Patent Application 18108044 - MICROSTRIP ANTENNA ANTENNA ARRAY RADAR AND VEHICLE - Rejection
Patent Application 18108044 - MICROSTRIP ANTENNA ANTENNA ARRAY RADAR AND VEHICLE
Title: MICROSTRIP ANTENNA, ANTENNA ARRAY, RADAR, AND VEHICLE
Application Information
- Invention Title: MICROSTRIP ANTENNA, ANTENNA ARRAY, RADAR, AND VEHICLE
- Application Number: 18108044
- Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-10T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-02-10T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 342
- National Sub-Class: 070000
- Examiner Employee Number: 89962
- Art Unit: 3648
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 3
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 2/10/2023 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/108,044, filed on 2/10/2023 is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/117041 filed on 9/5/2022, and claims priority from the following foreign applications:
CN202210638650.3, filed on 6/7/2022 in the People’s Republic of China
CN202210395195.9, filed on 4/14/2022 in the People’s Republic of China
CN202111282192.6, filed on 11/01/2021 in the People’s Republic of China
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2023, 1/17/2024, and 3/25/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 3210d. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 8, there is an extra space before the semicolon that should be removed
In claim 17, line 1, “a radar sensor” should be “the radar sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the radiation structure" in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution, “the radiation structure” has been interpreted as the “first radiation patch.”
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 17 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayakawa et al. (US 2012/0122976 A1, cited in IDS filed 3/25/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
A microstrip antenna (Hayakawa et al. microstrip patch antenna 12, Fig. 2D), comprising: a dielectric layer (Hayakawa et al. dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), a metal layer (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10 and feeder circuit 5, Fig. 2D) disposed at a side of the dielectric layer (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10 and feeder circuit 5 is disposed on top of the dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), and a ground plane layer (Hayakawa et al. ground plate 4, Fig. 2D) disposed at a side of the dielectric layer away from the metal layer (Hayakawa et al. ground plate 4 is disposed on the bottom of the dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), wherein:
the metal layer comprises a first radiation patch (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10, Fig. 2D) and a feeding portion (Hayakawa et al. feeder circuit 5, Fig. 2D);
the first radiation patch at least comprises a long side edge (Hayakawa et al. long side edge labeled
n
×
λ
g
, Fig. 2C), and a short side edge (Hayakawa et al. short side edge labeled
n
×
λ
g
2
, Fig. 2C), adjacent to the long side edge, a length of the long side edge is determined based on an operating wavelength of the microstrip antenna (Hayakawa et al. “The length of the long sides of the rectangular patch antenna part 10 shown in FIG. 2C and FIG. 2D is a whole multiple of the guide wavelength λg by which the operating frequency of the wave which the microstrip patch antenna 12 receives is propagated…” - ¶ [0051]), a length of the short side edge is less than the length of the long side edge (Hayakawa et al. “the length of the short sides is a whole multiple of about half of the guide wavelength λg by which the operating frequency of the wave which the microstrip patch antenna 12 receives is propagated.” - ¶ [0051]); and
the feeding portion is coupled between a center position of the long side edge and a short side edge of the first radiation patch (Hayakawa et al. feeder circuit 5 is coupled to the patch antenna part 10 between a center position of the long side edge and the short side edge, Fig. 2D; “ The feeder circuit 5 is connected to one side of the patch antenna part 10, at a position offset from the center point of that side in either the left or right direction, in a state perpendicular to that side.” - ¶ [0051]), and the feeding portion is configured to transmit a high frequency signal (Hayakawa et al. “a microstrip patch antenna and slot antenna with little deterioration in performance even when using the antenna for high frequency transmission/reception” - ¶ [0012]) to the first radiation patch or to transmit a space radiation signal received by the first radiation patch.
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
The microstrip antenna of claim 1, wherein: the feeding portion is electrically connected with the first radiation patch, to allow the feeding portion and the first radiation patch to be connected for feeding (Hayakawa et al. “A patch antenna part 10 and a feeder circuit 5 are formed by copper foil on a dielectric substrate 2…” - ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
The microstrip antenna of claim 1, further comprising: a matching structure (Hayakawa et al. the matching structure is the portion of the feeder circuit 5 that is connected to the long side edge of the patch antenna part 10, Fig. 2D), coupled between the feeding portion and the first radiation patch for impedance matching (Hayakawa et al. “The location for connection of the feeder circuit 5 to one side of the patch antenna part 10 is made the location for obtaining impedance matching of the patch antenna part 10 and the feeder circuit 5.”- ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
The microstrip antenna of claim 1, wherein an offset feed distance (Hayakawa et al. offset S, Fig. 4B) between the feeding portion and a center position (Hayakawa et al. centerline CL, Fig. 4B) of the first radiation patch is greater than a quarter of the length of the long side edge (Hayakawa et al. “it is sufficient to make the offset value S of the centerline AL of the feeder circuit 5 with respect to the patch antenna part 10 a range of 0.2 to 0.7 to the left or right of the centerline AL of the patch antenna part 10 and that the optimum value is around 0.5.” - ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
The microstrip antenna of claim 4, wherein an offset feed distance (Hayakawa et al. offset S, Fig. 4B) between the feeding portion and a center position (Hayakawa et al. centerline CL, Fig. 4B) of the first radiation patch is greater than zero. (Hayakawa et al. “it is sufficient to make the offset value S of the centerline AL of the feeder circuit 5 with respect to the patch antenna part 10 a range of 0.2 to 0.7 to the left or right of the centerline AL of the patch antenna part 10 and that the optimum value is around 0.5.” - ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
An antenna array (Hayakawa et al. microstrip antenna array AA, Figs. 6A-6B), comprising: a plurality of microstrip antennas (Hayakawa et al. microstrip patch antenna 12 and microstrip antenna elements 8, Figs. 6A-6B), wherein
each microstrip antenna comprises: a dielectric layer (Hayakawa et al. dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), a metal layer (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10 and feeder circuit 5, Fig. 2D) disposed at a side of the dielectric layer (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10 and feeder circuit 5 is disposed on top of the dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), and a ground plane layer (Hayakawa et al. ground plate 4, Fig. 2D) disposed at a side of the dielectric layer away from the metal layer (Hayakawa et al. ground plate 4 is disposed on the bottom of the dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), wherein:
the metal layer comprises a first radiation patch (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10, Fig. 2D) and a feeding portion (Hayakawa et al. feeder circuit 5, Fig. 2D);
the first radiation patch at least comprises a long side edge (Hayakawa et al. long side edge labeled
n
×
λ
g
, Fig. 2C), and a short side edge (Hayakawa et al. short side edge labeled
n
×
λ
g
2
, Fig. 2C) adjacent to the long side edge, a length of the long side edge is determined based on an operating wavelength of the microstrip antenna (Hayakawa et al. “The length of the long sides of the rectangular patch antenna part 10 shown in FIG. 2C and FIG. 2D is a whole multiple of the guide wavelength λg by which the operating frequency of the wave which the microstrip patch antenna 12 receives is propagated…” - ¶ [0051]), a length of the short side edge is less than the length of the long side edge (Hayakawa et al. “the length of the short sides is a whole multiple of about half of the guide wavelength λg by which the operating frequency of the wave which the microstrip patch antenna 12 receives is propagated.” - ¶ [0051]); and
the feeding portion is coupled between a center position of the long side edge and a short side edge of the first radiation patch (Hayakawa et al. feeder circuit 5 is coupled to the patch antenna part 10 between a center position of the long side edge and the short side edge, Fig. 2D; “ The feeder circuit 5 is connected to one side of the patch antenna part 10, at a position offset from the center point of that side in either the left or right direction, in a state perpendicular to that side.” - ¶ [0051]), and the feeding portion is configured to transmit a high frequency signal (Hayakawa et al. “a microstrip patch antenna and slot antenna with little deterioration in performance even when using the antenna for high frequency transmission/reception” - ¶ [0012]) to the first radiation patch or to transmit a space radiation signal received by the first radiation patch;
feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected (Hayakawa et al. “A patch antenna part 10 and a feeder circuit 5 are formed by copper foil on a dielectric substrate 2…” - ¶ [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US 2012/0122976 A1, cited in IDS filed 3/25/2024) in view of Cheng (US 11,539,139 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The microstrip antenna of claim 1,
Cheng discloses:
a portion between the center position of the long side edge and the short side edge of the first radiation patch is recessed in a groove formed by the feeding portion (Cheng a portion between the center position of the long side edge and the upper edge 202U and lower edge 202L of the main patch 202 is recessed, with the transmission feedline 204 disposed in the recess to form slots 253A and 253B, Fig. 3), to allow the feeding portion and the first radiation patch to be coupled for feeding (Cheng transmission line 204 is coupled to the main patch 202, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 1. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose a portion between the center position of the long side edge and the short side edge of the first radiation patch is recessed in a groove formed by the feeding portion, to allow the feeding portion and the first radiation patch to be coupled for feeding. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where a portion between the center position of the long side edge and the upper edge 202U and lower edge 202L of the main patch 202 is recessed, with the transmission feedline 204 disposed in the recess to form slots 253A and 253B (Cheng Fig. 3). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 5, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The microstrip antenna of claim 1
Cheng discloses:
the feeding portion comprises a first feeding portion (Cheng transmission line 304A, Fig. 4A) and a second feeding portion (Cheng transmission line 304B, Fig. 4A); wherein:
the first feeding portion is located at a side of a symmetrical center of the long side
edge of the first radiation patch (Cheng transmission line 304A is disposed above the horizontal symmetrical center of the main patch 302, Fig. 4A), and the second feeding portion is located at another side of the long side edge of the first radiation patch (Cheng transmission line 304B is disposed below the horizontal symmetrical center of the main patch 302, Fig. 4A), to allow the first radiation patch to be capable of generating radiation of high-order mode under excitation of the first feeding portion or the second feeding portion (Examiner notes that generating high-order mode is a function of the recited structure); and
the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to transmit a radio frequency transmit signal to the first radiation patch (Cheng “two transmission lines 304A and 304B on the same side of the main patch 302 that feed the signal to the main patch 302” – Col. 8, lines 36-38); or the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to output a radio frequency receiving signal received by the first radiation patch.
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 5 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 1. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose the feeding portion comprises a first feeding portion and a second feeding portion; wherein: the first feeding portion is located at a side of a symmetrical center of the long side edge of the first radiation patch, and the second feeding portion is located at another side of the long side edge of the first radiation patch, to allow the first radiation patch to be capable of generating radiation of high-order mode under excitation of the first feeding portion or the second feeding portion; and the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to transmit a radio frequency transmit signal to the first radiation patch; or the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to output a radio frequency receiving signal received by the first radiation patch. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where transmission line 304A is disposed above the horizontal symmetrical center of the main patch 302 (Cheng Fig.4A). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 8, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The microstrip antenna of claim 1
Cheng discloses:
a plurality of metal via holes (Cheng row of via 320, Fig. 4B), which is opposite to a side of the feeding portion, and is disposed in the first radiation patch (Cheng the row of via extend in a direction opposite to the transmission lines 304A, 304B, via are disposed in the main patch 302’, Fig. 4B), the metal via holes are electrically connected to the first radiation patch and the ground plane layer (Cheng “The transmission lines may include two metals: one metal used as ground and one for the signal. The ground may be a piece of metal layer, for example a microstrip line, may be a plurality of layers of metal electrically connected by vias...” – Col. 9, lines 63-67).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 8 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 1. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of metal via holes, which is opposite to a side of the feeding portion, and is disposed in the first radiation patch, the metal via holes are electrically connected to the first radiation patch and the ground plane layer. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where “The transmission lines may include two metals: one metal used as ground and one for the signal. The ground may be a piece of metal layer, for example a microstrip line, may be a plurality of layers of metal electrically connected by vias...” (Cheng Col. 9, lines 63-67). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range alter the operational size of the antenna and allow for various parameters of the antenna to be readily controlled (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32; Col. 8, lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 9, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The microstrip antenna of claim 1
Cheng discloses:
The microstrip antenna of claim 1, further comprising: a second radiation patch (Cheng impedance stabilizing elements 106A, 106B, Figs. 2A-2B), disposed at a side of the short side edge of the first radiation patch and spaced from the short side edge by a preset distance (Cheng impedance stabilizing elements 106A, 106B are disposed at sides of the short side edges of main patch 102 and spaced from the short side edges by preset distance D, Fig. 2A), wherein the short side edge disposed with the second radiation patch is away from the feeding portion (Cheng impedance stabilizing elements 106A, 106B are disposed away from the transmission line 104, Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 9 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 1. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second radiation patch, disposed at a side of the short side edge of the first radiation patch and spaced from the short side edge by a preset distance, wherein the short side edge disposed with the second radiation patch is away from the feeding portion. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where impedance stabilizing elements 106A, 106B are disposed at sides of the short side edges of main patch 102 and spaced from the short side edges by preset distance D (Cheng Fig. 2A). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32; Col. 6, lines 34-39).
Regarding claim 12, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna array of claim 11
Cheng discloses:
feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas (Cheng linear antenna assembly 720, Fig. 8C) are connected comprises:
each feeding portion (Cheng feedlines 305A, 305B of antenna 300’’, Figs. 4C, 8C) of a microstrip antenna and a first radiation patch (Cheng main patch 302’’, Fig. 4C) of the microstrip antenna where the feeding portion is located are connected for feeding, and each feeding portion of the microstrip antenna is connected to a first radiation patch of another microstrip antenna (Cheng feedlines 305A, 305B, connect each of the main patches 302’’ of antennas 300’’, Figs. 4C, 8C); or
first feeding portions and/or second feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected by first radiation patches of microstrip antennas at adjacent positions (Cheng transmission lines 304A, 304B connect each of the main patches 302 of antennas 300, Figs. 4A, 8E).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 12 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 11. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose each feeding portion of a microstrip antenna and a first radiation patch of the microstrip antenna where the feeding portion is located are connected for feeding, and each feeding portion of the microstrip antenna is connected to a first radiation patch of another microstrip antenna; or first feeding portions and/or second feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected by first radiation patches of microstrip antennas at adjacent positions. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where the antennas are arranged in array sand connected in series (Cheng, Figs. 4A, 4C, 8C, 8E). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 13, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna array of claim 11
Cheng discloses:
feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected comprises: each feeding portion of a microstrip antenna (Cheng feedline 104 of antenna 100, Figs. 2A, 8H) and a first radiation patch (Cheng patch 102 of antenna 100, Figs. 2A, 8H) of the microstrip antenna where the feeding portion is located are connected for feeding, and the feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are respectively connected to a transmission line (Cheng power divider or combiner 772, Fig. 8H); or
first feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are directly connected, and/or second feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are directly connected (Examiner notes that clauses separated by “or” have been considered alternatives.).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 13 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 11. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose each feeding portion of a microstrip antenna and a first radiation patch of the microstrip antenna where the feeding portion is located are connected for feeding, and the feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are respectively connected to a transmission line. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where feedlines 104 of each antenna 100 in the array are connected in parallel with the power divider or combiner 772 (Cheng, Figs. 2A, 8H). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 14, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna array of claim 11
Cheng discloses:
The antenna array of claim 11, wherein that feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected comprises: each feeding portion of a microstrip antenna and a first radiation patch of the microstrip antenna where the feeding portion is located are coupled for feeding, and the feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected in series (Cheng linear antenna assembly 720 comprises plurality of antennas 300’’ where the transmission feedline of the main patch of the antenna 300’’ is coupled with the transmission feedline of the main patch of an adjacent antenna 300’’ such that the antennas 300’’ are connected in series, Fig. 8C); or
first feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are inductively coupled through a first transmission line, and second feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are inductively coupled through a second transmission line; wherein the first transmission line is disposed at a side of each first feeding portion away from a symmetrical center of a long side edge of a first radiation patch of the microstrip antenna where the first feeding portion is located, and
the second transmission line is disposed at a side of each second feeding portion away from the symmetrical center of the long side edge of a first radiation patch of the microstrip antenna where the second feeding portion is located (Examiner notes that clauses separated by “or” have been considered alternatives.).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 14 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. discloses the microstrip antenna of claim 11. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected comprises: each feeding portion of a microstrip antenna and a first radiation patch of the microstrip antenna where the feeding portion is located are coupled for feeding, and the feeding portions of the plurality of microstrip antennas are connected in series. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where linear antenna assembly 720 comprises plurality of antennas 300’’ where the transmission feedline of the main patch of the antenna 300’’ is coupled with the transmission feedline of the main patch of an adjacent antenna 300’’ such that the antennas 300’’ are connected in series (Cheng Fig. 8C). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Claim(s) 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US 2012/0122976 A1, cited in IDS filed 3/25/2024) in view of Bily et al. (US 11,101,572 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
A radar sensor, comprising:
an antenna apparatus (Hayakawa et al. “transmission/reception antenna 20 for radar” - ¶ [0066]), comprising an antenna, wherein the antenna comprises: a dielectric layer (Hayakawa et al. dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), a metal layer (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10 and feeder circuit 5, Fig. 2D) disposed at a side of the dielectric layer (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10 and feeder circuit 5 are disposed on top of the dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), and a ground plane layer (Hayakawa et al. ground plate 4, Fig. 2D) disposed at a side of the dielectric layer away from the metal layer (Hayakawa et al. ground plate 4 is disposed on the bottom of the dielectric substrate 2, Fig. 2D), wherein:
the metal layer comprises a first radiation patch (Hayakawa et al. patch antenna part 10, Fig. 2D) and a feeding portion (Hayakawa et al. feeder circuit 5, Fig. 2D);
the first radiation patch at least comprises a long side edge (Hayakawa et al. long side edge labeled
n
×
λ
g
, Fig. 2C), and a short side edge (Hayakawa et al. short side edge labeled
n
×
λ
g
2
, Fig. 2C) adjacent to the long side edge, a length of the long side edge is determined based on an operating wavelength of the microstrip antenna (Hayakawa et al. “The length of the long sides of the rectangular patch antenna part 10 shown in FIG. 2C and FIG. 2D is a whole multiple of the guide wavelength λg by which the operating frequency of the wave which the microstrip patch antenna 12 receives is propagated…” - ¶ [0051]), a length of the short side edge is less than the length of the long side edge (Hayakawa et al. “the length of the short sides is a whole multiple of about half of the guide wavelength λg by which the operating frequency of the wave which the microstrip patch antenna 12 receives is propagated.” - ¶ [0051]);
the feeding portion is coupled between a center position of the long side edge and a short side edge of the first radiation patch (Hayakawa et al. feeder circuit 5 is coupled to the patch antenna part 10 between a center position of the long side edge and the short side edge, Fig. 2D; “ The feeder circuit 5 is connected to one side of the patch antenna part 10, at a position offset from the center point of that side in either the left or right direction, in a state perpendicular to that side.” - ¶ [0051]), and the feeding portion is configured to transmit a high frequency signal (Hayakawa et al. “a microstrip patch antenna and slot antenna with little deterioration in performance even when using the antenna for high frequency transmission/reception” - ¶ [0012]) to the first radiation patch or to transmit a space radiation signal received by the first radiation patch; and
Bily et al. discloses:
the antenna apparatus further comprises a signal transceiving apparatus (Bily et al. transceiver 124, Fig. 13), coupled to the antenna or the antenna array (Bily et al. antenna group 122, Fig. 13), and configured to transmit a probe signal wave using the antenna or the antenna array, to receive an echo signal wave using the antenna or the antenna array, and to mix and sample the echo signal wave using the probe signal wave to output a baseband digital signal (Bily et al. “Then, the duplexer 134 couples receive versions of reference waves respectively generated by the one or more antennas of the antenna subassembly 122 to the LNA 136…Then, the mixer 138 down-converts the amplified received signals from a frequency, e.g., at or near f0, to a baseband frequency.” – Col. 17, lines 53-59); wherein the echo signal wave is formed by a reflection of the probing signal wave by an object (Bily et al. “And the circuitry can process the summed signal received from the RF channel 14 to detect an object (not shown in FIGS. 1-5) in the path of the main receive beam, e.g., an object that redirects a portion of the signal that the antenna section 10 previously transmitted along a main transmit beam that intersected the object.” – Col. 10, lines 41-47).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Bily et al. into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 15 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems for vehicles. Hayakawa et al. discloses the features of claim 15 as outlined above. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose the antenna apparatus further comprises a signal transceiving apparatus, coupled to the antenna or the antenna array, and configured to transmit a probe signal wave using the antenna or the antenna array, to receive an echo signal wave using the antenna or the antenna array, and to mix and sample the echo signal wave using the probe signal wave to output a baseband digital signal; wherein the echo signal wave is formed by a reflection of the probing signal wave by an object. This feature is disclosed by Bily et al. where the radar subsystem 120 comprises a transceiver 124, a duplexer 134 and mixer 138 that receives the transmitted signal and the reflected signal and converts the signals into a baseband frequency to detect objects (Bily et al. Col. 17, lines 53-59; Col. 10, lines 41-47). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide information regarding one or more objects in the path of a vehicle to a vehicle control system (Bily et al. Col. 18, lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 17, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
A vehicle, comprising: a vehicle shell, a radar sensor of claim 15,
wherein
the radar sensor is fixed on the vehicle shell and comprises an antenna array (Hayakawa et al. microstrip antenna array AA, Figs. 6A-6B); the antenna array is configured to send out a probing signal wave and receive an echo signal wave (Hayakawa et al. “On-board radar transmits waves in the front direction from a vehicle and receive waves reflected at a target object (physical markers) positioned in the front direction from the vehicle so as to estimate the distance and angle between the vehicle and physical markers. In such radar, a microstrip patch antenna or slot antenna is used for transmission/reception of waves.” - ¶ [0005]);
the radar sensor is configured to measure measurement information of the vehicle and an obstacle within a preset radiation angle range (Hayakawa et al. field of view of the antenna 20, Fig. 7) in a surrounding environment according to the probing signal wave and the echo signal wave, and
Bily et al. discloses:
a control system (Bily et al. system controller 154, Fig. 14) of the vehicle;
the control system of the vehicle is connected with the radar sensor and is configured to provide warning information and/or control a drive system of the vehicle to perform a safety emergency operation according to the measurement information (Bily et al. “Or if the system controller 154 or master controller 128 were to determine that evasive action is needed to avoid an object… in front of the vehicle system 150, then the system controller 154 could control the propulsion unit 156 to reduce engine speed and, for a self-driving vehicle, to apply a brake, and could control the steering unit 158 to maneuver the vehicle system away from or around the object.” – Col. 19, lines 6-14).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Bily et al. into the invention of Hayakawa et al. to yield the invention of claim 17 above. Both Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems for vehicles. Hayakawa et al. discloses the features of claim 15 as outlined above. However, Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly disclose a control system of the vehicle; the control system of the vehicle is connected with the radar sensor and is configured to provide warning information and/or control a drive system of the vehicle to perform a safety emergency operation according to the measurement information. This feature is disclosed by Bily et al. where the system controller is provided to “control the propulsion unit 156 to reduce engine speed and, for a self-driving vehicle, to apply a brake, and could control the steering unit 158 to maneuver the vehicle system away from or around the object.” (Bily et al. Col. 19, lines 6-14). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide information regarding one or more objects in the path of a vehicle to a vehicle control system to cause the vehicle to evade an object (Bily et al. Col. 18, lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 19, Hayakawa et al. discloses:
