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 .
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 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b), Examiner withdraws said rejections due to proper amendments.
With respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-11, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/22/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-10 and 14-18 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), Applicant’s arguments filed 05/22/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the rejection of claims 11-13, 19 and 20 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 05/22/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 of US 11,217,888 B2 (see Table below) in view of Chang (US 2007/0090998 A1).
Instant Application (18/232,170)
US 11,217,888 B2 (hereinafter '888 patent)
2. An apparatus comprising a reconfigurable antenna array (RAA) comprising multiple individual pattern reconfigurable antennas (PRA), each of the multiple PRAs having (a) an antenna, (b) controllable components that are controllable to generate and effect modes corresponding to respective different steered radiation patterns, and (c) input terminals to receive drive signals for the antenna and control signals for the controllable components; and
control circuitry having outputs coupled to the input terminals of the multiple PRAs, the control circuitry configured (i) to drive the antennas of the multiple PRAs to form an array beam having an array peak in a particular direction, and (ii) to deliver the control signals for the controllable components to effect, for each of the multiple PRAs, a selected mode corresponding to a steered radiation pattern, wherein the steered radiation patterns of the multiple PRAs together enhance a gain of the array peak in the particular direction; and a partially reflective surface (PRS) configured to interact with the steered radiation pattern.
1. An apparatus comprising a reconfigurable antenna array (RAA) comprising individual pattern reconfigurable antennas (PRA), each of the PRAs having (a) an antenna, (b) components controllable to generate and effect any of two or more modes of the PRA, the modes having respectively different steered radiation patterns, and (c) inputs to receive drive signals for the antenna and control signals for the controllable components, wherein the drive signals for each PRA include electromagnetic energy to be radiated using the corresponding PRA; a superstrate disposed above the individual PRAs and spaced apart from the individual PRAs; and
control circuitry having outputs coupled to the inputs of the PRAs to drive the antennas of the PRAs to form an array beam having an array peak in a particular direction and at the same time to deliver control signals for the controllable components to effect a selected mode of each of the PRAs for which the steered radiation pattern has a peak in the particular direction of the array beam and has one or more nulls in the directions of one or more of the side-lobes of the array beam.
3. The apparatus of claim 2 in which the different steered radiation patterns comprise at least one of: different polarizations or different frequencies.
2. The apparatus of claim 1 in which the different steered radiation patterns comprise different polarizations.
3. The apparatus of claim 1 in which the different steered radiation patterns comprise different frequencies.
6. The apparatus of claim 2 in which the controllable components comprise switching devices.
5. The apparatus of claim 1 in which the controllable components comprise switching devices.
7. The apparatus of claim 6 in which the switching devices comprise PIN diodes or varactors.
6. The apparatus of claim 5 in which the switching devices comprise PIN diodes.
10. The apparatus of claim 2 in which the controllable components form a reconfigurable parasitic layer.
8. The apparatus of claim 1 in which the controllable components comprise a reconfigurable parasitic layer.
11. The apparatus of claim 2 in which the control circuitry comprises a beam former circuit.
9. The apparatus of claim 1 in which the control circuitry comprises a beam former circuit.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
‘888 patent does not teach the apparatus comprising a partially reflective surface (PRS) configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns.
Chang teaches an antenna, comprising a partially reflective surface configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns (Fig. 2A, [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the PRS of Chang to ‘888 patent in order for the low side lobe and high gain (Chang, Abstract).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US 11,769,944 B2 (see Table below) in view of Chang (US 2007/0090998 A1).
Instant Application (18/232,170)
US 11,769,944 B2 (hereinafter '944 patent)
2. An apparatus comprising a reconfigurable antenna array (RAA) comprising multiple individual pattern reconfigurable antennas (PRA), each of the multiple PRAs having (a) an antenna, (b) controllable components that are controllable to generate and effect modes corresponding to respective different steered radiation patterns, and (c) input terminals to receive drive signals for the antenna and control signals for the controllable components; and
control circuitry having outputs coupled to the input terminals of the multiple PRAs, the control circuitry configured (i) to drive the antennas of the multiple PRAs to form an array beam having an array peak in a particular direction, and (ii) to deliver the control signals for the controllable components to effect, for each of the multiple PRAs, a selected mode corresponding to a steered radiation pattern, wherein the steered radiation patterns of the multiple PRAs together enhance a gain of the array peak in the particular direction; and a partially reflective surface (PRS) configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns.
1. An apparatus comprising a reconfigurable antenna array (RAA) comprising individual pattern reconfigurable antennas (PRA), each of the PRAs having (a) an antenna, (b) controllable components that are controllable to generate and effect any of two or more modes of the PRA, the two or more modes corresponding to respective different steered radiation patterns, and (c) inputs to receive drive signals for the antenna and control signals for the controllable components, wherein the drive signals for each PRA include electromagnetic energy to be radiated using the PRA; and
control circuitry having outputs coupled to the inputs of the PRAs, the control circuitry configured (i) to drive the antennas of the PRAs to form an array beam having an array peak in a particular direction, and (ii) to deliver the control signals for the controllable components to effect, for each of the PRAs, a selected mode corresponding to a steered radiation pattern that has a peak in the particular direction of the array beam and has one or more nulls in directions of one or more side-lobes of the array beam.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
‘944 patent does not teach the apparatus comprising a partially reflective surface (PRS) configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns.
Chang teaches an antenna, comprising a partially reflective surface configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns (Fig. 2A, [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the PRS of Chang to ‘944 patent in order for the low side lobe and high gain (Chang, Abstract).
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 of this title, 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 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14-17, 21-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltawil (US 2015/0341157 A1) in view of Chang (US 2007/0090998 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Eltawil teaches an apparatus comprising
a reconfigurable antenna array (RAA) (Fig. 4, 400, [0040] reconfigurable antenna 400) comprising multiple individual pattern reconfigurable antennas (PRA) (Fig. 4, 130, 150),
each of the multiple PRAs having (a) an antenna (130, 150), (b) controllable components that are controllable to generate and effect modes corresponding to respective different steered radiation patterns ([0046] Each mode of operation is defined in part by certain electrical structures, characteristics, and/or properties (e.g., operating frequency, polarization, and radiation pattern, etc.) of one or both of the antennas 130 and 150), and (c) input terminals to receive drive signals for the antenna and control signals for the controllable components (Fig. 4, outputs from 126 to 130, control from 160 to 130/150); and
control circuitry (160) having outputs coupled to the input terminals of the multiple PRAs, the control circuitry configured (i) to drive the antennas of the multiple PRAs to form an array beam having an array peak in a particular direction ([0046] the antenna controller 160 is configured to select and control the antenna mode of one or both of the antennas 130 and 150. Based on the selected antenna mode and environmental conditions (e.g., frequency-selective fading, multipath interference, etc.), which may vary over time, each mode achieves certain performance criteria that vary from others. In this context, the antenna controller 160 is configured to select an antenna mode that satisfies certain threshold performance requirements or criteria, for example.), and (ii) to deliver the control signals (Fig. 4, control output of 160 to 130/150) for the controllable components to effect, for each of the multiple PRAs, a selected mode corresponding to a steered radiation pattern, wherein the steered radiation patterns of the multiple PRAs together enhance a gain of the array peak in the particular direction ([0046] the antenna controller 160 is configured to select and control the antenna mode of one or both of the antennas 130 and 150. Based on the selected antenna mode and environmental conditions (e.g., frequency-selective fading, multipath interference, etc.), which may vary over time, each mode achieves certain performance criteria that vary from others. In this context, the antenna controller 160 is configured to select an antenna mode that satisfies certain threshold performance requirements or criteria, for example.).
Eltawil does not explicitly teach the apparatus comprising a partially reflective surface (PRS) configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns.
Chang teaches an antenna, comprising a partially reflective surface configured to interact with the steered radiation patterns (Fig. 2A, [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the PRS of Chang to the teachings of Eltawil in order to reduce the side lobe and improve the gain (Chang, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil further teaches the apparatus, in which the different steered radiation patterns comprise at least one of:
different polarizations (Fig. 6A, [0056] the MRA 600 may be configured to dynamically change its proprieties (e.g., radiation pattern, polarization, operating frequency, etc.), or
different frequencies (Fig. 6A, [0056] the MRA 600 may be configured to dynamically change its proprieties (e.g., radiation pattern, polarization, operating frequency, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil further teaches the apparatus, in which the controllable components comprise switching devices ([0057] pin diode switches).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 6 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil further teaches the apparatus, in which the switching devices comprise PIN diodes ([0057] pin diode switches) or varactors ([0066], Fig. 6B, 634, 632).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil further teaches the apparatus, in which the controllable components form a reconfigurable parasitic layer ([0065] This control by the antenna controller 160 may be relied upon to change the geometry of the parasitic surface of the MRA 600, which, in turn, changes the current distribution and RF characteristic of the MRA 600.).
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 21, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Chang further teaches the apparatus, wherein the PRS is configured to reduce a side lobe level of the array beam (Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Chang further teaches the apparatus, wherein the PRS comprises a plurality of metal portions spaced apart from one another (Fig. 7A, [0054] microstrip reflective units 731, 732).
Regarding claim 23, all the limitations of claim 22 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Chang further teaches the apparatus, wherein the plurality of metal portions are arranged in a plurality of rows (Fig. 7A, [0052] microstrip reflective units 731, 732)., and wherein a spacing between adjacent rows of the plurality of rows varies across the plurality of rows (Fig. 7B, Dy1, Dy2).
Regarding claim 24, all the limitations of claim 23 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Chang further teaches the apparatus, wherein metal portions in each row of the plurality of rows are arrayed along a first direction, wherein the plurality of rows are arrayed along a second direction, wherein the spacing between the adjacent rows is a spacing along the second direction, and wherein the PRS is symmetric about an axis extending along the first direction (Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 25, all the limitations of claim 22 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Chang further teaches the apparatus, comprising a cavity between the PRS and the controllable components of the multiple PRAs (Fig. 2, cavity between 211 and 221).
Regarding claim 27, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Chang further teaches the apparatus, wherein the PRS is configured to provide a passive tapered current distribution (Abstract, low side lobe).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltawil (US 2015/0341157 A1) in view of Chang (US 2007/0090998 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Kona (WO 2015/178979 A2).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil in view of Chang does not explicitly teach the apparatus, in which the individual pattern reconfigurable antennas are spaced from one another at a distance that is greater than a wavelength in air of radiation emitted by the individual pattern reconfigurable antennas.
Kona teaches an apparatus, in which the individual pattern reconfigurable antennas are spaced from one another at a distance that is greater than a wavelength in air of radiation emitted by the individual pattern reconfigurable antennas (Fig. 1, [0011] patches spaced λ apart).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kona to the teachings of Eltawil in view of Chang in order to provide improved reconfigurability with a fewer number of TR modules (Kona, [0007]).
Claims 11, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltawil (US 2015/0341157 A1) in view of Chang (US 2007/0090998 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Cetiner (US 2013/0176177 A1).
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil in view of Chang does not explicitly teach the apparatus, in which the control circuitry comprises a beam former circuit.
Cetiner teaches an apparatus, in which the control circuitry comprises a beam former circuit (Fig. 14, [0029] beam steering capabilities of a multifunctional reconfigurable antenna array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings in order to provide an MRAA that may include a plurality of individual radiators (MRAs) of which radiation properties, such as maximum beam directions and sense of polarizations, can be changed. In other words, the element factor is not fixed and has variable properties. This degree of freedom may translate into higher array gain, polarization reconfigurability, and beam-tilt capability not only in y-z plane but also in x-z plane. Also, the scan loss inherit to standard array may be alleviated for the MRAA, when the beam is steered in the x-z plane.
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil in view of Chang does not explicitly teach the apparatus, in which for each of the multiple PRAs, the steered radiation pattern of the PRA has a peak in the particular direction of the array beam.
Cetiner teaches an apparatus, in which for each of the multiple PRAs, the steered radiation pattern of the PRA has a peak in the particular direction of the array beam, and one or more nulls in directions of one or more side lobes of the array beam ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Eltawil in view of Chang and Cetiner for dynamic adaptation to changes in communications channels or in system requirements as well as in response to changes in the propagation environment (Cetiner [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 12. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 12 above.
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eltawil (US 2015/0341157 A1) in view of Chang (US 2007/0090998 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Liu (CN209232950U, see attached EPO translation).
Regarding claim 26, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil in view of Chang does not explicitly teach the apparatus, comprising a ground layer, wherein a spacing between the PRS and the ground layer is about half a wavelength of radiation emitted by the individual pattern reconfigurable antennas in an effective medium formed between the PRS and the ground layer.
Liu teaches an apparatus, comprising a ground layer (Fig. 2, 23, page 2, col. 3 from the bottom, a ground plate 23), wherein a spacing between the PRS and the ground layer is about half a wavelength of radiation emitted by the individual pattern reconfigurable antennas in an effective medium formed between the PRS and the ground layer (page 2, col. 2 from the bottom, distance between the partially reflective surface and the metal ground plate 23 d=1/2 λ0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu to the teachings of Eltawil in view of Chang in order to achieve low side lobe and high-gain resonant antenna (Liu, page 1, Technical solution).
Regarding claim 28, all the limitations of claim 2 are taught by Eltawil in view of Chang.
Eltawil in view of Chang does not explicitly teach the apparatus, wherein the PRS is included in a superstrate arranged above the multiple PRAs.
Liu teaches an apparatus, wherein the PRS is included in a superstrate arranged above the multiple PRAs (Figs. 2 and 2, reflective surface 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu to the teachings of Eltawil in view of Chang in order to achieve low side lobe and high-gain resonant antenna (Liu, page 1, Technical solution).
Conclusion
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 SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844