DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on April 26, 2025. The Remarks of April 26, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered and the respective amendments to the Specification and the replacement sheets to Figs. 2 and 3 are accepted. There are no further objections to the Drawings.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specifications are considered and the respective amendments to the Specification are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 1-15 are considered. The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive and the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15 are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 102 rejection of claim 1 are considered. The examiner finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive and the 102 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
The Applicant has made no amendments to the claims. Claims 1-15 are considered.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et. al. (“A Circular Waveguide Antenna Using High-Impedance Ground Plane”, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 2, 2003, hereinafter Zhang) in view of Chang et al. (“An Ultrawide-Bandwidth Tapered Resistive TEM Horn Antenna”, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 48, No. 12, December 2000, hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Zhang teaches (Fig. 2) an antenna comprising:
a ground plane, delimiting an upper half-space (regarding the ground plane and the upper half-space, see annotated Fig. 2 below); and
a horn, forming one end of a waveguide, the horn crossing through said ground plane so that a mouth of the horn is arranged at a predefined height above said ground plane in the upper half-space (regarding the horn, the waveguide, and the mouth of the horn, see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Further, Zhang teaches high-impedance surface arranged around the horn, wherein the high-impedance surface comprises metal vias and metal patches electrically connected to the ground and arranged periodically, so that a surface wave bandgap is created, resulting in the suppression of surface waves on conductive objects (see p. 86, second paragraph of the introduction, lines 3-10).
Zhang does not teach that the antenna comprises at least one resistive film, arranged around said horn, parallel to an upper face of said ground plane, the at least one resistive film having an electrical resistance suitable for limiting creeping waves.
Chang teaches (Fig. 3c; p. 1848, col. 2, lines 10-16) at least one resistive film (Tapered Rcards), disposed on a conducting surface of the antenna, parallel to the face of said conducting surface, the at least one resistive film having an electrical resistance suitable for limiting creeping waves.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Chang to substitute the high impedance surface in Zhang for the resistive film in Chang, so that the antenna comprises at least one resistive film, arranged around said horn, parallel to an upper face of said ground plane, the at least one resistive film having an electrical resistance suitable for limiting creeping waves. This modification would provide the predictable result of suppressing the creeping waves on the antenna ground, while providing a simpler ground structure which would result in a simpler production and/or assembly process of the antenna ground and the antenna.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein said at least one resistive film is supported by said ground plane.
However, Chang teaches (Fig. 3c; p. 1848, col. 2, lines 10-16) at least one resistive film (Tapered Rcards) supported by the antenna structure, wherein the resistive film serves to attenuate surface waves on the conducting structure.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have the at least one resistive film supported by said ground plane. This modification would provide the predictable result of suppressing the creeping waves on the antenna ground.
Claims 3-7, 9-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zhang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Iwanaka et al. (US 20120306712 A1, hereinafter Iwanaka).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the antenna further comprises at least one support layer suitable for supporting said at least one resistive film, the support layer being arranged around said horn, parallel to the upper face of said ground plane.
Iwanaka teaches (Figure 9; [0043]) a support layer (250) serving as a base for a resistive film (100) installed in a parabolic antenna (200) in order to raise the resistive film to a certain height above the inside circumference of the antenna shroud (220).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka to provide at least one support layer suitable for supporting said at least one resistive film, the support layer being arranged around said horn, parallel to the upper face of said ground plane, in order to locate the resistive film at the desired height above the antenna ground as required by the antenna design and/or performance requirements.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 3 teaches the antenna of claim 3.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said support layer is comprised of a material apt to attenuate creeping waves.
However, Iwanaka teaches ([0043], lines 10-11) that the support layer (250) may be of the same material as the resistive film (100).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka to have the said support layer comprised of the same material as the resistive film in Zhang, which is apt to attenuate creeping waves, in order to achieve even stronger attenuation of the creeping waves on the antenna ground.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 3 teaches the antenna of claim 3.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said support layer results from assembly of a plurality of elementary layers.
However, Iwanaka teaches ([0043], lines 10-11) that the support layer (250) may be of the same material as the resistive film (100). Further, Iwanaka teaches (Fig. 3) the resistive film (100) resulting from assembly of a plurality of elementary layers (110, 120, 130).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka to have said support layer result from assembly of a plurality of elementary layers, which would provide a support layer that is lightweight and inexpensive (see Iwanaka, [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 3 teaches the antenna of claim 3.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the antenna according to claim 3, comprises:
a first resistive film supported by an upper surface of said support layer; and
a second resistive film supported by a lower surface of said support layer.
However, Iwanaka teaches (Fig. 3) a resistive film (110) supported by an upper surface of a support layer (130) and a second resistive film (120) supported by a lower surface of said support layer.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka to have the antenna a first resistive film supported by an upper surface of said support layer and a second resistive film supported by a lower surface of said support layer, which would provide a lightweight structure (see Iwanaka, [0010]) and, potentially, increase the attenuation of creeping waves on the antenna ground due to the addition of a second resistive film.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 3 teaches the antenna of claim 3.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the antenna according to claim 3, comprises a radome covering the mouth of said horn.
However, Iwanaka teaches (Fig. 17) a parabolic antenna (500) comprising a radome covering the opening of the parabolic antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka to add to the antenna a radome covering the mouth of the horn. This modification would help protect the antenna from undesired environmental effects – e.g., moisture and dust entering the antenna, which would deteriorate the antenna integrity and performance over time.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 7 teaches the antenna of claim 7.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said radome has an outer contour and wherein said at least one resistive film extends to the vicinity of the outer contour of said radome.
However, Iwanaka teaches (Fig. 17) a radome (540) of an antenna having an outer contour and a radiowave absorber (100) extending to the vicinity of the outer contour of the radome (regarding outer contour of the radome, see annotated Fig. 17 below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka so that the radome has an outer contour and the at least one resistive film extends to the vicinity of the outer contour of the radome. This modification would suppress re-radiation of current that flows in the radome mounting portion, would decrease side lobes, and would achieve high FB ratio (front-to-back ratio) of the antenna radiation pattern (see Iwanaka, [0066], lines 2-7), all of which are desirable effects for improved antenna performance.
PNG
media_image2.png
580
998
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 9 teaches the antenna of claim 9.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said ground plane has a raised peripheral edge for receiving said radome, the peripheral edge of said ground plane coinciding with the outer contour of said radome.
However, Iwanaka teaches (Fig. 17) an outer flange portion (502) of an antenna having a raised peripheral edge (503) for receiving antenna radome (504), the peripheral edge coinciding with the outer contour of the radome (regarding outer contour of the radome, see annotated Fig. 17 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka so that said ground plane has a raised peripheral edge for receiving said radome, the peripheral edge of said ground plane coinciding with the outer contour of said radome. This modification would provide a mounting portion of the antenna for attaching the antenna radome (see Iwanaka, [0065], lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Zhang as applied to claim 1 teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one resistive film includes one or a plurality of concentric ring arcs.
However, Iwanaka teaches (Fig. 6) a resistive film (100) arranged in the form of a concentric ring arc conforming to the inner surface of the antenna body.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Iwanaka so that the at least one resistive film includes one or a plurality of concentric ring arcs. This modification would allow for the resistive film to be integrated within antenna elements having circular or cylindrical shape.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zhang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tasker et al. (US 20170358855 A1, hereinafter Tasker).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one resistive film includes one or a plurality of solid angular sectors.
Tasker teaches (Fig. 3A; [0024-0026]) a resistive film (308) for attenuating side-lobe and/or back-lobe radiation of an antenna, which includes one or a plurality of solid angular sectors.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tasker to have the at least one resistive film include one or a plurality of solid angular sectors. This modification would allow to sufficiently attenuate side-lobe and/or back-lobe radiation without excessively attenuating the antenna gain (see Tasker, [0026], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one resistive film is made of a material compatible with manufacturing by screen printing.
Tasker teaches (Fig. 3A; [0024-0026]) a resistive film (308) for attenuating side-lobe and/or back-lobe radiation of an antenna. Further, Tasker teaches ([0024], lines 12-13) that the resistive film may comprise flexible elastomers, which are compatible with manufacturing by screen printing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tasker to have the at least one resistive film made of a material compatible with manufacturing by screen printing. This modification would result in resistive film with favorable mechanical properties such as high-density flexible materials with reduced production cost associated with screen printing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zhang as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Tasker.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 7.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one resistive film is supported by a lower face of said radome, oriented towards said ground plane.
Tasker teaches (Fig. 3B; [0024]; [0027], lines 1-2) a resistive film (308) supported by a lower face of antenna radome (300), oriented towards the inside of an antenna.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tasker to have the at least one resistive film is supported by a lower face of said radome, oriented towards said ground plane. This modification would allow to sufficiently attenuate side-lobe and/or back-lobe radiation without excessively attenuating the antenna gain (see Tasker, [0026], lines 5-8), while providing alternative mounting option for the resistive film.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zhang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 4085406 A, hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein said at least one resistive film includes at least two concentric rings with different electrical resistances.
Schmidt teaches (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 47-58) a resistive film (8) includes at least two concentric rings (8a-8c) with different radiation absorption density characteristic. Further, Schmidt teaches (col. 1, lines 34-36) that “the radiation absorption density characteristic refers to the density of the absorber material particles used to absorb the rf radiation”. A person skilled in the art would recognize that changing the density of the absorber material particles used to absorb the rf radiation would result in materials with different electrical resistances.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt to have the at least one resistive film includes at least two concentric rings with different electrical resistances. This modification would allow to change the absolute gain versus the frequency characteristic of the antenna by selecting desired electrical resistances values (see Schmidt, col. 4, lines 1-6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zhang as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nickel (TD-00036 Cross Reference for Hollow Metallic Waveguides, Spinner GmbH, TD-00036, Issue R; 2020-09-14).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Zhang teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Zhang does not explicitly teach horn antenna suitable for operating over a wide range of working frequencies above the X-band.
Nickel taches (Tables 4, 7, and 8) the dimensions of rectangular, square and circular waveguides that are suitable for waveguides operating over different ranges of working frequencies, including frequencies above the X-band (note that the frequency range of the X-band is 8.2-12.5 GHz).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Nickel to modify the dimensions of the horn antenna waveguide to match the dimensions necessary for operating in the desired frequency range. This modification would have led to the predictable result of producing a waveguide antenna suitable for operating over a wide range of working frequencies above the X-band.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845