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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 20, 2025 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1, 30, 32, and 34, and canceled claims 2-5. Claims 1, 8-10, 23-24, 27-30 and 32-34 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome each and every objection and the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 20, 2025. The response to arguments regarding the 112(a) rejections and the remaining objections and the 112(a) rejections are stated below.
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 30, the applicant argues “Paragraph [0024] of Besoli states: In one implementation, for a wireless transmitter transmitting signals at 10 GHz (i.e., λ=30 mm), each antenna needs an area of at least a quarter wavelength (i.e., λ/4=7.5 mm) by a quarter wavelength (i.e., λ /4=7.5 mm) to receive the transmitted signals. As illustrated in FIG. 1B, antennas 12-18 in front surface 104 may each have a square shape having dimensions of 7.5 mm by 7.5 mm, for example. In one implementation, each adjacent pair of antennas 12-18 may be separated by a distance of a multiple integer of the quarter wavelength (i.e., n*λ/4), such as 7.5 mm, 15 mm, 22.5 mm and etc. In general, the performance of the phased array antenna panel improves with the number of antennas 12-18 on front surface 104. As such Besoli appears to describe antenna spacing at 0.25 times (7.5 mm), 0.5 times (15 mm), and 0.75 times (22.5 mm). Accordingly, the maximum antenna spacing disclosed by Besoli is 0.75 times a wavelength of a signal. Besoli does not teach or suggest antenna spacing greater than 0.75 times a nominal wavelength as recited in amended independent Claim 1. Besoli also does not teach or suggest antenna spacing at or between 0.8 to 1 times a nominal wavelength as recited in amended independent Claim 30.”
This argument is unpersuasive, Besoli teaches an antenna spacing of a integer multiple of the quarter wavelength, n*λ/4, which is not limited to 0≤n≤3. Therefore, Besoli teaches a spacing of λ in which n>3 the limitation “the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance greater than 0.75 times of the nominal wavelength” of claim 1 and teaches a spacing of λ in which n=4 which teaches the limitation “and the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance at or between 0.8 to 1 times the nominal wavelength”.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1, 30, and 34, the applicant argues “In particular, Claims 1 and 30 have been amended to recite "focus a plurality of first signals generated simultaneously by the plurality of antenna feed elements to combine to form a single, steered beam." (Emphasis showing amendment.) This claim language is supported by the specification and drawings throughout, including at least paragraph [0057] of the application.”
This argument is unpersuasive, paragraph [0057] does not describe simultaneous generation of signals and does not provide support for simultaneous beam excitation to combine to form a single, steered beam.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “0.75 times of the nominal wavelength” is improper and should read “0.75 times the nominal wavelength”
In claim 33, “a single frequency band” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the single frequency band”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, 23-24, 27-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 30 recite the limitations “focus a plurality of first signals generated simultaneously by the plurality of antenna feed elements to combine to form a single, steered beam” and “and a controller or processor configured to control the plurality of antenna feed elements to generate the plurality of first signals simultaneously”. However, the disclosure does not support these limitations and only describes simultaneous beam excitation for multiple beams (see for examples paragraphs [00109]).
Claim 34 recites the limitation “wherein, while the single, steered beam is formed based on a simultaneous generation of the plurality of first signals by the plurality of antenna feed elements, no other beams other than the single, steered beam are formed by a combination of the plurality of antenna feed elements and the reflector or lens”. However, the disclosure does not support this limitation and only describes simultaneous beam excitation for multiple beams (see for examples paragraphs [00109]).
Claims 8-10, 23-24, and 27-29 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 32-33 inherit the deficiencies of claim 30.
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, 8, 23-24, 27-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0274525 A1), hereinafter known as Lam, in view of Besoli et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0115083 A1), hereinafter known as Besoli.
Regarding claim 1, Lam teaches (Fig. 8-10) An apparatus (Fig. 8) comprising: a plurality of antenna feed elements (400, 500, 800, 1112) arranged in an array; a reflector or lens (302, 900) configured to: focus a plurality of first signals (1001) generated simultaneously by the plurality of antenna feed elements to combine to form a single, steered beam ([0075], [0106], [0119]), and focus a second signal not generated by the plurality of antenna feed elements onto the plurality of antenna feed elements ([0051], [0087], [0096]); and a controller or processor (1102) configured to control the plurality of antenna feed elements (400, 500, 800, 1112) to generate the plurality of first signals simultaneously or receive the second signal ([0108]), wherein: the plurality of first signals and the second signal have a nominal wavelength ([0186])
but does not specifically teach the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance greater than 0.75 times of the nominal wavelength.
However, Besoli teaches the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance greater than 0.75 times of the nominal wavelength ([0024]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Lam with Besoli to include “the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance greater than 0.75 times of the nominal wavelength,” as taught by Besoli, for the purpose of improving signal reception (see also [0024]). Such modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Lam further discloses (Fig. 8) wherein the reflector or lens comprises a gradient index (GRIN) lens ([0096]).
Regarding claim 23, Lam further teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the reflector or lens (302) comprises a plurality of lenses (302, 306).
Regarding claim 24, Lam further teaches (Fig. 2-3) wherein the plurality of lenses (302, 306) are positioned in series such that the plurality of first signals or the second signal (Fig. 3) passes through each of the plurality of lenses (302, 306).
Regarding claim 27, Lam further teaches (Fig. 2-3) wherein the reflector or lenses (302, 306) comprises at least one lens, and wherein the plurality of first signals (Fig. 3) passes through the at least one lens (302, 306) after being output by the plurality of antenna feed elements (304).
Regarding claim 28, Lam further teaches (Fig. 2-3) wherein the second signal (210) passes through the reflector or lens (302, 306) prior to being received at the plurality of antenna feed elements ([0051], [0074]).
Regarding claim 29, Lam further teaches wherein the plurality of antenna feed elements are operable in a single frequency band ([0186]).
Regarding claim 30, Lam teaches (Fig. 8-10) An apparatus (Fig. 8) comprising: a plurality of antenna feed elements (400, 500, 800, 1112) arranged in an array; a reflector or lens (302, 900) configured to: focus a plurality of first signals (1001) generated simultaneously by the plurality of antenna feed elements to combine to form a single, steered beam ([0075], [0106], [0119]), or focus a second signal not generated by the plurality of antenna feed elements onto the plurality of antenna feed elements ([0051], [0087], [0096]); and a controller or processor (1102) configured to control the plurality of antenna feed elements (400, 500, 800, 1112) to simultaneously generate the plurality of first signals or receive the second signal ([0108]), wherein: the plurality of first signals and the second signal have a nominal wavelength ([0186]), the nominal wavelength being within a single frequency band ([0075], [0186])
but does not specifically teach the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance at or between 0.8 to 1 times the nominal wavelength.
However, Besoli teaches the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance at or between 0.8 to 1 times the nominal wavelength ([0024]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Lam with Besoli to include “the plurality of antenna feed elements are spaced from one another in the array at a distance at or between 0.8 to 1 times the nominal wavelength,” as taught by Besoli, for the purpose of improving signal reception (see also [0024]). Such modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 32, Lam further teaches (Fig. 8-10) wherein the single, steered beam ([0075], [0106], [0119]) formed by focusing the plurality of first signals (1001) is at the nominal wavelength ([0186]).
Regarding claim 33, Lam further teaches (Fig. 8-10) wherein the plurality of antenna feed elements (400, 500, 800, 1112) are operable in a single frequency band ([0186]).
Regarding claim 34, Lam further teaches wherein, while the single, steered beam is formed based on a simultaneous generation of the plurality of first signals by the plurality of antenna feed elements ([0075], [0106], [0119]), no other beams other than the single, steered beam are formed by a combination of the plurality of antenna feed elements and the reflector or lens ([0075]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam in view of Besoli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Driscoll et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0141464 A1), hereinafter known as Driscoll.
Regarding claim 9, Lam does not specifically teach wherein the reflector or lens comprises a plurality of gradient index (GRIN) lenses.
However, Driscoll teaches (Fig. 6) wherein the reflector or lens (610, 620) comprises a plurality of gradient index (GRIN) lenses (Abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Lam with Driscoll to include “wherein the reflector or lens comprises a plurality of gradient index (GRIN) lenses,” as taught by Driscoll, for the purpose of improving efficiency and energy transmitted (see also [0114]).
Regarding claim 10, Lam does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of GRIN lenses are positioned in series such that the plurality of first signals or the second signal passes through each of the plurality of GRIN lenses.
However, Driscoll teaches (Fig. 6) wherein the plurality of GRIN lenses (610, 620) are positioned in series such that the plurality of first signals or the second signal passes through each of the plurality of GRIN lenses ([0114]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Lam with Driscoll to include “wherein the plurality of GRIN lenses are positioned in series such that the plurality of first signals or the second signal passes through each of the plurality of GRIN lenses,” as taught by Driscoll, for the purpose of improving efficiency and energy transmitted (see also [0114]).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845