UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/926,630
`
`03/20/2018
`
`TOMOHIRO MURATA
`
`731156.694
`
`1573
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`BOUIZZA' MICHAEL M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2845
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/18/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/926,630
`Examiner
`MICHAEL M BOUIZZA
`
`Applicant(s)
`MU RATA et al.
`Art Unit
`2845
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/20/2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) § is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 3/20/2018 is/are: a). accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`21:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20191011
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 7/5/2019 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. Specifically, since Yang et al. in view of Sudo et al. discloses the newly
`
`added limitation as shown in the rejection below. Applicant's representative is invited to
`
`telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 3
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan
`
`Yang et al., "Microstrip Antennas Integrated With Electromagnetic Band-Gap (EBG)
`
`Structures: A Low Mutual Coupling Design for Array Applications" (cited by applicant) in
`
`view of Sudo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0229343.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. teaches an antenna apparatus (Fig. 14
`
`annotated below) comprising:
`
`a dielectric substrate (dielectric substrate Fig. 14 annotated below);
`
`at least a first radiator and a second radiator (radiators Fig. 14 annotated
`
`below) that are disposed in a first wiring layer included in the dielectric substrate
`
`(top layer of dielectric substrate Fig. 14 annotated below);
`
`and
`
`a first electromagnetic band-gap (EBG / Patch structure Fig. 14 annotated
`
`below) disposed between the first radiator and the second radiator;
`
`wherein
`
`the first electromagnetic band-gap has a first patch disposed in the first
`
`wiring layer (metallic patch structure Fig. 14 annotated below),
`
`a first ground electrode disposed in a third wiring layer (ground below EBG
`
`/ Patch structure Fig. 14 annotated below), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 4
`
`a first via extending in the layer thickness direction, both ends of the first
`
`via mutually connecting the first patch and the first ground electrode (via Fig. 14
`
`annotated below).
`
`Yang et al. does not explicitly teach a first reflector disposed in a first
`
`range in a second wiring layer included in the dielectric substrate, the first range
`
`including a second range in which the first radiator is projected in a layer
`
`thickness direction of the dielectric substrate; a second reflector disposed in a
`
`third range in the second wiring layer, the third range including a fourth range in
`
`which the second radiator is projected in the layer thickness direction; and a
`
`place where the first via is connected in the first ground electrode being different
`
`in the layer thickness direction from the first reflector.
`
`However, Yang et al. discloses a ground layer below each of the radiators
`
`in a different place from the ground layer below the metallic patches as seen in
`
`Fig. 14. Additionally, Sudo et al. teaches reflector 10 being in a different layer
`
`thickness direction than the ground 5 (Figs. 1-4 Par. 0052, 0053).
`
`In this particular case, the skilled artisan recognizes that the grounding
`
`structure below the respective radiator would function as a reflector. Additionally,
`
`Sudo et al. teaches that having the reflector and ground on different levels in the
`
`thickness direction of the substrate results in preventing electric power from
`
`leaking into the substrate and improves the radiation characteristics of the
`
`antenna (Sudo et al. Par. 0052, 0053).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date that the grounding structure below the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 5
`
`respective radiator would function as a reflector; and to place the first ground
`
`electrode different in the layer thickness direction from the first reflector as taught
`
`by Sudo et al. in order to prevent electric power from leaking into the substrate
`
`and improves the radiation characteristics of the antenna.
`
`
` WEE” Dielectric.
`EEG 3’ Patch
`Radiator
`Reflector
`-
`
`
`
`Reflector
`
`
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. as modified teaches wherein,
`
`the first radiator and the first reflector constitute a first antenna (Fig. 14);
`
`the second radiator and the second reflector constitute a second antenna
`
`(Fig. 14); and
`
`the first electromagnetic band-gap is designed to block a signal in a
`
`frequency range including a resonant frequency of the first antenna and the
`
`second antenna (Abstract).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Yang et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance
`
`between the first wiring layer and the third wiring layer is longer than a distance
`
`between the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer in the layer thickness
`
`direction (distance from edge of radiator layer to edge of reflector layer is longer
`
`than edge of radiator pattern to ground patter below EBG structure as seen in
`
`Fig. 14).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Yang et al. as modified teaches the antenna
`
`apparatus according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
`
`Yang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the longer a distance
`
`between the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer is, the more a size of
`
`the first patch is enlarged and the more a distance between the first wiring layer
`
`and the third wiring layer is shortened.
`
`However, Yang et al. discloses different comparisons between different
`
`thickness of the dielectric substrate and different sizes of the metallic matches
`
`(Mutual Coupling Comparison P. 2940-2942).
`
`In this particular case, the bandwidth and mutual coupling vary based on
`
`the different thickness of the dielectric substrate and the size of the patch (P.
`
`2940-2942). Additionally, it is implied that as the thickness of the substrate is
`
`increased, the distance between the wiring layers is also increased accordingly.
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date to choose the distance between the
`
`layers and size of the first patch accordingly in order to obtain the bandwidth and
`
`mutual coupling for the best performance.
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Yang et al. teaches an antenna apparatus (Fig. 14
`
`annotated above) comprising:
`
`a dielectric substrate (dielectric substrate Fig. 14);
`
`a first radiator and a second radiator that are disposed on the dielectric
`
`substrate (radiators Fig. 14); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 7
`
`an electromagnetic band-gap (EBG / Patch structure Fig. 14) disposed
`
`between the first radiator and the second radiator, wherein
`
`the electromagnetic band-gap has:
`
`a patch (EBG / Patch structure Fig. 14) disposed on the dielectric
`
`substrate;
`
`a ground electrode (ground below EBG / Patch structure Fig. 14; and
`
`a via (via Fig. 14), both ends of the via mutually connecting the patch and
`
`the ground electrode (via Fig. 14).
`
`Yang et al. does not explicitly teach a reflector; and a length of the via
`
`being different from a shortest distance between the first radiator and the
`
`reflector.
`
`However, Yang et al. discloses a ground layer below each of the radiators
`
`in a different place from the ground layer below the metallic patches as seen in
`
`Fig. 14. Additionally, Sudo et al. teaches reflector 10 being at a different distance
`
`in the thickness direction than the ground 5 (Figs. 1-4 Par. 0052, 0053).
`
`In this particular case, the skilled artisan recognizes that the grounding
`
`structure below the respective radiator would function as a reflector. Additionally,
`
`Sudo et al. teaches that having the reflector and ground on different levels in the
`
`thickness direction of the substrate results in preventing electric power from
`
`leaking into the substrate and improves the radiation characteristics of the
`
`antenna (Sudo et al. Par. 0052, 0053).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date that the grounding structure below the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 8
`
`respective radiator would function as a reflector; and to place the first ground
`
`electrode at a different length in the layer thickness direction from the first
`
`reflector as taught by Sudo et al. in order to prevent electric power from leaking
`
`into the substrate and improves the radiation characteristics of the antenna.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan
`
`Yang et al., "Microstrip Antennas Integrated With Electromagnetic Band-Gap (EBG)
`
`Structures: A Low Mutual Coupling Design for Array Applications" (cited by applicant) in
`
`view of Sudo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0229343 as applied to claim
`
`1 above, and further in view of Murch et al. US Patent Application Publication
`
`2008/0094302.
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Yang et al. as modified teaches the antenna
`
`apparatus according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
`
`Yang et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising: a third radiator
`
`disposed in the first wiring layer; a third reflector disposed in a fifth range in the
`
`second wiring layer, the fifth range including a sixth range opposite to the third
`
`radiator in the layer thickness direction; and a second electromagnetic band-gap
`
`disposed between the second radiator and the third radiator; wherein the second
`
`electromagnetic band-gap has a second patch disposed in the first wiring layer, a
`
`second ground electrode disposed in a fourth wiring layer disposed at a different
`
`place from the second wiring layer and the third wiring layer in the layer thickness
`
`direction of the dielectric substrate, and a second via extending in the layer
`
`thickness direction, both ends of the second via mutually connecting the second
`
`patch and the second ground electrode.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 9
`
`However, Murch et al. discloses duplicating radiators and corresponding
`
`elements in order to obtain improved performance (Figs. 4A, 4B Par. 0031,
`
`0032).
`
`In this particular case, providing more antenna elements and
`
`corresponding elements is common and well known in the art for improved
`
`performance. Additionally, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no
`
`patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In
`
`re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date to provide a third radiator, third reflector
`
`and second electromagnetic band-gap disposed between the second radiator
`
`and the third radiator in order to obtain improved performance.
`
`Regarding Claim 6, Yang et al. as modified teaches the antenna
`
`apparatus according to claim 5 as shown in the rejection above.
`
`Yang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: the first via is longer than the
`
`second via; and a size of the first patch is smaller than a size of the second
`
`patch.
`
`However, Yang et al. discloses different comparisons between different
`
`thickness of the dielectric substrate and different sizes of the metallic matches
`
`(Mutual Coupling Comparison P. 2940-2942).
`
`In this particular case, the bandwidth and mutual coupling vary based on
`
`the different thickness of the dielectric substrate and the size of the patch (P.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 10
`
`2940-2942). Additionally, it is implied that as the thickness of the substrate is
`
`increased, the length of the vias would need to be increased accordingly.
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date to choose the distance between the
`
`layers and size of the patches accordingly in order to obtain the bandwidth and
`
`mutual coupling for the best performance.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`8.
`
`Claim 8 is 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.
`
`9.
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
`
`matter:
`
`a.
`
`Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not have the feature
`
`“wherein: the length of the via is longer than the shortest distance between the
`
`first radiator and the reflector” as recited in the claim.
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure.
`
`a.
`
`Tagi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0344093 discloses an
`
`EBG structure providing between first and second antenna elements on a
`
`dielectric substrate.
`
`11.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 11
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`12.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm,
`
`EST.
`
`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, Jessica Han can be reached on (571) 272-2078. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/926,630
`Art Unit: 2845
`
`Page 12
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1 000.
`
`/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2845
`
`/HAI V TRAN/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
`
`