DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 6/20/2023.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202211110629, filed on 09/13/2022.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted with application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first determining module”, “a second determining module”, “a third determining module”, and “an arraying module” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See Spec. P.0087, "The steps of the method according to the embodiments of the present disclosure may be directly implemented by a hardware decoding processor, or implemented by a combination of hardware and software modules in a decoding processor. The software module may be located in a storage medium well known in the art.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite “determining a one-time-reflection model formula based on a small reflection theory”. The Examiner interprets this limitation as “using a one-time-reflection model formula based on a small reflection theory” since no description of how a one-time-reflection model is “determined” was disclosed.
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite “wherein the one-time-reflection model formula is used for representing a corresponding relationship among a reflection coefficient and the size of the array antenna, a reflection coefficient of the power dividers and a path length of the feed network”. This limitation is interpreted as intended use of the one-time-reflection model formula and is not given patentable weight.
Independent claims 1 and 6 (last limitation) recite “to enhance a bandwidth of the array antenna.” This is also interpreted as intended use of re-forming the bending structures and is not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “determining a size of an array antenna based on engineering requirements, and forming a broadband subarray and a feed network according to the size of the array antenna”. The limitations are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. i.e. How does one “determine” a size of an array antenna “based on engineering requirements”?
The dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation "employing the bending structures" in Ln.19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bending structures” in the claims. Applicant may amend claims to recite “employing bending structures” (for claim 1) or “to employ bending structures” (for claim 6) to overcome rejection.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “evaluating fitness” and “evaluating the fitness”, respectively. The term “evaluating” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “evaluating” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, what does “evaluating” mean here? What action is to be taken which limits the claims? As currently written, “evaluating” a fitness doesn’t limit the claimed invention. Applicant can amend claims accordingly to overcome rejection.
The dependent claims 2, 5 and 7-9, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 9 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claim 6 is directed towards an apparatus, as such falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 7-8 are directed to an antenna, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover mental process and/or mathematical concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining a size of an array antenna based on engineering requirements,
and forming a broadband subarray and a feed network according to the size of the array antenna, wherein the feed network is formed by connecting a plurality of stages of power dividers in parallel (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate engineering requirements, determine an array size therefrom, and then form/design a broadband subarray and feed network by connecting a plurality of stages of power dividers in parallel with/without the aid of pen and paper.);
determining a one-time-reflection model formula based on a small
reflection theory, wherein the one-time-reflection model formula is used for representing a corresponding relationship among a reflection coefficient and the size of the array antenna, a reflection coefficient of the power dividers and a path length of the feed network (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate a small reflection theory, determine a one-time reflection model formula therefrom, and then use the one-time-reflection model formula with/without the aid of pen/paper.);
adjusting added values of the path length of the feed network in conjunction with an optimization algorithm, further adjusting a phase compensation value, determining the reflection coefficient corresponding to the array antenna using the one-time-reflection model formula, and obtaining a maximum bandwidth with the reflection coefficient lower than a preset value and a corresponding added value of the length of the path (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). A person can reasonably adjust path length values in conjunction with an optimization algorithm (mathematical concept), adjust phase compensation values, determine (i.e. calculate) the reflection coefficient and maximum bandwidth with the reflection coefficient lower than a preset value and a corresponding added value of the path length, with/without the aid of pen/paper.); and
employing the bending structures to change lengths of a plurality of paths in the feed network according to the added values of the path length, and re-arraying the bending structures to enhance a bandwidth of the array antenna (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and/or Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). A person can reasonably employ (i.e. add/adjust/change/re-array) bending structures to the antenna design to compensate for previously optimized path lengths in the feed network, with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
Independent claims 6 and 7 recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B).
For the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 7 further recites A wideband air-filled waveguide array antenna, wherein the array antenna is obtained using the method according to claim 1 and comprises: a feed network and a subarray, wherein the feed network is formed by connecting a plurality of stages of power dividers in parallel; and the subarray is connected at an output port of the feed network as a terminal load. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional feature amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (i.e. Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts) per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 recites wherein the one-time-reflection model formula is represented as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Γ is the reflection coefficient, Γ, is the reflection coefficient of the power divider Ti, Tri=1+Γᵢ, Tri is a transmission coefficient of the power divider Tᵢ = 1, 2, 3, M+N), ГL is a reflection coefficient of the subarray (load) in the array antenna, M+N), θ is a phase delay, ß is a phase constant, M+N), Li-1 =
l
i-1 +
∆
l
i-1 + Li-2 (i=2, 3, ..., M+N), Li-1 is a path length from the input port of the feed network to the power divider Ti and LM+N is the path length from the input port of the array to the load, li-1 is a path length between power dividers Ti-1 and Tᵢ, IM+N is a path length between power divider TM+N and the loads.
∆
l
i-1 is an added value of the path length between power divider Ti-1 and Tᵢ,
∆
l
M+N is an added value of the path length between power divider TM+N and the loads, and M+N is a number of the power dividers in the feed network. Lo is set to 0. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites wherein adjusting the added values of lengths of plural paths of the feed network in conjunction with an optimization algorithm, further adjusting the phase compensation value, determining the reflection coefficient corresponding to the array antenna using the one-time-reflection model formula, and obtaining the maximum bandwidth with the reflection coefficient lower than a preset value and a corresponding added value of the length of the path comprises: adjusting the added values of the lengths of the plural paths in the feed network, and further adjusting the phase compensation value, so as to adjust phase delays generated by a plurality of small reflections in a corresponding feed network at different operating frequencies, the added values of the lengths of the plural paths in the feed network corresponding to optimization variables in the optimization algorithm; substituting a phase of the small reflection into the one-time-reflection model formula to obtain an amplitude value of a corresponding reflection coefficient; evaluating fitness of the added values of the lengths of the paths based on the amplitude value, wherein a fitness function is a maximum bandwidth with an amplitude value of the reflection coefficient of the array antenna lower than a preset amplitude value, and performing plural iterations to obtain an optimal solution; and obtaining the maximum bandwidth with the reflection coefficient lower than the preset amplitude value and the corresponding added value of the length of the path. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitations further amount to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I), respectively. Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites evaluating the fitness of the added values of the lengths of the paths based on a following formula: BW’ = max((fmax – fmin) / f0) wherein BW’ is the fitness, fmax is a frequency corresponding to an upper limit of the amplitude value, fmin is a frequency corresponding to a lower limit of the amplitude value, and f0 = (fmax + fmin) / 2, which is a center frequency. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation elaborates on evaluating the fitness, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 recites wherein the optimization algorithm comprises one of a particle swarm optimization algorithm, a genetic algorithm, a simulated annealing algorithm or a neural network algorithm. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation elaborates on the optimization algorithm, thus further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 recites wherein the array antenna further comprises a plurality of subarrays, and each subarray is composed of a plurality of power dividers and a plurality of radiation elements. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation elaborates on the array antenna, thus further amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (i.e. Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts) per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 recites wherein since a change in a dimension of wide side of waveguide can effectively adjust the phase constant β in a phase delay calculation formula qi-1 = βLi-1, a method for implementing phase regulation and control further comprises changing the dimension of wide side of the feed waveguide. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation further amounts to Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)/(I). Therefore, the claim is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §112(a)/(b) set forth in this Office action.
Independent Claim 1) An array antenna bandwidth enhancement method based on phase regulation and control, comprising: determining a size of an array antenna based on engineering requirements, and forming a broadband subarray and a feed network according to the size of the array antenna, wherein the feed network is formed by connecting a plurality of stages of power dividers in parallel; determining a one-time-reflection model formula based on a small reflection theory, wherein the one-time-reflection model formula is used for representing a corresponding relationship among a reflection coefficient and the size of the array antenna, a reflection coefficient of the power dividers and a path length of the feed network; adjusting added values of the path length of the feed network in conjunction with an optimization algorithm, further adjusting a phase compensation value, determining the reflection coefficient corresponding to the array antenna using the one-time-reflection model formula, and obtaining a maximum bandwidth with the reflection coefficient lower than a preset value and a corresponding added value of the length of the path; and employing the bending structures to change lengths of a plurality of paths in the feed network according to the added values of the path length, and re-arraying the bending structures to enhance a bandwidth of the array antenna.
Independent Claim 6) An array antenna bandwidth enhancement design apparatus, comprising: a first determining module, configured to determine a size of an array antenna based on engineering requirements, and array a broadband subarray and a feed network according to the size of the array antenna, wherein the feed network is formed by connecting a plurality of stages of power dividers in parallel; a second determining module, configured to determine a one-time-reflection model formula based on a small reflection theory, wherein the one-time-reflection model formula is used for representing a corresponding relationship among a reflection coefficient and the size of the array antenna, a reflection coefficient of the power dividers and a path length of the feed network; a third determining module, configured to adjust added values of the path length of the feed network in conjunction with an optimization algorithm, further adjust a phase compensation value, determine the reflection coefficient corresponding to the array antenna using the one-time-reflection model formula, and obtain a maximum bandwidth with the reflection coefficient lower than a preset value and the corresponding added value of the path length; and an arraying module, configured to employ the bending structures to change lengths of a plurality of paths in the feed network according to the added values of the path length, and re-form the bending structures to enhance a bandwidth of the array antenna.
Independent Claim 7) A wideband air-filled waveguide array antenna, wherein the array antenna is obtained using the method according to claim 1 and comprises: a feed network and a subarray, wherein the feed network is formed by connecting a plurality of stages of power dividers in parallel; and the subarray is connected at an output port of the feed network as a terminal load.
The closest prior art of record includes at least:
Chen et al. (A Millimeter-Wave Array Antenna Design Method And Array Antenna Apparatus – CN 107045562 B) discloses a millimeter wave array antenna design method and array antenna device, but fails to disclose or reasonably suggest, either alone or in combination, the instant application claimed limitations.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above, particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (Method And Apparatus For Determining Antenna Array And Electronic Device – US Pub. No 2024/0045999 A1) “a method and apparatus for determining an antenna array and an electronic device” [Abstract]
Sun, Fanqi, Yujian Li, Junhong Wang, Lei Ge, Jianxin Chen, and Wei Qin. "Bandwidth enhancement of millimeter-wave large-scale antenna arrays using X-type full-corporate waveguide feed networks." IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation 3 (2022): 1044-1056. “A one-time-reflection equivalent model of the full-corporate waveguide feed networks is investigated to propose a novel approach to bandwidth enhancement of millimeter-wave large-scale antenna arrays.” [Abstract]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights