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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
On p. 10, line 9, after "may" --be-- should be inserted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
Claim 19, line(s) 1 recites the limitation "the focusing element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the limitation uses a term ("the") that refers back to a previous limitation, it is unclear what previous limitation is being referred to. In order to further examine the claim, the limitation will be interpreted as not referring back to/not having a previous recitation.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (Cascaded Fresnel Lens Antenna for Scan Loss Mitigation in Millimeter-Wave Access Points).
In regard to claim 1, Hill discloses:
a phased array antenna comprising an array of spaced apart antenna elements arranged on a first horizontal surface and having a first axis of symmetry (Fig. 1; Fig. 4); and
a first lens disposed on the phased array antenna and substantially covering the antenna elements (lenses, Fig. 1), the first lens comprising:
a substantially planar first bottom surface facing and substantially parallel to the first horizontal surface, the first bottom surface and tops of the antenna elements defining a gap D therebetween (Fig. 1);
a first top surface facing away from the first horizontal surface (Fig. 1);
a dielectric permittivity of between about 1.2 and about 2 at an operational frequency of the antenna assembly (p. 6885, col. 2, line 11) [ϵr = 2.2 is about 2, where the specification defines "about" as having a high degree of approximation (p. 4, lines 31), where being within +/- 5% is explicitly an example ("e.g.", p. 4, line 32), and where another example in the specification says a high degree of approximation is within +/- 10% (p. 4, lines 28-29). 2.2 is 2+10%.]; and
a loss tangent of between about 0.001 and about 0.005 (p. 6885, col. 2, line 11) [tan δ = 0.0009, where the specification defines "about" as having a high degree of approximation (p. 4, lines 31), where being within +/- 5% is explicitly an example ("e.g.", p. 4, line 32), and where another example in the specification says a high degree of approximation is within +/- 10% (p. 4, lines 28-29). 0.0009 is 0.001-10%.]
such that for a second vertical plane substantially orthogonal to the first horizontal surface and comprising the first axis of symmetry, the antenna assembly steers a beam in the second vertical plane having a 3 dB beam width W1 when steered along a first direction making an angle of less than about 10° with a normal to the first horizontal surface and a 3 dB beam width W2 when steered along a second direction making an angle of greater than about 40° with the normal, W1 and W2 within 35% of each other (p. 6880, equation 1) [where the first axis of symmetry is a vertical plane along the array (left-right in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where:
G(θ0) ∝ cos1.5(θ0)
G(θ0) = x * cos1.5(θ0)
G(10°) = x * cos1.5(10°) = 0.977x
G(40°) = x * cos1.5(40°) = 0.670x
0.977x * 0.35 = 0.342x
G(10°) - G(40°) = 0.977x - 0.670x = 0.307x
where 0.307x is within 0.342x, where x is the proportionality factor].
In regard to claim 2, Hill further discloses the first top surface of the first lens is curved (p. 6889, col. 2, ¶2; p. 6990, ¶4) and has a best-fit spherical radius of curvature R, 50 mm ≤ R ≤ 75 mm (Fig. 1; p. 6882, section B, ¶2) [where:
r
i
,
j
=
F
j
λ
0
i
+
λ
0
i
2
2
=
0.02
m
*
.
01
m
*
7
+
.
01
m
*
7
2
2
=
.
0014
m
2
+
.
001225
m
2
=
.
002625
m
2
= .051 m = 51 mm
where i=1 to 7 since there are 7 lenses in Fig. 1, and where 51 mm is within the claimed range].
In regard to claim 5, Hill discloses for at least one first angle between about 4° and about 60° (p. 6888, Table IV; p. 6888, ¶3), a beam steered by the antenna assembly in the second vertical plane along a direction making the first angle with the normal to the first horizontal surface has a 3 dB beam width W3 that is significantly less as compared W3′ to an antenna assembly that has a same construction except that it does not include the first lens (p. 6888, ¶3).
While Hill fails to explicitly state that the beam width W3 is at least 0.5% less that the beam width W3', one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the invention that "a significantly reduction in beamwidth broadening" is a big improvement while an improvement of 0.5% is a small improvement, and thus the antenna assembly of Hill meets the requirements of the claim.
In regard to claim 6, Hill discloses for each first angle between about 4° and 52° (p. 6888, Table IV; p. 6888, ¶3), a beam steered by the antenna assembly in the second vertical plane along a direction making the first angle with the normal to the first horizontal surface has a 3 dB beam width W3 that is significantly less as compared W3′ to an antenna assembly that has a same construction except that it does not include the first lens (p. 6888, ¶3).
While Hill fails to explicitly state that the beam width W3 is at least 0.5% less that the beam width W3', one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the invention that "a significantly reduction in beamwidth broadening" is a big improvement while an improvement of 0.5% is a small improvement, and thus the antenna assembly of Hill meets the requirements of the claim.
While Hill fails to explicitly state the range is up to about 60°, the specification defines "about" as having a high degree of approximation (p. 4, lines 31), where being within +/- 5% is explicitly an example ("e.g.", p. 4, line 32), and where another example in the specification says a high degree of approximation is within +/- 10% (p. 4, lines 28-29). 60° - 10% = 54°. While 52° is less than 54°, it is noted that +/-10% is also just disclosed as an example by the specification. Thus, the term "about 60 degrees" in the claim is not limited to be +/-10%. 52° is close enough to 54° that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that arrays with both a maximum angle value of 52° and a maximum angle value of 54° would have the same properties. That is, there would be no unexpected properties in the operation of the antenna assembly at angles 53° or 54° that are not present at 52°.
By choosing to define the term "about" in a broad, non-specific manner, applicant has chosen to create a claim having a scope broad enough to be encompassed by Hill.
In regard to claim 7, Hill discloses for each first angle between about 4° and 52° (p. 6888, Table IV; p. 6888, ¶3), a beam steered by the antenna assembly in the second vertical plane along a direction making the first angle with the normal to the first horizontal surface has a 3 dB beam width W3 that is significantly less as compared W3′ to an antenna assembly that has a same construction except that it does not include the first lens (p. 6888, ¶3).
While Hill fails to explicitly state that the beam width W3 is at least 1.5% less that the beam width W3', one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the invention that "a significantly reduction in beamwidth broadening" is a big improvement while an improvement of 1.5% is a small improvement, and thus the antenna assembly of Hill meets the requirements of the claim.
While Hill fails to explicitly state the range is up to about 60°, the specification defines "about" as having a high degree of approximation (p. 4, lines 31), where being within +/- 5% is explicitly an example ("e.g.", p. 4, line 32), and where another example in the specification says a high degree of approximation is within +/- 10% (p. 4, lines 28-29). 60° - 10% = 54°. While 52° is less than 54°, it is noted that +/-10% is also just disclosed as an example by the specification. Thus, the term "about 60 degrees" in the claim is not limited to be +/-10%. 52° is close enough to 54° that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that arrays with both a maximum angle value of 52° and a maximum angle value of 54° would have the same properties. That is, there would be no unexpected properties in the operation of the antenna assembly at angles 53° or 54° that are not present at 52°.
By choosing to define the term "about" in a broad, non-specific manner, applicant has chosen to create a claim having a scope broad enough to be encompassed by Hill.
In regard to claim 8, Hill further discloses 1.5 mm ≤ D ≤ 5 mm (Fig. 1; p. 6882, line 5 before the final line which discloses that the focal length is 20 mm; p. 6884, ¶ after equation 10 which discloses that the distance from each lens to the array center is equal to the focal length) [where, for the first lens to the right of center in Fig. 1, a distance of 20 mm from the center of the lens to the center of the array corresponds to 10 mm from the center or the array directly down to the closest part of the array using the law of sines:
a
sin
A
=
b
sin
B
20
m
m
sin
90
°
=
b
sin
30
°
20
m
m
1
=
b
0.5
b
=
10
m
m
where from Fig. 1 the distance from closest point on the lens (the bottommost part of the lens) to the closest point on the array is 1/4 the distance from the center of the lens to the point on the array directly below, giving a gap value of 2.5 mm, which is within the claimed range].
In regard to claim 9, Hill further discloses the first top surface is curved (p. 6889, col. 2, ¶2; p. 6990, ¶4), such that in at least one cross-section orthogonal to the planar first bottom surface, the first top surface has a best-fit radius of curvature R, 50 mm ≤ R ≤ 75 mm (Fig. 1; p. 6882, section B, ¶2) [where:
r
i
,
j
=
F
j
λ
0
i
+
λ
0
i
2
2
=
0.02
m
*
.
01
m
*
7
+
.
01
m
*
7
2
2
=
.
0014
m
2
+
.
001225
m
2
=
.
002625
m
2
= .051 m = 51 mm
where i=1 to 7 since there are 7 lenses in Fig. 1, and where 51 mm is within the claimed range].
In regard to claim 10, Hill further discloses the first lens has a height H, 10 mm ≤ H ≤30 mm (Fig. 7) [where they thicknesses of the layers of the lens add up to: 2.12 + 3.254 + 8.764 + 2.12 = 16.258 mm, which is within the claimed range].
In regard to claim 11, Hill further discloses the operational frequency of the antenna assembly is one or more of about 24 GHz, about 28 GHz (p. 6882, section A, line 2; p. 6890, section VII, lines 1-2), about 39 GHz, about 60 GHz, and about 95 GHz.
In regard to claim 12, Hill discloses an antenna assembly configured to operate at an operational frequency having a free space wavelength W0 (p. 6882, section A, line 2; p. 6890, section VII, lines 1-2) [corresponding to 28 GHz], the antenna assembly comprising:
a regular array of antenna elements arranged in substantially parallel rows and columns on a first major surface of a substrate, the regular array of antenna elements defining a plane of symmetry substantially orthogonal to the first major surface (Fig. 1; Fig. 4; p. 6890, ¶1); and
one or more lenses disposed on, and in combination covering, the regular array of antenna elements (lenses, Fig. 1), the one or more lenses and the antenna elements defining a gap D therebetween (Fig. 1), each of the one or more lenses comprising:
a top surface facing away from the antenna elements (Fig. 1);
a dielectric permittivity of between about 1.2 and about 2 at the operational frequency (p. 6884, col. 2, line 2) [where 1.59 is within the range 1.2 and 2]; alternatively (p. 6885, col. 2, line 11) [ϵr = 2.2 is about 2, where the specification defines "about" as having a high degree of approximation (p. 4, lines 31), where being within +/- 5% is explicitly an example ("e.g.", p. 4, line 32), and where another example in the specification says a high degree of approximation is within +/- 10% (p. 4, lines 28-29). 2.2 is 2+10%.];
such that the antenna assembly is configured to steer a beam in the plane of symmetry having a 3 dB beam width W1 when steered along a first direction making an angle of less than about 10° with a normal to the first major surface and a 3 dB beam width W2 when steered along a second direction making an angle of greater than about 40° with the normal, W1 and W2 within 35% of each other (p. 6880, equation 1) [where the first axis of symmetry is a vertical plane along the array (left-right in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where:
G(θ0) ∝ cos1.5(θ0)
G(θ0) = x * cos1.5(θ0)
G(10°) = x * cos1.5(10°) = 0.977x
G(40°) = x * cos1.5(40°) = 0.670x
0.977x * 0.35 = 0.342x
G(10°) - G(40°) = 0.977x - 0.670x = 0.307x
where 0.307x is within 0.342x, where x is the proportionality factor].
In regard to claim 13, Hill further discloses at least two of the antenna elements are configured to operate at different power levels (p. 6882, ¶1; p. 6884, section D, ¶1).
In regard to claim 16, Hill further discloses the first lens comprises a plurality of generally columnar voids extending from the first bottom surface to the first top surface (Fig. 1) [where the columnar voids are the voids between lenses].
The remaining claim limitation [for directing any heat generated by the antenna assembly away from the antenna elements] is recited in functional language. There is no structure recited.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Where functional language is present, in order to anticipate, the prior art must be capable of performing the function claimed, but the function need not be disclosed by the prior art. The prior art must be devoid of any structure that would preclude it from functioning in that manner. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 at 1431-32. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525 (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. “It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429. See also In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647.
Here, the columnar voids of Hill, used in the same field as applicant's invention, would be capable of being programmed to perform the particular function recited in the claim [directing any heat generated by the antenna assembly away from the antenna elements].
In regard to claim 17, Hill further discloses the one or more lenses is at least two lenses, each of the at least two lenses covering a different group of the array of antenna elements (Fig. 1) [where different groups of antenna elements are beneath different lenses].
In regard to claim 18, Hill further discloses the gap defined by at least one lens in the at least two lenses is different than the gap defined by at least one other lens in the at least two lenses (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill, as applied to claim 1, above, and further view of Mahanfar (US 2020/0403309 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Hill further discloses the first top surface of the first lens is curved (p. 6990, ¶4).
Hill fails to disclose the curved lens surface is a partial cylindrical surface centered on a first lens axis, the first lens axis making an angle of greater than about 50° with the first axis of symmetry.
Curved lenses with a partial cylindrical surface are well known. For example:
Mahanfar teaches a first top surface of a first lens that is a partial cylindrical surface centered on a first lens axis, the first lens axis making an angle of greater than about 50° with a first axis of symmetry (Fig. 3) [where the first lens axis is the axis L1, where the first axis of symmetry is the axis L2, and where 90° is greater than 50°].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the curved lens with known implementation of a curved lens in the art.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a specific curved lens is implemented in the invention.
In regard to claim 4, Hill further discloses the first top surface of the first lens is curved (p. 6990, ¶4).
Hill fails to disclose the curved lens surface is a partial cylindrical surface centered on a first lens axis, the first lens axis making an angle of between about 60° and about 120° with the first axis of symmetry.
Curved lenses with a partial cylindrical surface are well known. For example:
Mahanfar teaches a first top surface of a first lens is a partial cylindrical surface centered on a first lens axis, the first lens axis making an angle of between about 60° and about 120° with a first axis of symmetry (Fig. 3) [where the first lens axis is the axis L1, where the first axis of symmetry is the axis L2, and where 90° is between 60° and 120°].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the curved lens with known implementation of a curved lens in the art.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a specific curved lens is implemented in the invention.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Binzer (EP 2330685 A1), which teaches an antenna array with a cylindrical lens (Fig. 2).
Zhao (A Luneburg Lens Antenna Composed of Gradient Index Metamaterials based on 3D printing), which teaches a lens for use with an antenna, where the lens has air voids inside (Fig. 1; section II).
Ko (US 2019/0319355 A1), which teaches the calculation of a maximum phase difference produced by a lens (¶68).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-15 and 20 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 19 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112, set forth in this Office Action, without the addition of new matter, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 14, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"when the antenna assembly steers a beam in the plane of symmetry along a first direction making an angle of between about 40° and about 50° with a normal to the first major surface, then the steered beam attains a maximum gain at least when a maximum phase difference between the sixteen antenna elements is greater than by at least 2% as compared to a comparative antenna assembly that has a same construction except that it does not include the beam shaping element".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648