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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/651,698 filed on 05/24/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 14 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 5: “each unit cell” should read “each of the plurality of MTM-EBG unit cells”.
Claims 1, 3: “the unit cells” should read “the plurality of MTM-EBG unit cells”.
Claim 2, 17: “the second plates” should read “the second plate” because there is only one second plate recited in claims 1, 16.
Claim 3: “the patch” should read “the inner patch”.
Claim 4, 5: “each MTM-EBG unit cell” should read “each of the plurality of MTM-EBG unit cells”.
Claim 7, 8: “the MTM-EBG unit cells” should read “the plurality of MTM-EBG unit cells”.
Claim 7: “the L1 frequency” and “the L1 frequency range” should read “the L1 GPS frequency range”
Claim 8: “the L2 or L5 frequency” should read “the L2 and/or L5 GPS frequency range”.
Claim 8: “then first diameter” should read “the first diameter”.
Claim 14: “and feed network circuit” should read “and the feed network circuit”
Claim 16: “wherein the unit cell” should read “wherein the MTM-EBG unit cell”.
Claim 17, 18: “the unit cell” should read “the MTM-EBG unit cell”.
Claim 19: “the patch portion and feed portion” should read “the patch portion and the feed portion”
Claim 20: “the substrate” should read “the primary substrate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, CN-113300114-A (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses the following:
an antenna structure comprising:
- an inner patch (1, 3, figs. 1a-1c);
- a plurality of metamaterial based electromagnetic bandgap (MTM-EBG) unit cells (4) disposed along an outer perimeter of the inner patch (figs. 1a-1c), each unit cell comprising a two layer parallel plate capacitive arrangement (fig. 1c) defined by,
- a dielectric substrate (5) extending between a first surface and a second surface along an extension axis,
- two first capacitive plates (1, 3, 4 on the top surface) fabricated along the first surface and separated by a gap (fig. 1a-1c), and
- a second capacitive plate (4 on the bottom surface) fabricated along the second surface and overlapping with the first capacitive plates in a direction along the extension axis (fig. 1c).
Although Chen does not explicitly disclose each unit cell being configurable between an activated state and a deactivated state and wherein when the unit cells are deactivated, the inner patch is configured to resonate at a first frequency range, and when the unit cells are activated, the inner patch with the unit cells are configured to resonate at a second frequency range, Chen discloses the antenna can operate in two resonant frequencies (page 3, para 2).
The antenna in Chen has the same structure, thus the skilled artisan would recognize that it would also be configured to, without undue experimentation, and able to have the predictable result of performing in a similar manner. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to configure the antenna taught in Chen to resonate in the first and second frequency ranges as claimed for the purpose of being able operate in different frequencies in order to maintain wireless communication in different environments.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configurable” and “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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the two first capacitive plates (1, 3, 4, figs. 1a-1c) and the second capacitive plates (4) together form two capacitors in series formation (figs. 1a-1c), and lie in parallel to a gap capacitance formed by the two first capacitive plates (1, 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the inner patch is circular (1, figs. 1a) or rectangular, and the unit cells (4) are disposed around an outer edge of the patch (figs. 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 6, although Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency range include an L1 GPS frequency range, and the second frequency range includes an L2 and/or L5 GPS frequency range, Chen discloses the antenna can operate in two resonant frequencies (page 3, para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick the first and second frequency ranges of the antenna taught in Chen to include an L1 GPS and an L2 and/or L5 GPS frequency ranges as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to perform wireless communication in the desired frequency ranges depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the antenna of claim 1, comprising a patch portion that includes the inner patch (1, 3, figs 1a-1c) and the plurality of MTM-EBG unit cells (4).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses includes the dielectric substrate (5, figs. 1a-1c), and wherein the inner patch forms a portion of one of the first capacitive plates (1,3).
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and in view of McBain et al, US-20230032553-A1 (hereinafter McBain).
Regarding claim 4, Chen does not disclose wherein each MTM-EBG unit cell is configured with a passband frequency range that includes the second frequency range, and a stopband frequency range that includes the first frequency range.
McBain suggests wherein the metamaterial is configured with a passband frequency range that includes the second frequency range, and a stopband frequency range that includes the first frequency range (para [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the unit cells taught in Chen with a passband frequency range that includes the second frequency range, and a stopband frequency range that includes the first frequency range as suggested in McBain as claimed for the purpose of passing through the signals of the desired frequency range and blocking the signals of the undesired frequency range depending on the requirements of the application (McBain, para [0150]).
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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 5, Chen does not disclose wherein each MTM-EBG unit cell is activated when a signal in the second frequency range is applied to each unit cell, and is deactivated when a signal in the first frequency range is applied to each unit cell.
McBain suggests wherein each MTM-EBG unit cell is activated when a signal in the second frequency range is applied to each unit cell (para [0150]: allow desired signals to pass therethrough), and is deactivated when a signal in the first frequency range is applied to each unit cell (para [0150]: rejecting and preventing passage of other undesired signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate and deactivate the unit cells taught in Chen as suggested in McBain as claimed for the purpose of passing through the signals of the desired frequency range and blocking the signals of the undesired frequency range depending on the requirements of the application (McBain, para [0150]).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses wherein the inner patch (1, figs. 1a) has a first diameter (fig. 1a: circular patch would have a diameter.
Although Chen is silent that the inner patch is configured for resonating at the L1 frequency, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the inner patch of the antenna would resonate at a frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the resonating frequency of the inner patch taught in Chen to be L1 GPS frequency range as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to perform wireless communication at the desired frequency depending on the requirements of the application.
Chen does not disclose the MTM-EBG unit cells are deactivated at the L1 frequency range.
McBain suggests the MTM-EBG unit cells are deactivated at a frequency range (para [0150]: rejecting and preventing passage of other undesired signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the deactivating frequency of the unit cells taught in Chen and McBain to be L1 GPS frequency range as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to block the signals of the undesired frequency range depending on the requirements of the application (McBain, para [0150]).
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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 8, Chen does not disclose wherein at the L2 or L5 frequency, the MTM-EBG unit cells are activated to produce an expanded patch having a second diameter configured to resonate at the L2 or L5 frequency, the second diameter being wider than then first diameter.
McBain suggests wherein at another frequency, the MTM-EBG unit cells are activated (para [0150]: allow desired signals to pass therethrough).
Although the combination of Chen and McBain does not explicitly disclose the MTM-EBG unit cells are activated to produce an expanded patch having a second diameter, the second diameter being wider than the first diameter, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art when the unit cells taught in Chen (4, figs. 1a-1c) are activated, the patch portion (1, 3, 4) would be expanded and the second diameter (1, 3, 4) would be wider than the first diameter of the inner patch (1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the activating frequency of the unit cells taught in Chen and McBain to be L2 or L5 GPS frequency range as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to allow the signals of the desired frequency range to pass through depending on the requirements of the application (McBain, para [0150]).
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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 9 above, and in view of Wan et al, CN-114171911-A (hereinafter Wan).
Regarding claim 11, Chen does not disclose the antenna of claim 9, further comprising a primary dielectric substrate having a first and second surface, and the patch portion is coupled to the first surface, and the second surface is coupled to a feed portion.
Wan suggests the antenna further comprising a primary dielectric substrate (7, fig. 1) having a first and second surface, and the patch portion (1, 2, 9) is coupled to the first surface, and the second surface is coupled to a feed portion (3, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the primary dielectric substrate as suggested in Wan to the antenna taught in Chen as claimed for the purpose of isolating the feed portion and the patch portion to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 13, Chen does not disclose wherein the feed portion comprises a ground plane and a feed network circuit.
Wan suggests wherein the feed portion comprises a ground plane (3, figs. 1) and a feed network circuit (5, page 9, para 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a ground plane and a feed network circuit as suggested in Wan to the antenna taught in Chen as claimed for the purpose of feeding the signal to the antenna, completing the antenna circuit to perform wireless communication and improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 14, Chen does not disclose wherein the feed portion comprises a secondary dielectric substrate, and the ground plane and feed network circuit are fabricated on opposing surfaces of the secondary dielectric substrate.
Wan suggests wherein the feed portion comprises a secondary dielectric substrate (8, fig. 1), and the ground plane (3) and feed network circuit (5) are fabricated on opposing surfaces of the secondary dielectric substrate (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the secondary dielectric substrate as suggested in Wan to the antenna taught in Chen as claimed for the purpose of isolating the ground plane and the feed network circuit to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses wherein at least one feed pin (7, fig. 1c) couples between the feed network circuit (page 4, 2nd to last para: 7 is a feed pin, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art that the feed pin would be connected to the feed network circuit) and the inner patch (1).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, CN-113300114-A and in view of McBain, US-20230032553-A1.
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the following:
a metamaterial based electromagnetic bandgap (MTM-EBG) unit cell comprising a two layer parallel plate capacitive arrangement defined by:
- a dielectric substrate (5, figs. 1a-1c) extending between a first surface and a second surface along an extension axis,
- two first capacitive plates (1, 3, 4 on the top surface) fabricated along the first surface and separated by a gap (figs. 1a-1c), and
- a second capacitive plate (4 on the bottom surface) fabricated along the second surface and overlapping with the first capacitive plates in a direction along the extension axis (fig. 1c).
Chen does not disclose wherein the unit cell is deactivated when a signal in a first frequency range is applied, and activated when a signal in a second frequency range is applied.
McBain suggests wherein the unit cell is deactivated when a signal in a first frequency range is applied (para [0150]: rejecting and preventing passage of other undesired signals) , and activated when a signal in a second frequency range is applied (para [0150]: allow desired signals to pass therethrough).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate and deactivate the unit cells taught in Chen as suggested in McBain as claimed for the purpose of passing through the signals of the desired frequency range and blocking the signals of the undesired frequency range depending on the requirements of the application (McBain, para [0150]).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses wherein the two first capacitive plates (1, 3, 4, figs. 1a-1c) and the second capacitive plates (4) together form two capacitors in series formation (figs. 1a-1c), and lie in parallel to a gap capacitance formed by the two first capacitive plates (1, 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 18, Chen does not disclose wherein the unit cell is configured with a passband frequency range that includes the second frequency range, and a stopband frequency range that includes the first frequency range.
McBain suggests wherein the metamaterial is configured with a passband frequency range that includes the second frequency range, and a stopband frequency range that includes the first frequency range (para [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the unit cells taught in Chen with a passband frequency range that includes the second frequency range, and a stopband frequency range that includes the first frequency range as suggested in McBain as claimed for the purpose of passing through the signals of the desired frequency range and blocking the signals of the undesired frequency range depending on the requirements of the application (McBain, para [0150]).
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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, CN-113300114-A in view of Wan, CN-114171911-A.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses the following:
a method of fabricating an antenna structure comprising:
- fabricating a patch portion (1, 3, 4, figs. 1a-1c) comprising an inner patch (1,3) and a plurality of metamaterial based electromagnetic bandgap (MTM-EBG) unit cells (4) disposed along an outer perimeter of the inner patch (figs. 1a-1c);
- fabricating a primary substrate (5);
- fabricating a feed portion (7); and
- coupling the patch portion (1,3,4) and feed portion (7).
Chen does not disclose a feed portion comprising a ground plate layer and a feed network circuit and coupling the patch portion and feed portion to opposing surfaces of the primary substrate.
Wan suggests a feed portion comprising a ground plate layer (3, figs. 1) and a feed network circuit (5, page 9, para 7) and coupling the patch portion (1, 2, 9) and feed portion (3, 5) to opposing surfaces of the primary substrate (7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the patch portion and the feed portion of the antenna taught in Chen to opposing surfaces of the primary dielectric substrate as suggested in Wan to as claimed for the purpose of isolating the feed portion and the patch portion to improve the antenna’s performance.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of … – “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Wan as applied to claims 11 and 19 above, and in view of Park et al, US-20170117633-A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen and Wan does not disclose wherein the primary dielectric substrate comprises one or more of polylactic acid (PLA), a foam spacer, and an air gap forming an air substrate.
Park suggests wherein the dielectric substrate comprises a foam spacer (para [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the primary dielectric substrate of the antenna taught in Chen and Wan to comprises a foam spacer as suggested in Park as claimed for the purpose of improving the isolation between different components in the circuit, reducing weight of the antenna and simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen and Wan does not disclose wherein the substrate comprises one or more of polylactic acid (PLA), a foam spacer, and an air gap forming an air substrate.
Park suggests wherein the substrate comprises a foam spacer (para [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the primary substrate of the antenna taught in Chen and Wan to comprises a foam spacer as suggested in Park as claimed for the purpose of improving the isolation between different components in the circuit, reducing weight of the antenna and simplifying the manufacturing process.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Lin, US-20250253533-A1, fig. 7 could read on claim 1
Lang et al, US-20250158278-A1, fig. 1 could read on claim 1
Ou et al, US-20200106188-A1, fig. 10C could read on claim 1
KR-102323334-B1: inner patch with plurality of metamaterial unit cells
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights