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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gard (2010/0188296) in view of Gomez et al. (2020/0266510).
Regarding Claim 1, Gard (2010/0188296) discloses an antenna array comprising:
a radiating element (on the transceiver or control circuit, fig. 3) configured to receive or transmit an electromagnetic signal (“the control comprises an electromagnetic radiating element”, abstract; “transceiver board supports the radiating element”, paragraph [0018]); and
an alignment horn (antenna horn 33, paragraph [0031], fig. 3) attached to the radiating element (fig. 3, paragraph [0018]), wherein the alignment horn aids in maintaining positioning of the radiating element (threaded fitting mounted to the housing 12, paragraph [0028], fig. 3);
wherein the alignment horn (33) comprises a detent end (60, fig. 3, paragraph [0035]); and
Ad discussed above, Gard essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiating element and the alignment horn are manufactured together as a single element by a three-dimensional printing process such that manufacturing the single element does not require a separate joining process for joining separate components.
However, Gomez teaches the advantages of 3D printing process such as easier to manufacture (paragraph [0089]), reducing perturbations caused by junctions and reducing the bulk and weight of the component (paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have manufactured the radiating elements and alignment horn together as a single element by a three-dimensional printing process in Gard’s invention in order to obtain the advantages as taught by Gomez such as reducing perturbations, bulk and weight of the product.
Regarding Claim 2, as discussed above, Gard essentially discloses the claimed invention (the horn opening is round shape, see Figs. 4, 5) but does not explicitly disclose the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the detent end of the alignment horn comprises an ellipsoidal segment geometry.
However, it has been held that changing in shape without unexpected novel result merely involves routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to have provided ellipsoidal segment geometry shape on the detent end in Gard in order to fit the antenna with the desired shape of housing.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding Claim 3, Gard discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the alignment horn (33) further comprises a shaft (cone-shape shaft) (annotated fig. 3 below. Figs. 4, 5 show three-dimensional);
wherein the detent end is attached to a distal end of the shaft (see annotated fig. 3); and wherein a proximal end of the shaft is attached to the radiating element (see annotated fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Gard discloses the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the alignment horn further comprises a shaft, and wherein the shaft comprises a conical frustrum geometry (cone shaped) (annotated fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Gard essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the antenna array comprises four radiating elements arranged in an orthogonal pair.
However, it has been held that duplication of parts without unexpected novel result merely involves routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided any number of radiating elements (e.g. four) in an orthogonal pair in Gard in order to attain desired radiation coverage and intensity.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding Claim 15, Gard discloses the antenna array of claim 1, further comprising a dielectric insert (epoxy potting compound 34) (paragraph [0046]) that comprises: a stud comprising a stud thickness; and a horn receptacle forming a hole disposed through the stud thickness (See annotated fig. 3 below).
Regarding Claim 16, Gard discloses the antenna array of claim 15, wherein the horn receptacle of the dielectric insert (34) is configured to receive the alignment horn (33) to aid in maintaining positioning of the radiating element (threaded fit with the housing); wherein at least a portion (hollow part that attach the horn 33) of the horn receptacle comprises a conical frustum geometry (cone shaped); and wherein the alignment horn (33) further comprises a shaft (cone shaped shaft) configured to be disposed within the horn receptacle (See annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Gard discloses an antenna array comprising:
a radiating element (on the transceiver or control circuit, fig. 3) configured to receive or transmit an electromagnetic signal (“the control comprises an electromagnetic radiating element”, abstract; “transceiver board supports the radiating element”, paragraph [0018]);
an alignment horn (33) attached to the radiating element (through the feed), and wherein the alignment horn comprises a detent end (see annotated fig. 3 below); and
a dielectric insert (34) constructed of a dielectric material (epoxy compound), wherein the dielectric insert (forms a receptacle) is disposed adjacent to the alignment horn (33);
wherein the alignment horn and the dielectric insert aid in maintaining a position of the radiating element (threaded fitting mounted to the housing 12, paragraph [0028], fig. 3); and
PNG
media_image3.png
736
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Gard essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiating element and the alignment horn are manufactured together as a single element by a three-dimensional printing process such that manufacturing the single element does not require a separate joining process for joining separate components.
However, Gomez teaches the advantages of 3D printing process such as easier to manufacture (paragraph [0089]), reducing perturbations caused by junctions and reducing the bulk and weight of the component (paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have manufactured the radiating elements and alignment horn together as a single element by a three-dimensional printing process in Gard’s invention in order to obtain the advantages as taught by Gomez such as reducing perturbations, bulk and weight of the product.
Regarding Claim 24, Gard discloses an antenna array comprising:
a radiating element (on the transceiver or control circuit, fig. 3; “the control comprises an electromagnetic radiating element”, abstract; “transceiver board supports the radiating element”, paragraph [0018]);
alignment horn (33) attached to radiating element (through the feed); and
a dielectric insert (34) constructed of a dielectric material (epoxy compound);
wherein the dielectric insert (34) is configured to be disposed in between alignment horn (33) to maintain spacing between radiating element (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
608
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Gard essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of horns and a plurality of radiating elements.
However, it has been held that duplication of parts without unexpected novel result merely involves routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided any number of radiating elements (plural) and number of horn (plural) in Gard in order to attain desired radiation coverage and intensity.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
As discussed above, Gard essentially discloses the claimed inventio but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of radiating elements and the plurality of alignment horns are manufactured together as a single element by a three-dimensional printing process such that manufacturing the single element does not require a separate joining process for joining separate components.
However, Gomez teaches the advantages of 3D printing process such as easier to manufacture (paragraph [0089]), reducing perturbations caused by junctions and reducing the bulk and weight of the component (paragraph [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have manufactured the radiating elements and alignment horn together as a single element by a three-dimensional printing process in Gard’s invention in order to obtain the advantages as taught by Gomez such as reducing perturbations, bulk and weight of the product.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 5, 8-14 and 17-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights