant, in order to focus the beam properly.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the first dielectric constant, DkL1ranges from 1.0 to 2.7, and the second dielectric constant, DkL2 ranges from 2.5 to 5.10”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the first dielectric constant, DkL1ranges from 1.0 to 2.7, and the second dielectric constant, DkL2 ranges from 2.5 to 5.10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 13 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the gradient lens includes an intermediate lens region with one or more dielectric constant values that gradually decrease from the second lens portion to the first lens portion”.
However, Yang teaches “wherein the gradient lens includes an intermediate lens region with one or more dielectric constant values that gradually decrease from the second lens portion to the first lens portion (graph in fig. 1)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yang and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the gradient lens includes an intermediate lens region with one or more dielectric constant values that gradually decrease from the second lens portion to the first lens portion, in order to focus the beam properly.
Claims 16-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey in view of Yang, Mallegol, and Wang, further in view of Bily et al. (US11552405; hereinafter Bily).
Regarding claim 16, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 15 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the dielectric cover further comprises sidewalls extending orthogonally from the gradient lens and defining an inner cavity in which the substrate stack is disposed”.
However, Bily teaches “wherein the dielectric cover further comprises sidewalls (202) extending orthogonally from the gradient lens (200) and defining an inner cavity in which the substrate stack is disposed fig. 18”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bily and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the dielectric cover further comprises sidewalls extending orthogonally from the gradient lens and defining an inner cavity in which the substrate stack is disposed, in order to support the dielectric lens.
Regarding claim 17, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 16 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the sidewalls comprises a dielectric material”.
However, Bily teaches “wherein the sidewalls comprises a dielectric material (202 is dielectric)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bily and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the sidewalls comprises a dielectric material, in order to support the dielectric lens without creating resonance with the walls.
Regarding claim 18, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 17 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the sidewalls and the gradient lens extend along an X-axis to define a length, a Y-axis to define a width, and a Z-axis to define a thickness”.
However, Bily teaches “wherein the sidewalls and the gradient lens extend along an X-axis to define a length, a Y-axis to define a width, and a Z-axis to define a thickness (fig. 18)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bily and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the sidewalls and the gradient lens extend along an X-axis to define a length, a Y-axis to define a width, and a Z-axis to define a thickness, in order to support the dielectric lens.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein: the first dielectric constant, DkL1, is 2.5; the second dielectric constant, DkL2, is 2.9; the length is 6.15 inches (156.21 mm); the width is 6.15 inches (156.21 mm); and the thickness is 1.97 inches (50.038 mm)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein: the first dielectric constant, DkL1, is 2.5; the second dielectric constant, DkL2, is 2.9; the length is 6.15 inches (156.21 mm); the width is 6.15 inches (156.21 mm); and the thickness is 1.97 inches (50.038 mm), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein: the first dielectric constant DKL1, is 1.50; the second dielectric constant, DkL2 is 5.07; the length is 4.6 inches (116.84 mm) ;the width is 6.15 inches (116.84 mm); and the thickness is 1.22 inches (30.988 mm)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein: the first dielectric constant DKL1, is 1.50; the second dielectric constant, DkL2 is 5.07; the length is 4.6 inches (116.84 mm) ;the width is 6.15 inches (116.84 mm); and the thickness is 1.22 inches (30.988 mm), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 20 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the sidewalls extend inward toward the inner cavity to define a tapered profile”.
However, Bily teaches “wherein the sidewalls extend inward toward the inner cavity to define a tapered profile (fig. 18)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bily and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the sidewalls extend inward toward the inner cavity to define a tapered profile, in order to support the dielectric lens.
Regarding claim 22, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 21 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the sidewalls taper inward at an draft angle ranging from 20 degrees to 30 degrees”.
However, Bily teaches “wherein the sidewalls taper inward at an draft angle ranging from 20 degrees to 30 degrees (fig. 18 and col. 21 lines 37-40; As examples, angle φ may be between 5 degrees and 45 degrees, between 10 degrees and 30 degrees, less than 30 degrees, greater than 5 degrees, etc.)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bily and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the sidewalls taper inward at an draft angle ranging from 20 degrees to 30 degrees, in order to support the dielectric lens.
Regarding claim 24, Pandey discloses the antenna assembly of claim 8 as shown previously.
Pandey does not disclose “wherein the dielectric cover comprises: a base having a circular profile defined by a first diameter; and a circular sidewall extending orthogonally from the base and defining an inner cavity configured to receive the substrate stack, wherein the gradient lens is disposed on an upper surface of the circular sidewall and has a circular profile defined by a second diameter”.
However, Bily teaches “wherein the dielectric cover comprises: a base (208) having a circular profile defined by a first diameter (fig. 18); and a circular sidewall (202) extending orthogonally from the base and defining an inner cavity (inner cavity in fig. 18) configured to receive the substrate stack, wherein the gradient lens (200) is disposed on an upper surface of the circular sidewall and has a circular profile defined by a second diameter (fig. 18)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bily and make Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein the dielectric cover comprises: a base having a circular profile defined by a first diameter; and a circular sidewall extending orthogonally from the base and defining an inner cavity configured to receive the substrate stack, wherein the gradient lens is disposed on an upper surface of the circular sidewall and has a circular profile defined by a second diameter, in order to support the dielectric lens.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Pandey discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein: the second dielectric constant, DkL2 is 2.59; the first diameter is 12 inches (304.8 mm); and the second diameter is 9 inches (228.6 mm)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pandey’s antenna assembly wherein: the second dielectric constant, DkL2 is 2.59; the first diameter is 12 inches (304.8 mm); and the second diameter is 9 inches (228.6 mm), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights