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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hayes does not teach the limitation of the signal path length being measured from predefined reference locations, while the signal path length between the signal distribution network and the second one of the interfaces is measured from a different location. The applicant further provides support in the specification for their argument and the limitation of claim 1. However, the examiner would point to MPEP 2145 (VI), “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 199).
The examiner points to this, because the limitations of the claim, as written, do not provide any structure to facilitate performing the function of making measurements, and therefore must be read as any device in which measurements could be taken upon. Without a negative limitation within Hayes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find the device of Hayes unable to be measured in such a manner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (JPS61154203A), herein referred to as Yasuo and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 8159394 B2), herein referred to as Hayes.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuo teaches an antenna (fig. 2) comprising: a signal distribution network (11) configured to distribute, through the antenna, an electrical signal having an antenna operating frequency, f, a plurality of radiating elements (a1-an), wherein each one of the radiating elements is electrically coupled to the signal distribution network via a corresponding, respective electrical coupling (l1-ln), each one of the electrical couplings comprising a corresponding, respective interface (see fig. 2), a signal path length, between a first one of the interfaces and a corresponding, respective first one of the radiating elements, of a first one of the electrical couplings differing from a signal path length, between a second one of the interfaces and a corresponding, respective second one of the radiating elements, of a second one of the electrical couplings by at least 0.05 times a wavelength, X, corresponding to the antenna operating frequency, f (see equation 1).
Yasuo does not teach the signal path length between the first one of the interfaces and the corresponding first one of the radiating elements of the first one of the electrical couplings differing from the signal path length between the second one of the interfaces and the corresponding, respective second one of the radiating elements, of the second one of the electrical couplings by a same amount as a difference between a signal path length between the signal distribution network and the first one of the interfaces of the first one of the electrical couplings and a signal path length between the signal distribution network and the second one of the interfaces of the second one of the electrical couplings, the signal path length between the signal distribution network and the first one of the interfaces or the second one of the interfaces being measured from a predefined reference location, the predefined reference location one of: preceding the signal distribution network and arranged between the signal distribution network and the interfaces; in front of the signal distribution network; or in front of a first splitter of the signal distribution network.
However, Hayes teaches an antenna system (fig. 12) wherein the signal path length between the signal distribution network (63) and the radiating elements (59) stays the same (column 11, lines 38-42), while the individual lengths between the signal distribution network (63) and the interfaces (delay switching network 62, switch network 61) change. This is equivalent to the signal path length between the first one of the interfaces and the corresponding first one of the radiating elements of the first one of the electrical couplings differing from the signal path length between the second one of the interfaces and the corresponding, respective second one of the radiating elements, of the second one of the electrical couplings by a same amount as a difference between a signal path length between the signal distribution network and the first one of the interfaces of the first one of the electrical couplings and a signal path length between the signal distribution network and the second one of the interfaces of the second one of the electrical couplings. Furthermore, the signal path length between the signal distribution network (63) and the first one of the interfaces (62) or the second one of the interfaces (61) being measured from a predefined reference location, the predefined reference location one of: arranged between the signal distribution network and the interfaces (62, 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo, the signal path length between the first one of the interfaces and the corresponding first one of the radiating elements of the first one of the electrical couplings differing from the signal path length between the second one of the interfaces and the corresponding, respective second one of the radiating elements, of the second one of the electrical couplings by a same amount as a difference between a signal path length between the signal distribution network and the first one of the interfaces of the first one of the electrical couplings and a signal path length between the signal distribution network and the second one of the interfaces of the second one of the electrical couplings, the signal path length between the signal distribution network and the first one of the interfaces or the second one of the interfaces being measured from a predefined reference location, the predefined reference location one of: arranged between the signal distribution network and the interfaces (column 11, lines 29-54).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo also teaches wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling differs from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling by less than 1.25 X (as discussed in claim 1, Eq. 1, shows the difference is always less than 1 wavelength.
Regarding claim 5, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo also teaches wherein the antenna comprises at least three radiating elements (see fig. 2), and wherein the signal path length, between the interface and the corresponding, respective radiating element, of the electrical coupling increases from any one of the electrical couplings to a corresponding, respective consecutive neighboring coupling by an amount which is between 0.05 X and 1.25 X (refer to equation 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo also teaches wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling being different from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling is based on the first radiating element being rotated with respect to an orientation of the second radiating element (page 3 of attached translation, line 1 – page 4, line 20).
Regarding claim 9, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo also teaches wherein the antenna comprises at least four radiating elements, however, while Yasuo does not strictly teach, preferably at least eight radiating elements, it does not have an upper limit on the number of elements, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find there to be a sufficient difference in the design and manufacture of an antenna with 4 or 8 elements as shown in Yasuo.
Regarding claim 11, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo also teaches wherein the interface comprises an interface of an electrical component, in particular of a power splitter and/or a filter and/or a phase delay element (power distribution element 11).
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo and Hayes and further in view of Zimmerman et al. (WO 2020060819 A1), herein referred to as Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not specifically teach wherein the antenna operating frequency, f, is between 698 MHz and 80 GHz, in particular between 698 MHz and 960 MHz, and/or between 1695 MHz and 2690 MHz, and/or between 617 MHz and 746 MHz, and/or between 1695 MHz and 2200 MHz, and/or between 3300 MHz and 3800 MHz, and/or between 5150 MHz and 5925 MHz, and/or between 600 MHz and 6000 MHz, and/or between 24 GHz and 80 GHz.
However, Zimmerman teaches in paragraph 0075, the antenna operating in 3.3-4.2 GHz or 5.1-5.4 GHz, which are specifically between 600 MHz and 6000 MHz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the antenna operating frequency, f, is between 698 MHz and 80 GHz, in particular between 600 and 6000 MHz, as taught by Zimmerman, to operate within the selected frequency band.
Regarding claim 8, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling being different from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling is based on a phase-shifting element or unit, in particular a 90 degree hybrid coupler, being provided in or coupled to one or both of: the first electrical coupling at a first location between the first interface and the first radiating element, and the second electrical coupling at a second location between the second interface and the second radiating element.
However, Zimmerman teaches a dual coupler/splitter setup with each at a 45 degree shift to each sub-array, therefore providing a 90 degree shift (para. 0070, figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling being different from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling is based on a phase-shifting element or unit, in particular a 90 degree hybrid coupler, being provided in or coupled to one or both of: the first electrical coupling at a first location between the first interface and the first radiating element, and the second electrical coupling at a second location between the second interface and the second radiating element, as suggested by the teachings of Zimmerman, to adjust the tilt of the antenna beams as needed (para. 0070).
Regarding claim 10, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the antenna is a multiple-input multiple-output, MIMO, antenna.
However, Zimmerman teaches in figure 9, the antenna containing multiple RF ports (116-1, -2, -3, -4), and where they can be operated (para. 0055) to generate multiple beams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the antenna is a multiple-input multiple-output, MIMO, antenna, as shown in the teachings of Zimmerman, to operate multiple data streams at once (para. 0055).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the antenna further comprises a variable phase shifter, coupled or connected (i) between the first interface and the first radiating element to the first electrical coupling and/or (ii) between the second interface and the second radiating element to the second electrical coupling, for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on (i) the first electrical coupling between the first interface and the first radiating element and/or (ii) the second electrical coupling between the second interface and the second radiating element.
However, Zimmerman teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a variable phase shifter (para. 0070), coupled or connected (i) between the first interface and the first radiating element to the first electrical coupling (fig. 9) and/or (ii) between the second interface and the second radiating element to the second electrical coupling, for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on (i) the first electrical coupling between the first interface and the first radiating element and/or (ii) the second electrical coupling between the second interface and the second radiating element (para. 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the antenna further comprises a variable phase shifter, coupled or connected (i) between the first interface and the first radiating element to the first electrical coupling and/or (ii) between the second interface and the second radiating element to the second electrical coupling, for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on (i) the first electrical coupling between the first interface and the first radiating element and/or (ii) the second electrical coupling between the second interface and the second radiating element, as taught by Zimmerman, to adjust the tilt of the antenna beams (para. 0070).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the antenna further comprises a first variable phase shifter for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on the first electrical coupling between the first interface and the first radiating element.
However, Zimmerman teaches wherein the antenna further comprises a first variable phase shifter (156-1) for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on the first electrical coupling between the first interface and the first radiating element (para. 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the antenna further comprises a first variable phase shifter for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on the first electrical coupling between the first interface and the first radiating element, as taught by Zimmerman, to adjust the tilt of the antenna beam (para. 0070).
Regarding claim 14, Yasuo, Hayes, and Zimmerman render obvious all limitations of base claim 13.
Yasuo does not teach further comprising a second variable phase shifter, coupled to or comprised in the second electric coupling, for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on the second electrical coupling between the second interface and the second radiating element.
However, Zimmerman teaches a second variable phase shifter (156-2), coupled to or comprised in the second electric coupling, for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on the second electrical coupling between the second interface and the second radiating element (para. 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Yasuo further comprising a second variable phase shifter, coupled to or comprised in the second electric coupling, for shifting the electrical signal transmitted on the second electrical coupling between the second interface and the second radiating element, as taught by Zimmerman, to adjust the tilt of the antenna beam (para. 0070).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuo, Hayes, and Zimmerman render obvious all limitations of base claim 12.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the variable phase shifter is configured to vary a mechanical length of the electrical coupling for shifting a said electrical signal.
However, Zimmerman teaches a variable phase shifter configured to vary a mechanical length of the electrical coupling for shifting the electrical signal (para. 0070, wiper arc phase shifters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Yasuo, wherein the variable phase shifter is configured to vary a mechanical length of the electrical coupling for shifting a said electrical signal, as taught by Zimmerman, to control phase by varying the signal length.
Regarding claim 16, Yasuo, Hayes, and Zimmerman render obvious all limitations of base claim 12.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the variable phase shifter comprises a movable dielectric.
However, Zimmerman teaches a variable phase shifter comprising a moveable dielectric (sliding dielectric phase shifters, para. 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Yasuo wherein the variable phase shifter comprises a movable dielectric, as taught by Zimmerman, to control the phase by varying the dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 17, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not teach wherein one or more of the radiating elements each comprises a group of radiators, and wherein the signal path length between the interface and the corresponding, respective radiating element comprises a signal path length between the interface and a feed point of each of the radiators of the corresponding, respective group of radiators.
However, Zimmerman teaches (see fig. 9) wherein one or more of the radiating elements (sub arrays 122) each comprises a group of radiators (130), and wherein the signal path length between the interface and the corresponding, respective radiating element comprises a signal path length between the interface and a feed point of each of the radiators of the corresponding, respective group of radiators (from the splitter/phase shifter, into the feed points at each sub array, as seen in fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein one or more of the radiating elements each comprises a group of radiators, and wherein the signal path length between the interface and the corresponding, respective radiating element comprises a signal path length between the interface and a feed point of each of the radiators of the corresponding, respective group of radiators, as taught by Zimmerman, as needed for beamwidth adjustment (para. 0057).
Regarding claim 18, Yasuo, Hayes, and Zimmerman render obvious all limitations of base claim 17.
Yasuo does not teach wherein, when the signal path lengths between (i) the interface and (ii) at least two radiators, respectively, of the corresponding group of radiators differ from each other, the signal path length between the interface and the group of radiators is based on a mean value of the signal path lengths between the interface and the radiators of the corresponding, respective group of radiators.
However, Zimmerman teaches wherein, when the signal path lengths between (i) the interface and (ii) at least two radiators, respectively, of the corresponding group of radiators differ from each other, the signal path length between the interface and the group of radiators is based on a mean value of the signal path lengths between the interface and the radiators of the corresponding, respective group of radiators (see fig. 9. Each path from splitter/phase shifter 156 is connected to the middle of each sub-array 122. As the mean is just the average length of the signal path between the interface and each radiator within the sub-arrays, providing the feed in the middle would provide the feed at the mean of the length between the interface and the radiators of the group of radiators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Yasuo wherein, when the signal path lengths between (i) the interface and (ii) at least two radiators, respectively, of the corresponding group of radiators differ from each other, the signal path length between the interface and the group of radiators is based on a mean value of the signal path lengths between the interface and the radiators of the corresponding, respective group of radiators, as taught by Zimmerman, to simplify the feeding structure.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo and Hayes and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 109950704 A), herein referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 4, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Yasuo does not teach wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling differs from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling by 0.25 X.
However, Yang teaches wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling differs from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling by 0.25 X (see figure 4, difference in degrees of approximately 90, and therefore approximately 0.25X).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references, and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the signal path length, between the first interface and the first radiating element, of the first electrical coupling differs from the signal path length, between the second interface and the second radiating element, of the second electrical coupling by 0.25 X, as taught by Yang, to optimize phase shift (page 12 of attached translation, lines 10-18).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuo and Hayes render obvious all limitations of base claim 5.
Yasuo does not specifically teach wherein the amount is a fixed amount between 0.05 X and 1.25 X, and is preferably 0.1 X or 0.2 X or 0.3 X or 0.4 X, more preferably 0.25 X.
However, Yang teaches wherein the amount is a fixed amount between .05X and 1.25X, specifically 0.25X (see fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Yasuo wherein the amount is a fixed amount between .05X and 1.25X, specifically 0.25X, as taught by Yang, to optimize phase shift (page 12 of attached translation, lines 10-18).
Conclusion
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 BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845