The vehicle of claim 17, wherein an offset feed distance (Hayakawa et al. offset S, Fig. 4B) between the feeding portion and a center position (Hayakawa et al. centerline CL, Fig. 4B) of the first radiation patch is greater than a quarter of the length of the long side edge (Hayakawa et al. “it is sufficient to make the offset value S of the centerline AL of the feeder circuit 5 with respect to the patch antenna part 10 a range of 0.2 to 0.7 to the left or right of the centerline AL of the patch antenna part 10 and that the optimum value is around 0.5.” - ¶ [0061]).
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US 2012/0122976 A1, cited in IDS filed 3/25/2024) in view of Bily et al. (US 11,101,572 B2) and further in view of Cheng (US 11,539,139 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The radar sensor of claim 15
Cheng discloses:
the first radiation patch comprises a first radiation region (Cheng main patch 102, Fig. 2A) and a second radiation region (Cheng impedance stabilizing elements 106A, 106B, Fig. 2A);
the feeding portion is configured to feed to the radiation structure from a feeding position of the first radiation patch (Cheng transmission feedline 104 feeds the main patch 102 and impedance stabilizing elements 106A, 106B, Fig. 2A; “Because the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B are made of metal, they may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving energy. Particularly where the distance D is small, the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B may to some degree transmit and/or receive the energy being transmitted and/or received by the main patch 102.” Col. 6, lines 27-33);
the first radiation region and the second radiation region are determined according to a difference of current distribution in the radiation structure due to the feeding of the feeding position (Cheng “The distance D may be selected so as to allow for optimal coupling of the energy from the main radiator 102 to the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B at the operating frequency of the antenna 100 to thereby enable the input impedance of the antenna 100 to be stabilized over a wider frequency band.” – Col. 6, lines 34-39); and
under excitation of the feeding portion, the first radiation region and the second radiation region generate probing signal waves in a preset radiation angle range (Cheng “Because the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B are made of metal, they may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving energy. Particularly where the distance D is small, the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B may to some degree transmit and/or receive the energy being transmitted and/or received by the main patch 102.” Col. 6, lines 27-33; field of view of the antenna).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. to yield the invention of claim 16 above. Hayakawa et al., Bily et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. disclose radar sensor of claim 15. However, Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. fail to explicitly disclose the first radiation patch comprises a first radiation region and a second radiation region; the feeding portion is configured to feed to the radiation structure from a feeding position of the first radiation patch; the first radiation region and the second radiation region are determined according to a difference of current distribution in the radiation structure due to the feeding of the feeding position; and under excitation of the feeding portion, the first radiation region and the second radiation region generate probing signal waves in a preset radiation angle range. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where “Because the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B are made of metal, they may be capable of transmitting and/or receiving energy. Particularly where the distance D is small, the impedance stabilizing elements 106A and 106B may to some degree transmit and/or receive the energy being transmitted and/or received by the main patch 102.” (Cheng Col. 6, lines 27-33). The combination of Hayakawa et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 18, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The vehicle of claim 17
Cheng discloses:
the feeding portion comprises a first feeding portion (Cheng transmission line 304A, Fig. 4A) and a second feeding portion (Cheng transmission line 304B, Fig. 4A); wherein:
the first feeding portion is located at a side of a symmetrical center of the long side
edge of the first radiation patch (Cheng transmission line 304A is disposed above the horizontal symmetrical center of the main patch 302, Fig. 4A), and the second feeding portion is located at another side of the long side edge of the first radiation patch (Cheng transmission line 304B is disposed below the horizontal symmetrical center of the main patch 302, Fig. 4A), to allow the first radiation patch to be capable of generating radiation of high-order mode under excitation of the first feeding portion or the second feeding portion (Examiner notes that generating high-order mode is a function of the recited structure); and
the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to transmit a radio frequency transmit signal to the first radiation patch (Cheng “two transmission lines 304A and 304B on the same side of the main patch 302 that feed the signal to the main patch 302” – Col. 8, lines 36-38); or the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to output a radio frequency receiving signal received by the first radiation patch.
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. to yield the invention of claim 18 above. Hayakawa et al., Bily et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. disclose the vehicle of claim 17. However, Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. fail to explicitly disclose the feeding portion comprises a first feeding portion and a second feeding portion; wherein: the first feeding portion is located at a side of a symmetrical center of the long side edge of the first radiation patch, and the second feeding portion is located at another side of the long side edge of the first radiation patch, to allow the first radiation patch to be capable of generating radiation of high-order mode under excitation of the first feeding portion or the second feeding portion; and the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to transmit a radio frequency transmit signal to the first radiation patch; or the first feeding portion and/or the second feeding portion are configured to output a radio frequency receiving signal received by the first radiation patch. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where transmission line 304A is disposed above the horizontal symmetrical center of the main patch 302 (Cheng Fig.4A). The combination of Hayakawa et al., Bily et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 20, Hayakawa et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hayakawa et al. has been struck-through]
The vehicle of claim 17,
Cheng discloses:
a plurality of metal via holes (Cheng row of via 320, Fig. 4B), disposed in the first radiation patch relative to a side at which the feeding portion is disposed (Cheng the row of via extend in a direction opposite to the transmission lines 304A, 304B, via are disposed in the main patch 302’, Fig. 4B), the metal via holes being electrically connected to the first radiation patch and the ground layer (Cheng “The transmission lines may include two metals: one metal used as ground and one for the signal. The ground may be a piece of metal layer, for example a microstrip line, may be a plurality of layers of metal electrically connected by vias...” – Col. 9, lines 63-67).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Cheng into the invention of Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. to yield the invention of claim 20 above. Hayakawa et al., Bily et al. and Cheng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose arrays of micropatch antennas for radar systems. Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. discloses the vehicle of claim 17. However, Hayakawa et al. and Bily et al. fail to explicitly disclose a plurality of metal via holes, disposed in the first radiation patch relative to a side at which the feeding portion is disposed, the metal via holes being electrically connected to the first radiation patch and the ground layer. This feature is disclosed by Cheng where “The transmission lines may include two metals: one metal used as ground and one for the signal. The ground may be a piece of metal layer, for example a microstrip line, may be a plurality of layers of metal electrically connected by vias...” (Cheng Col. 9, lines 63-67). The combination of Hayakawa et al., Bily et al. and Cheng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to stabilize the impedance of the antenna over a wider frequency range alter the operational size of the antenna and allow for various parameters of the antenna to be readily controlled (Cheng Col. 4, lines 27-32; Col. 8, lines 55-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Regarding claim 10: the closest prior art Hayakawa et al. fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, the microstrip antenna, wherein in a millimeter wave band, lengths of long side edges of the first radiation patch and the second radiation patch are both 2.4mm, and an angle θ corresponding to a maximum gain E(θ) of the microstrip antenna is in (-53°±Δ), wherein Δ is an angle error.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571)270-5144. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
4/3/2025
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
