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 filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant merely claims a reflector in a side lobe beam. Obeidat, in Fig. 5 shows two side lobes, in Fig. 6 and 7 a reflector element is used to expand those to create a different polar pattern and expand coverage and this is also explained in the text.
Claim 4 of the reference is moot as applicant has not claimed separation of components as argued. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., component being separate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Side lobe is directly used, stated [0069] and shown in the drawings. [Figs. 5-7]
The secondary reference argument is moot as it relies on there being no side lobes in Obeidat, which is not the case.
Obeidat has a reflector, it is in a side lobe, this is all that is in claim 1.
The rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Claims 6 and 7 do not even mention side lobes, which makes applicant’s argument to them entirely moot. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., side lobe) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obeidat (US 2021/0305715 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Obeidat discloses a reflector/scatterer arranged around a side lobe beam which is generated from a transmission antenna [0062, transmission], in a radiation direction of the side lobe beam, for use in expanding a communication service coverage area. [Figs. 5-7, the lobe beams, including the side lobes are manipulated with the reflectors to achieve different polar patterns and expand on the coverage area, 0068-0071]
3. The reflector/scatterer of claim 1, wherein the reflector/scatterer is formed of any one medium of metal, graphene, and a transparent electrode. [0043]
4. The reflector/scatterer of claim 1, wherein the reflector/scatterer comprises an inductor, a capacitor, or a diode. [0044-0045, PIN diodes are used to control the reflectors]
6. A reflector/scatterer radially arranged around an isotropic antenna for use in expanding a communication service coverage area. [0072, omnidirectional is substantially isotropic, isotropic is merely theoretical and has no real world implementation]
7. A reflector/scatterer arranged in a radiation direction of a guided wave or a surface wave generated from a planar antenna, for use in expanding a communication service coverage area. [0031]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obeidat in view of Gandy (2017/0244470 A1.)
Regarding claim 2, Obeidatdiscloses the reflector/scatterer of claim 1, but is silent as to a specific shape. Gandy discloses an analogous system wherein the reflector/scatterer is formed in any one of a plate shape, a cylindrical shape, and a spherical shape. [0073 cylinders are used] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use cylinders to allow unform reflection through all 360 degrees of the horizontal plane.
Regarding claim 5, Obeidat discloses the reflector/scatterer of claim 1, as well as the use of multiple reflectors, but does not necessarily show multiple reflector in one lobe. Gandy wherein the reflector/scatterer is arranged in multiple numbers in the radiation direction of the lobe beam. [Fig.1, 0061] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use multiple reflectors in one direction in order to allow for a longer range of coverage.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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.
/LEWIS G WEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699