DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 11/17/2025 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10, 14, 17, 19-20, 23; and traversed the rejections of the claims of the 06/18/2025 Office Action are acknowledged.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2013/0321206 which was cited in previous Office Action) in view of Hasan Abadi et al (US 2021/0160110 which was cited in previous Office Action).
Note: In the previous Office Action, Examiner mistakenly cited prior art reference of Hyde et al – US 2015/0109181 instead of Hasan Abadi et al (which was the corrected reference) in the rejection heading above. However, as can be seen in the previous Office Action, the claimed limitations were rejected by the combining references of Chang and Hasan Abadi et al, not Hyde et al. In this Office Action, Examiner maintains the same rejection(s) of what was taught by Chang and Hasan Abadi et al for the same claimed limitations as rejected in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claims 1, 19, as best understood, Chang discloses in an antenna comprising:
a plurality of RF radiating antenna elements ([0050]);
a controller determines a desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements to achieve a desired far field radiation pattern using optimization (i.e. reads on optimization algorithm) ([0049]-[0050]; [0060]; [0077]; [0116]-[0117]; [0133]-[0134]); and
drive circuitry coupled to the controller to control the RF radiating antenna elements based on the desired phase and amplitude using one or more control parameters to perform beam forming (Abstract; [0046]; [0050]).
Chang does not explicitly disclose a metasurface having a plurality of RF radiating antenna elements; a controller coupled to the metasurface and having modulation logic; and drive circuitry coupled to the metasurface and the controller as claimed. However, such metasurface antenna and control system are well known in the art as being taught in Hasan Abadi et al ([0003]-[0004]; [0055]; [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang in view of Hasan Abadi et al by incorporating such well-known metasurface antenna and control system as taught by Hasan Abadi et al to gain advantage of achieving comparable performance to phased array antennas from an inexpensive and easy-to-manufacture hardware platform (Hasan Abadi et al – [0004]-[0005]; [0162]-[0175]); and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
In addition, although Chang discloses using an optimization to determine a desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements to achieve a desired far field radiation pattern; however, Chang in view of Hasan Abadi et al do not explicitly disclose the optimization is a convex optimization as claimed. However, it appears that convex optimization is well known in the art for beam forming and/or achieving desired antenna beam patterns (i.e. support for such well known convex optimization can be found in Applicant’s IDS references – US 2022/0006511, paragraph [0072]; US 2019/0103665, paragraph [0272]; CN 112564755, Abstract). Further, such claimed convex optimization is merely process of utilizing mathematical formulation / algorithm to achieved optimized results; thus, it is also well known in the art of experimentation that one derives his or her own formulation to operate a system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the well-known convex optimization in the antenna system and method of Chang in view of Hasan Abadi et al to properly optimizing beam forming and/or achieving desired antenna beam patterns, since it is well known in the art to derive a mathematical algorithm, formula, and/or equation to operate a system.
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Chang discloses the desired far field radiation pattern includes one or more nulls at one or more specific directions, respectively, in the desired far field radiation patterns (Abstract; [0058]).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Chang discloses at least one of the one or more nulls is to reduce effects of interference caused by signals from one or more satellites that are not in communication with the antenna (Abstract; [0008]; [0049]; [0051]; [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 22, the desired far field radiation pattern is for beam forming with linear or circular polarization ([0071]; [0079]; [0082]; [0149]-[0150]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Chang does not explicitly disclose the one or more control parameters comprise a voltage to be applied to each of the antenna elements as claimed. Hasan Abadi et al teach in the same field of the one or more control parameters comprise a voltage to be applied to each of the antenna elements ([0083]; [0088]; [0148]-[0149]; [0155]; [0171]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang in view of Hasan Abadi et al by incorporating the one or more control parameters comprise a voltage to be applied to each of the antenna elements as taught by Hasan Abadi et al to gain advantage of improving reliability in beam forming and controlling in an antenna system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 17-18, Chang does not explicitly disclose selecting an achievable modulation state based on a Euclidean distance from a desired modulation state, wherein selecting the achievable modulation state includes mapping the achievable modulation state to voltages applied to the antenna elements, wherein the achievable modulation state corresponds to voltages applied to the antenna elements of the antenna to induce magnetic dipole moments; and mapping modulation values associated with the achievable modulation state to the one or more control parameters; wherein mapping a desired modulation to achievable modulation states is based on Euclidian distance as claimed. Hasan Abadi et al teach in the same field of selecting an achievable modulation state based on a Euclidean distance from a desired modulation state, wherein selecting the achievable modulation state includes mapping the achievable modulation state to voltages applied to the antenna elements, wherein the achievable modulation state corresponds to voltages applied to the antenna elements of the antenna to induce magnetic dipole moments; and mapping modulation values associated with the achievable modulation state to the one or more control parameters; wherein mapping a desired modulation to achievable modulation states is based on Euclidian distance (Fig 9A-10D; Abstract; [0055]; [0073]; [0080]-[0099]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang in view of Hasan Abadi et al by incorporating selecting an achievable modulation state based on a Euclidean distance from a desired modulation state, wherein selecting the achievable modulation state includes mapping the achievable modulation state to voltages applied to the antenna elements, wherein the achievable modulation state corresponds to voltages applied to the antenna elements of the antenna to induce magnetic dipole moments; and mapping modulation values associated with the achievable modulation state to the one or more control parameters; wherein mapping a desired modulation to achievable modulation states is based on Euclidian distance as taught by Hasan Abadi et al to gain advantage of improving reliability in beam forming and controlling in an antenna system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 5-6, 14-15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang modified by Hasan Abadi et al as applied to claims 1, 11, and 19 above, and further in view of Li et al (CN 106886656 which was cited in previous Office Action with a machine translation in English).
Regarding claims 5-6, 14-15, and 23, Chang modified by Hasan Abadi et al do not explicitly disclose determining the desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements comprises solving the convex optimization problem using cross polarization and co-polarization matrices; wherein determining the desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements comprises: defining theta and phi directions corresponding to an input wave; creating matrices for the co-polarization and cross polarization components for a desired polarization; and minimizing a target with respect to the cross polarization matrix subject to a constraint involving the co-polarization matrix as claimed. Li et al teach in the same field of endeavor determining the desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements comprises solving the convex optimization problem using cross polarization and co-polarization matrices; wherein determining the desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements comprises: defining theta and phi directions corresponding to an input wave; creating matrices for the co-polarization and cross polarization components for a desired polarization; and minimizing a target with respect to the cross polarization matrix subject to a constraint involving the co-polarization matrix (Abstract; page 7, third paragraph – page 11, paragraph before “FIG 8.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang modified by Hasan Abadi et al in view of Li et al by incorporating determining the desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements comprises solving the convex optimization problem using cross polarization and co-polarization matrices; wherein determining the desired phase and amplitude for each of the antenna elements comprises: defining theta and phi directions corresponding to an input wave; creating matrices for the co-polarization and cross polarization components for a desired polarization; and minimizing a target with respect to the cross polarization matrix subject to a constraint involving the co-polarization matrix as taught by Li et al to gain advantage of improving reliability in beam forming and controlling in an antenna system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,601,192 discloses a multibeam antenna and method of using the same. In one embodiment, the antenna comprises an aperture having a plurality of radio-frequency (RF) radiating antenna elements. The RF radiating antenna elements generate a plurality of beams simultaneously in different directions in response to a first modulation pattern for holographic beamforming applied to the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements to establish all beams of the plurality of beams such that antenna elements of the plurality of RF radiating antenna elements contribute to all beams in the plurality of beams concurrently. The antenna also includes a controller coupled to the aperture to generate the first modulation pattern.
US 11,855,342 discloses a MIMO communication system. The system may include a first antenna comprising a first cavity, a first plurality of RF ports for generating a feed wave within the first cavity, and a first plurality of sub-wavelength artificially structured material elements as arranged on a surface of the first cavity as RF radiators. The first antenna is configured to generate a plurality of radiation patterns respectively corresponding to the first plurality of ports. The system may also include a second antenna comprising a second cavity and a second plurality of sub-wavelength artificially structured material elements arranged on a surface of the second cavity.
US 10,334,454 discloses a communication device includes an antenna array, and a beamforming controller configured to determine a set of beamforming weights for the antenna array based on a target radiation pattern having a plurality of main fingers, wherein the beamforming controller is configured to, in each of a plurality of iterations identify a search space of beamforming weights for a plurality of elements of the antenna array, and determine, based on contribution of one or more of the plurality of elements of to multiple of the plurality of main fingers, an updated set of beamforming weights in the search space to reduce a difference between an actual radiation pattern and the target radiation pattern, the antenna array configured to transmit or receive radio signals based on the updated set of beamforming weights.
CN 117521373 discloses a beam optimization method of array antenna with cover based on convex optimization, which mainly solves the problem that the current technology only can optimize the point source model, the solving efficiency is low, and the beam scanning of the phased array with cover cannot be realized under the condition of considering the mutual coupling between the antenna cover and the array antenna. The implementation scheme thereof is: creating a non-covered and covered array antenna model; extracting the direction diagram of the active unit to obtain the direction vector of the antenna without the cover array and the direction vector of the antenna with the cover array; calculating the sum beam directional diagram and the difference beam directional diagram of the non-covered array antenna, and determining the optimization parameter of the covered array antenna; using the convex optimization algorithm to optimize the sum beam and the difference beam directional diagram of the covered array antenna at the same time, obtaining the sum beam and the difference beam directional diagram optimized by the covered array antenna. The invention improves the optimizing efficiency, the optimizing result is the global optimal solution, realizes the simultaneous scanning of the sum beam and the difference beam of the covered array antenna, and can be used for the target detection or location identification.
WO 2021/094696 discloses a method for configuring an active antenna network in which each of the antennas comprises at least one radiating element and one amplifier designed to excite the radiating element. The configuration method comprises a step of determining turned-off and non-turned-off antennas using energy consumption characteristics of the amplifiers such that, for the non-turned-off antennas, each of the amplifiers operates in a linear regime. A set of complex excitations is calculated by applying a set of conditions comprising a power condition concerning the output power of each amplification corresponding to a non-turned-off antenna. The dynamic selection of an optimal bias voltage allows each amplifier to operate at optimal energy efficiency. The invention also relates to an active antenna network configured by this configuration method and any radiofrequency communication device comprising such an active antenna network.
CN 108872926 discloses the parameter estimation in the field of array signal processing, specifically to a convex optimization based on amplitude-phase error correction and DOA estimation method comprising the following steps: (1) with data of the amplitude-phase error interference DOA estimation, (2) the angle of the estimation into the structure of the optimization model to obtain the amplitude of the estimated phase error, (3) the front two steps iteratively until convergence to obtain the estimation of DOA and amplitude-phase error, (4) the estimated angle value to the grid refining grid not adapted in the reducing step (1). The method for performance of the antenna array will be affected by the environmental factor of the phenomenon, the signal data received from the antenna by a certain method, the amplitude of the uniform linear array phase errors for the blind correction, improves the accuracy of DOA estimation. The invention can angle estimation, the coherent signal source and does not need auxiliary signal source and assistant array element, has a certain universal applicability, especially suitable for correction to the amplitude-phase error of the unknown signal coherence.
CN 106850016 discloses an array antenna only phase shift beamforming method, namely keeping under the condition of unchanged only through phase weighting to achieve different radiation beam power, the invention comprises the following parts: using improved iterative Fourier arithmetic to get the respective patterns corresponding to the radiation unit, and keeping each unit phase excitation value corresponding to each beam, and using the improved convex optimization algorithm to seek common unit excitation current value to meet the pattern higher radiation performance requirement. The main lobe ripple pattern in smaller, lower lobe level value. mixed optimization method in the invention effectively combines the iterative Fourier transform algorithm and a convex optimization algorithm does not need parameter adjustment and strong robustness and fast computation speed, precision, finally realizing simplified feeding power network only through phase variation of the excited array element realizing the beamforming of different property requirements.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646