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 on 07/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 -7 and 9-11 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstraeten (U.S. Publication number US 20020175875 A1 hereby referred as Verstraeten) in view of Maaskant et al (U.S. Publication number US 20190057945 A1 hereby referred as Maaskant) in view of Moheb et al (U.S. Publication number US 7236681 B2 hereby referred as Moheb) and further in view of West et al US 9991607.
Regarding claim 1, Verstraeten discloses:
An antenna apparatus (1) (Fig. 3) comprising: a waveguide (21 and 22) that extends in a first direction (the left-right direction in Fig. 3); an opening portion (horn section 11 opens outwardly towards the horn, see para. 0006) having a corrugated shape (36) and attached to the waveguide (attached to 21) in a second direction different (vertically in Fig. 3) from the first direction (the left-right direction in Fig. 3); and a multi-band horn antenna (dual frequency band 11) comprising at least one ridge (36) and provided in the waveguide (21 and 22) as a structure coaxial with the waveguide (shares the same axis as 21 and 22, see Fig. 3).
Verstraeten does not disclose “wherein the ridge comprises a plurality of first portions
corresponding to at least one structure recessed at a predetermined depth and formed in the first direction and a plurality of second portions of at least one side of the first portion, the
predetermined depth is a different depth in a plurality of first portions.”
However, Maaskant teaches wherein the ridge (14B, 4B, and 5B) (Fig. 5) comprises a plurality of first portions (14B) corresponding to at least one structure recessed at a
predetermined depth (see Fig.5 and para. 0070) and formed in the first direction (the direction of the waveguide 10B) and a plurality of second portions (4B and 5B) of at least one side of the first portion (one side of 14B), the predetermined depth is a different depth (14B has different depths to the step sections, see Fig. 5 and para. 0070) in a plurality of first portions (14B)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ridge comprising a plurality of first portions corresponding to at least one structure recessed at a predetermined depth and formed in the first direction and a plurality of second portions of at least one side of the first portion, the predetermined depth is a different depth in a plurality of first portions as taught by Maaskant with the antenna apparatus of Verstraeten in order to allow each ridge to have a contactless transition between a ridge waveguide structure and the waveguide (para. 0068 and 0070, Maaskant).
Verstraeten in view of Maaskant does not teach "wherein the ridge of the antenna apparatus is disposed circumferentially along an inner wall of the waveguide".
However, Moheb teaches wherein the ridge (38) (Fig. 4) of the antenna apparatus (20) (Fig. 1) is disposed circumferentially along an inner wall (see Fig. 4) of the waveguide (32)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ridge of the antenna apparatus disposed
circumferentially along an inner wall of the waveguide as taught by Moheb in order to support the Ku receive band (Col. 8 lines 5-6).
Verstraeten in view of Maaskant in view of Moheb does not explicitly teach wherein the ridge is configured to selectively prevent transmission of at least one frequency band within the multi-band horn antenna.
West et al (Fig 5)teaches wherein a ridge(506, 508 is configured to selectively prevent transmission of at least one frequency band within a multi-band horn antenna(502).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for wherein the ridge is configured to selectively prevent transmission of at least one frequency band within the multi-band horn antenna as taught in West et al in the modified antenna assembly of Verstraeten , Maaskant and Moheb for the purpose of producing cutoff of selected frequencies therein(see West et al column 4, lines 55-63).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Verstraeten further discloses:
wherein the horn antenna (11) transmits a first signal of a first frequency band (from the high frequency waveguide 24, see para. 0056).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Verstraeten further discloses:
wherein a second signal of a second frequency band (signal of low frequency waveguide 23) passes through a space between the waveguide (21 and 22 through transition region 12, see para. 0056) and the horn antenna (11).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Verstraeten further discloses:
wherein the second frequency band (signal of low frequency waveguide 23) is lower than the first frequency band (see para. 0056).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Verstraeten further discloses:
further comprising: a conduit (28, see para. 0056) provided in the horn antenna (11) as a
structure coaxial (shares the same axis as 11, see Fig. 3) with the horn antenna (11) to pass the first signal (beam forms the high frequency, see para. 0056).
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstraeten (U.S. Publication number US 20020175875 A1 hereby referred as Verstraeten) in view of Maaskant et al (U.S. Publication number US 20190057945 A1 hereby referred as Maaskant) in view of Moheb et al (U.S. Publication number US 7236681 B2 hereby referred as Moheb) in view West et al US 9991607 in further view of Zhang (U.S. Publication number US 20020163401 A1 hereby referred as Zhang).
Regarding claim 5, the modified combination of
Verstraeten does not disclose “further comprising: at least one first iris structure that protrudes from an outer circumferential surface of the horn antenna in a direction to the waveguide.”
However, Zhang teaches at least one first iris structure (312) (Fig. 3A) that protrudes
from an outer circumferential surface of the horn antenna (surface of 310) in a direction to the waveguide (toward the vertical axis of the waveguide 150).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have at least one first iris structure that protrudes from an outer circumferential surface of the horn antenna in a direction to the waveguide as taught by Zhang with the antenna of the modified Verstraeten in order to couple incoming waves to the coaxial waveguide (Para. 0052 Zhang).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Verstraeten discloses:
the ridge (36) is provided as a plurality of ridges (there are multiple ridges, see Fig. 9)
Verstraeten does not disclose “wherein the first iris structure are provided as a plurality of first iris structures”
However, Zhang teaches the first iris structure (312) are provided as a plurality of first iris structures (312 is a plurality of structures, see Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first iris structure provided as a plurality of first iris structures as taught by Zhang with the antenna of the modified Verstraeten, in order to couple incoming waves to the coaxial waveguide (Para. 0052 Zhang).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Verstraeten does not disclose “further comprising: an iris structure that protrudes from an inner circumferential surface of the horn antenna in a radial direction toward a central axis of the horn antenna along a plane intersecting the first direction.”
However, Zhang teaches at least one second iris structure (213, Fig. 2A annotated below) that protrudes from an inner circumferential surface (protrudes from 240) of the horn antenna
(210) in a radial direction toward a central axis of the horn antenna (central axis of 210) along a
plane intersecting the first direction (the vertical direction of the waveguide).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one second iris structure that protrudes from an inner circumferential surface of the horn antenna in a radial direction toward a central axis of the horn antenna along a plane intersecting the first direction as taught by Zhang with the antenna of the modified Verstraeten, in order to couple incoming waves to the coaxial waveguide (Para. 0052 Zhang).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the modifed Verstraeten does not disclose “wherein the second iris structure is provided as a plurality of second iris structures”
However, Zhang teaches wherein the second iris structure (213, Fig. 2A annotated above) is provided as a plurality of iris structures (213 is a plurality of structures, see Fig. 2A annotated above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second iris structure provided as a plurality of second iris structures as taught by Zhang with the antenna of the modified Verstraeten in order to couple incoming waves to the coaxial waveguide (Para. 0052 Zhang).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstraeten (U.S. Publication number US 20020175875 A1 hereby referred as Verstraeten) in view of Hwang et al (U.S. Publication number US 20150097747 A1 hereby referred as Hwang) in view of Maaskant et al (U.S. Publication number US 20190057945 A1 hereby referred as
Maaskant) in view of Moheb et al (U.S. Publication number US 7236681 B2 hereby referred as Moheb) and further in view of West et al US 9991607.
Regarding claim 11, Verstraeten discloses:
An antenna apparatus (1) (Fig. 3) comprising: an antenna apparatus including a waveguide (21 and 22), an opening portion (horn section 11 opens outwardly towards the horn, see para. 0006) having a corrugated shape (36) and attached to the waveguide (attach ed to 21), and a multi-band horn antenna (dual frequency band 11) comprising at least one ridge (36) and provided in the waveguide (21 and 22) as a structure coaxial with the waveguide (shares the same axis as 21 and 22, see Fig. 3), wherein the antenna apparatus (1) (Fig. 3) that transmits a first signal (Ka-band, see para. 0003) and a second signal (Ku-band, see para. 0003) having different frequency bands (see para. 0003); a turnstile (130) connected to one side of the antenna apparatus (connected to one side of 110); Verstraeten does not disclose “a first polarizer that passes the first signal at one side of the turnstile; an ortho-mode transducer used for feeding of the first signal at one side of the first polarizer; and a second polarizer connected to the other side of the turnstile to pass the second signal.”
However, Hwang teaches a first polarizer (121) (Fig. 1) that passes the first signal (Ka-band) at one side of the turnstile (other side of 130, see 120 in Fig. 2); an ortho-mode transducer (OMT) (122) used for feeding of the first signal (Ka-band) at one side of the first polarizer (other side of 130, see 120 in Fig. 2); and a second polarizer connected (151) to the other side of the turnstile (the side near 160, see Fig. 2 and Fig. 1) to pass the second signal (Ku -band).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first polarizer that passes the first signal at one side of the turnstile; an ortho-mode transducer used for feeding of the first signal at one side of the first
polarizer; and a second polarizer connected to the other side of the turnstile to pass the second signal as taught by Hwang with the antenna apparatus of Verstraeten in order to separate or isolate polarization elements (para. 0032, Hwang).
Verstraeten does not disclose “wherein the ridge comprises a plurality of first portions corresponding to at least one structure recessed at a predetermined depth and formed in the first direction and a plurality of second portions of at least one side of the first portion, the
predetermined depth is a different depth in a plurality of first portions.”
However, Maaskant teaches wherein the ridge (14B, 4B, and 5B) (Fig. 5) comprises a plurality of first portions (14B) corresponding to at least one structure recessed at a predetermined depth (see Fig.5 and para. 0070) and formed in the first direction (the direction of the waveguide 10B) and a plurality of second portions (4B and 5B) of at least one side of the first portion (one side of 14B), the predetermined depth is a different depth (14B has different depths to the step sections, see Fig. 5 and para. 0070) in a plurality of first portions (14B)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ridge comprising a plurality of first portions corresponding to at least one structure recessed at a predetermined depth and formed in the first direction and a plurality of second portions of at least one side of the first portion, the predetermined depth is a different depth in a plurality of first portions as taught by Maaskant with the antenna apparatus of Verstraeten in order to allow each ridge to have a contactless transition between a ridge waveguide structure and the waveguide (para. 0068 and 0070, Maaskant).
The modified Verstraeten does not teach "wherein the ridge of the antenna apparatus is
disposed circumferentially along an inner wall of the waveguide".
However, Moheb teaches wherein the ridge (38) (Fig. 4) of the antenna apparatus (20) (Fig. 1) is disposed circumferentially along an inner wall (see Fig. 4) of the waveguide (32)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ridge of the antenna apparatus disposed circumferentially along an inner wall of the waveguide as taught by Moheb in order to support the Ku receive band (Col. 8 lines 5-6).
Verstraeten in view of Hwang in view of Maaskant in view of Moheb does not explicitly teach wherein the ridge is configured to selectively prevent transmission of at least one frequency band within the multi-band horn antenna.
West et al (Fig 5) teaches wherein a ridge(506, 508 is configured to selectively prevent transmission of at least one frequency band within a multi-band horn antenna(502).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for wherein the ridge is configured to selectively prevent transmission of at least one frequency band within the multi-band horn antenna as taught in West et al in the modified antenna assembly of Verstraeten , Hwang, Maaskant and Moheb for the purpose of producing cutoff of selected frequencies therein(see West et al column 4, lines 55-63).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation in clams 1 and 11 that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed on the PTOL 892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
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 DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights