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 Amendment
The amendments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered and are entered.
Applicant states claims 7 and 8 are amended to replace “nearby the third edge” with “a termination point is traversed”; Examiner respectfully finds no indication of this amendment in the provided listing of claims. Applicant further states claim 7 is amended to recite “the aerosol spray” with proper antecedent basis; Examiner respectfully finds claim 7 not to be amended in the provided listing of claims. Applicant further states claim 8 is amended to provide antecedent basis for “inner conductor” and “outer conductor” by explicitly tying them to the RF cable; Examiner respectfully notes that the “outer conductor” is not provided antecedent basis by this amendment. Applicant further states claim 8 has been amended to recite “masking the cable interface area between the cylindrical lens and the RF cable”, which sufficiently overcomes the specific 112(b) rejection addressed in the non-final action mailed 6/9/25.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 with respect to claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. However, upon further consideration, and in view of the amendments made to the independent claims 1 and 8 which substantially alter their scope, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below. In detail,
Applicant alleges Krivokapic discloses a dielectric structure with separate cavities and conductive inserts, not a single-piece additive-manufactured structure, whereas the claimed invention includes explicit masked, non-metalized regions adjacent the lens feed to prevent shorting. Examiner respectfully notes that claim 1 recites “a top surface defining one cone of the biconical antenna cavity, having a first metalized coating applied via conductive spray and a first masked, non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor”, which is supported by [0028] of the specification, reciting “The cable interface 104 is created by utilizing a liquid mask around the lens feed 105 before the antenna surfaces are metalized via conductive spray. Once the conductive spray dries, the liquid mask may be removed to expose the lens feed 105”, thus the resultant structure is a structural void, akin to Krivokapic’s central cavity 209 as indicated by Applicant. Pursuant to the change in scope of the claimed invention, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Applicant alleges Aga is impermissible to combine with Krivokapic as Krivokapic relies on precision ceramics/PTFE, not plastics, and teaches away from additive manufacturing. Examiner respectfully disagrees, indicating that 1) Krivokapic is not relied upon for the teaching of 3D printing, silver epoxy coupling, or aerosol metallization, and does not teach away from these elements in a strict sense as it does not make mention of them altogether (MPEP 2143.01(I), The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), and 2), the rationale to combine these references emerges without hindsight by weighing the suggestive power of each reference, that of the biconical design of Krivokapic, and of the manufacturing methods and materials of Aga (MPEP 2143.01(II), Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Applicant further alleges Tam is impermissible to combine with Krivokapic as Tan teaches microwave ceramics, which are incompatible with the 3D-printable, selectively metallized polymer design central to Applicant’s claims. Without conceding the validity of Applicant’s assertion, Examiner presents a new ground of rejection in view of the amendments made to change and clarify the scope of independent claims 1 and 8, in an effort to expedite prosecution of the case.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, while not explicitly indefinite, the establishment of “a biconical antenna cavity” followed by “the biconical antenna” (sans ‘cavity’) introduces a potential level of ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-12 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the aerosol spray" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the outer conductor” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-12 are included for their dependency upon claim 8.
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, 3, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krivokapic (US Patent No. 8,576,135) in view of Aga et al. (US Patent No. 11,404,773) and March (US Patent No. 4,974,532).
Regarding claim 1, Krivokapic teaches (Fig. 2-3) a unitary lens antenna, comprising: a radiofrequency (RF) cable (250) having an inner conductor (251) and an outer conductor (252); and a cylindrical lens (201) having a biconical antenna cavity (203 and 207) and a lens feed electrically coupled to the inner conductor (213), the lens further comprising: a top surface defining one cone of the biconical antenna cavity (203), having a first metalized coating (see Col 3 lines 27-34) and a first non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor (see Col 3 lines 35-44), central cavity 209 interfacing with both the top surface 203 and the bottom surface 207, providing a non-metalized cable interface with outer conductor 252); a bottom surface (207) defining another cone of the biconical antenna cavity, having a second metalized coating (see Col 3 lines 27-34) and a second non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor (Col 3 lines 35-44); and a lens feed extending along a centerline of the cylindrical lens body operable to feed the RF cable through the lens (see Col 3 lines 35-44, central cavity 209).
Krivokapic does not teach the lens being formed as a single three-dimensionally printed body, nor the top surface and bottom surface each having a metallized coating applied via conductive spray.
Aga et al. teaches (Figs. 1-4) an antenna having a cylindrical body (12), wherein the cylindrical body is a single three-dimensionally printed body (Col 3 lines 29-35), having a first metallized coating (18) applied via conductive spray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the cylindrical lens body by three-dimensional printing, and by applying the metalized coating via conductive spray, as taught by Aga.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefits of quickly and inexpensively replacing parts of the antenna (Aga, Col 3 lines 27-29) and of precisely placing the material in desired locations (Aga, Col 4 lines 10-12).
While Krivokapic and Aga do not explicitly teach the non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor of the biconical antenna cavity being masked, the recited mask (see instant application [0028]) amounts to a method of forming the recited non-metalized cable interface and does not substantially differentiate the material structure of the claimed invention over the material structure taught by Krivokapic; additionally, the method of masking a portion of a surface to prevent a sprayed coating from adhering to it is well known to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
For example, March (US Patent No. 4,974,532) teaches (see Fig. 3) a means for covering a portion of a surface with a spray coating (16) while masking a desired other portion of the surface (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the non-metalized cable interface by masking, employing the teachings of March.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably isolating a non-coated component of the structure surface (refer to March, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Krivokapic teaches the unitary lens antenna of claim 2, wherein the cylindrical lens further comprises a plastic material capable of 3D printing (Col 3 lines 5-12, PTFE is capable of being 3D printed) with a dielectric constant of 6 or less (PTFE has a dielectric constant of 2.02).
Regarding claim 5, Krivokapic teaches the unitary lens antenna of claim 1.
Krivokapic does not teach wherein the coupling is accomplished by silver epoxy.
Aga et al. teaches (Figs. 1-4) an antenna comprising: a radiofrequency (RF) cable (20) having an inner conductor and an outer conductor (coaxial cable, see Col 4 line 42); and a cylindrical lens having a feed electrically coupled to the inner conductor (Col 4 lines 40-49), wherein the coupling is accomplished by silver epoxy (Col 4 lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the coupling to be accomplished by silver epoxy, as taught by Aga.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of removing the need for precise soldering of the components, simplifying assembly (Aga, Col 4 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 8, Krivokapic teaches (Figs. 2-3) a method for producing a unitary lens antenna, obtained by the process of: determining a feed gap (305; cavities 203 and 207 are separated from each other by central portion 305, having a height, which is understood to constitute a feed gap, and would be determined in the design of such an antenna); forming a cylindrical lens (201) having a biconical antenna cavity (203 and 207) and a lens feed electrically coupled to an inner conductor (213, coupled to 251) or a radiofrequency (RF) cable (Col 3 lines 24-26), the lens further comprising: a top surface defining one cone of the biconical antenna (203), having metalized coating (see Col 3 lines 27-34) and a non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor (see Col 3 lines 35-44, central cavity 209 interfacing with both the top surface 203 and the bottom surface 207, providing a non-metalized cable interface with outer conductor 252); a bottom surface (207) defining another cone of the biconical antenna, having metalized coating (see Col 3 lines 27-34) and a second non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor (Col 3 lines 35-44); wherein the top and bottom surface are separated by the feed gap (305; see Fig. 3); a lens feed extending along a centerline of the cylindrical lens body operable to feed a radiofrequency (RF) cable (250) through the lens (see Col 3 lines 35-44, central cavity 209); masking the cable interface area between the cylindrical lens and the RF cable (Col 1 lines 50-55, the cavity 209 is electrically insulated between the top surface and the bottom surface, and thus is ‘masked’ in its production), wherein the cable interface is located adjacent to the lens feed (non-conductive central portion 305 adjacent to coupling portions of 203, 207; see Fig. 2C); inserting the RF cable (250; see Fig. 2C), having an inner conductor (251) and an outer conductor (252), into the lens feed (via 211); and coupling the RF cable to the cylindrical lens body (Col 4 lines 1-4).
Krivokapic does not teach the forming of the cylindrical lens comprising printing, using three dimensional printing techniques, nor metalizing the top surface and the bottom surface by applying an aerosol spray.
Aga et al. teaches (Figs. 1-4) an antenna having a cylindrical body (12), wherein the cylindrical body is three-dimensionally printed (Col 3 lines 29-35), the cylindrical body having a first metalized coating (18), wherein the metalized coating is applied via aerosol spray (Col 4 lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for producing unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the cylindrical lens body by three-dimensional printing, and by applying the metalized coating via aerosol spray, as taught by Aga.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefits of quickly and inexpensively replacing parts of the antenna (Aga, Col 3 lines 27-29) and precisely placing the material in desired locations (Aga, Col 4 lines 10-12).
While Krivokapic and Aga do not explicitly teach the non-metalized cable interface with the outer conductor of the biconical antenna cavity being masked, the recited mask (see instant application [0028]) amounts to a method of forming the recited non-metalized cable interface and does not substantially differentiate the material structure of the claimed invention over the material structure taught by Krivokapic; additionally, the method of masking a portion of a surface to prevent a sprayed coating from adhering to it is well known to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
For example, March (US Patent No. 4,974,532) teaches (see Fig. 3) a means for covering a portion of a surface with a spray coating (16) while masking a desired other portion of the surface (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the non-metalized cable interface by masking, employing the teachings of March.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably isolating a non-coated component of the structure surface (refer to March, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Krivokapic teaches the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of claim 8.
Krivokapic does not teach wherein the aerosol spray comprises copper.
Aga et al. teaches (Figs. 1-4) an antenna comprising: a cylindrical structure (12) having a first metalized coating (18), wherein the metalized coating is applied via aerosol spray (Col 4 lines 3-7), wherein the aerosol spray comprises copper (Col 4 lines 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by applying the metalized coating via aerosol spray, wherein the aerosol spray comprises copper, as taught by Aga.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of precisely placing the material in desired locations (Aga, Col 4 lines 10-12) and ensuring the coating has high conductivity (Aga, Col 4 line 15).
Regarding claim 10, Krivokapic teaches the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of claim 8.
Krivokapic does not teach wherein coupling the RF cable to the cylindrical lens body comprises silver epoxy.
Aga et al. teaches (Figs. 1-4) an antenna comprising: a radiofrequency (RF) cable (20) having an inner conductor and an outer conductor (coaxial cable, see Col 4 line 42); and a cylindrical lens having a feed electrically coupled to the inner conductor (Col 4 lines 40-49), wherein the coupling is accomplished by silver epoxy (Col 4 lines 51-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the coupling to comprise silver epoxy, as taught by Aga.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of removing the need for precise soldering of the components, simplifying assembly (Aga, Col 4 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 11, Krivokapic teaches the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of claim 8, wherein the cylindrical lens further comprises a plastic material capable of 3D printing (Col 3 lines 5-12, PTFE is capable of being 3D printed) with a dielectric constant of 6 or less (PTFE has a dielectric constant of 2.02).
Claims 4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krivokapic (US Patent No. 8,576,135) in view of Aga et al. (US Patent No. 11,404,773) and March (US Patent No. 4,974,532) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Vesely et al. (NPL 2, Czech Technical University, Dept. of Electrotechnology 2018, copy provided by examiner).
Regarding claim 4, Krivokapic teaches the unitary lens antenna of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical lens further comprises a material (PTFE, being a 3D printable material; see Col 3 lines 5-12).
Krivokapic does not explicitly teach the material not having tangent losses of 0.007 or less, however various dielectric and 3D printable materials are known by persons having ordinary skill in the art to not have tangent losses of 0.007 or less.
For example, Vesely et al. teaches (Table 1) a dielectric 3D printable material not having tangent losses of 0.007 or less (see loss tangent of ABS, 0.0269).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the material to not have tangent losses of 0.007 as taught by Vesely.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of applying a readily accessible material formable by 3D printing to an electronic device (Vesely, Abstract).
Additionally, the replacement of one material with a substantially equivalently suitable material is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Krivokapic teaches the unitary lens antenna of claim 1.
Krivokapic does not teach wherein the aerosol spray comprises copper.
Aga et al. teaches (Figs. 1-4) an antenna comprising: a cylindrical structure (12) having a first metalized coating (18), wherein the metalized coating is applied via aerosol spray (Col 4 lines 3-7), wherein the aerosol spray comprises copper (Col 4 lines 14-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by applying the metalized coating via aerosol spray, wherein the aerosol spray comprises copper, as taught by Aga.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of precisely placing the material in desired locations (Aga, Col 4 lines 10-12) and ensuring the coating has high conductivity (Aga, Col 4 line 15).
Regarding claim 12, Krivokapic teaches the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of claim 8, wherein the cylindrical lens further comprises a material (PTFE, being a 3D printable material; see Col 3 lines 5-12).
Krivokapic does not explicitly teach the material not having tangent losses of 0.007 or less, however various dielectric and 3D printable materials are known by persons having ordinary skill in the art to not have tangent losses of 0.007 or less.
For example, Vesely et al. teaches (Table 1) a dielectric 3D printable material not having tangent losses of 0.007 or less (see loss tangent of ABS, 0.0269).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for producing a unitary lens antenna of Krivokapic by forming the material to not have tangent losses of 0.007 as taught by Vesely.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of applying a readily accessible material formable by 3D printing to an electronic device (Vesely, Abstract).
Additionally, the replacement of one material with a substantially equivalently suitable material is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM 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, 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845