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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/29/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
Claim 3: “the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a second reflector of the plurality of reflectors and a second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts”. Drawings do not show the first feed insert interface with the first reflector, the first splash plate in claim 2 and the second reflector and the second feed insert of claim 3 at the same time.
Claim 4: “the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a third reflector of the plurality of reflectors and the second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts”. Drawings do not show the first feed insert interface with the first reflector, the first splash plate in claim 2, the second reflector and the second feed insert of claim 3 and the third reflector of claim 4 at the same time.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 3: “the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a second reflector of the plurality of reflectors and a second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts”. Specification does not disclose the first feed insert interface with the first reflector, the first splash plate in claim 2 and the second reflector and the second feed insert of claim 3 at the same time.
Claim 4: “the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a third reflector of the plurality of reflectors and the second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts”. Specification does not disclose the first feed insert interface with the first reflector, the first splash plate in claim 2, the second reflector and the second feed insert of claim 3 and the third reflector of claim 4 at the same time.
Claim 11: there is no support in the spec about a method of manufacturing any apparatus or an antenna positioning system kit.
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 3-4, 8-9 and 11-20 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 3 recites “the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a second reflector of the plurality of reflectors and a second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the first feed insert interfaces with the first reflector, the first splash plate in claim 2 and the second reflector and the second feed insert of claim 3 at the same time. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 4 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 3 and is subsequently rejected.
Claim 4 recites “the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a third reflector of the plurality of reflectors and a second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the first feed insert interfaces with the first reflector, the first splash plate in claim 2, the second reflector and the second feed insert of claim 3 and the third reflector of claim 4 at the same time. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the number of feed inserts of the plurality of feed inserts are selected to account for a focal length of a selected reflector from the plurality of reflectors” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how this selected reflector relates to the chosen reflector recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein a selected splash plate of the plurality of splash plates is configured to be directly coupled to at least one feed insert from the plurality of feed inserts” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how this selected splash plate and this at least one feed insert relate to the chosen splash plate and the number of feed inserts recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "A method of manufacturing an antenna positioning system" in line 1 which renders the claim indefinite. There is no step of manufacturing in the claim. The claim comprises of steps to select a reflector of a desired diameter, a splash plate of a desired frequency and a number of feed inserts from an antenna positioning system kit and couple the reflector, the splash plate and the number of feed inserts together, these steps are not manufacturing steps. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claims 12-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 11 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “couple components of the antenna positioning system” in line 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what components of the antenna positioning system are and how these components relate to the plurality of reflectors, splash plates, feed inserts recited in claim 11. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barratt et al, US2018/0294543 (hereinafter Barratt) in view of Flynn et al, US Pub. NO. 20070075909A1 (hereinafter Flynn).
Regarding claim 1, Barratt discloses the following:
an antenna positioning system kit for forming an antenna positioning system, the antenna positioning system kit comprising:
a plurality of reflectors, each reflector of the plurality of reflectors having a differently sized parabolic shaped body (fig. 1, para [0019]: various sized reflectors 30); and
a plurality of feed inserts (fig. 2: plurality of feed inserts 14), wherein one or more of the plurality of feed inserts are positionable between a chosen reflector and a chosen splash plate from the antenna positioning system kit (fig. 1: one or more of the plurality of feed inserts 14 are positionable between a chosen reflector 30 and a chosen splash plate 18), wherein the antenna positioning system is formed from the antenna positioning system kit based on the chosen reflector, the chosen splash plate, and the one or more of the plurality of feed inserts (fig. 1).
Although Barratt does not explicitly disclose the antenna positioning system kit comprising a plurality of splash plates, each of the plurality of splash plates having a differing size and shape based on a desired frequency of the antenna positioning system, Barratt discloses the upper hat 12 which includes the splash plate 18 can be modular components and have different configurations (para [0024]) and the application of invention can be used in any common satellite frequency bands (para [0003]), it is implied that there are plurality of splash plates of different size and shape depending the operating frequencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a different splash plate in the antenna positing system kit taught in Barratt based on different frequency as claimed for the purpose of feeding the desired frequency to the antenna in order to provide wireless communication.
Barratt does not disclose wherein a number of feed inserts selected for use with a chosen reflector from the plurality of reflectors is based on a diameter of the chosen reflector.
Flynn suggests wherein a number of feed inserts (20, 85, figs. 7-8) selected for use with a chosen reflector from the plurality of reflectors is based on a diameter of the chosen reflector (para [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the number of feed inserts base on the diameter of the reflector as suggested in Flynn to the antenna positioning system as taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of placing the splash plate at the focal point of the reflector (Flynn, para [0025]) in order to improve the signal transmitting and reflecting between the splash plate and the reflector to improve the antenna’s performance in different frequencies.
Examiner’s Note - Any satellite antenna manufacturing website could be the antenna positioning system kit recited in claim 1 because the websites would offer a plurality of reflectors, a plurality of splash plates, a plurality of feed inserts so that one of ordinary skill in the art can access and choose a reflector, a splash plate, the number of feed inserts and connect the feed inserts together depending the required length to place the splash plate at the focal point of the reflector.
Regarding claim 2, Barratt discloses wherein a first feed insert (14 of length L1, fig. 2) of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a first reflector (para [0020]-[0021]: reflector 30 of a first size) of the plurality of reflectors and a first splash plate (fig. 2, para [0024]: the upper hat 12 including the splash plate 18 of first configuration) of the plurality of splash plates, the first reflector having a first diameter (para [0003]: dish shaped reflectors 30, it is implied that the first reflector 30 having a first diameter).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Barratt does not disclose wherein the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a second reflector of the plurality of reflectors and a second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts, the second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts configured to interface between the first feed insert and the first splash plate, the second reflector having a second diameter larger than the first diameter of the first reflector.
Flynn suggests wherein the first feed insert (fig. 6: first feed insert 20) of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a second reflector (90) of the plurality of reflectors and a second feed insert (85) of the plurality of feed inserts, the second feed insert (85) of the plurality of feed inserts configured to interface between the first feed insert (20) and the first splash plate (40), the second reflector having a second diameter larger than the first diameter of the first reflector (para [0025]: different sized reflector dish 90, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dish shaped reflectors having different size mean the diameter of one reflector will be larger than the diameter of another reflector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second feed insert as suggested in Flynn to the antenna positioning system as taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Barratt does not disclose wherein the first feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a third reflector of the plurality of reflectors and the second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts, the second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts configured to interface between the first feed insert and a third feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts, the third feed insert configured to interface between the first splash plate of the plurality of splash plates, the third reflector having a third diameter larger than the first diameter of the first reflector and the second diameter of the second reflector.
Flynn suggests wherein the first feed insert (fig. 6: first feed insert 20) of the plurality of feed inserts is configured to interface between a third reflector (90) of the plurality of reflectors and the second feed insert (85) of the plurality of feed inserts, the second feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts configured to interface between the first feed insert and a third feed insert of the plurality of feed inserts, the third feed insert (85) configured to interface between the first splash plate (40) of the plurality of splash plates, the third reflector having a third diameter larger than the first diameter of the first reflector and the second diameter of the second reflector (para [0025]: different sized reflector dish 90, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dish shaped reflectors having different size mean the diameter of one reflector will be larger than the diameter of another reflector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second feed insert as suggested in Flynn to the antenna positioning system as taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, although Barratt does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of splash plates comprises: a first splash plate dedicated to an X-band feed; a second splash plate dedicated to a Ka-band feed; and a third splash plated dedicated to a Ku-band feed, Barratt discloses that the splash plate 18 can be modular component and have different configurations (para [0024]) and the application of invention can be used in any common satellite frequency bands which include X-band, Ka-band, Ku-band (para [0003]), it is implied that there are plurality of splash plates of different operating frequencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a configuration for a splash plate operating in different frequency bands as claimed for the purpose of feeding the desired frequency to the antenna in order to provide wireless communication.
Regarding claim 6, Barratt discloses wherein the plurality of reflectors comprises: a first reflector having a first diameter; and a second reflector having a second diameter larger than the first diameter (para [0003]: dish shaped reflectors 30 having various size, para [0019], one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dish shaped reflectors having different size mean the diameter of one reflector will be larger than the diameter of another reflector).
Regarding claim 7, although Barratt does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of feed inserts comprises: a first set of feed inserts from the plurality of feed inserts to account for a first focal point of the first reflector; and a second set of feed inserts from the plurality of feed inserts to account for a second focal point of the second reflector, wherein a total length of the second set of feed inserts is greater than a total length of the first set of feed inserts, Barratt teaches that the feed inserts 14 having different length L1, L2, L3 to work with different sized reflectors, see para [0019], [0021].
Flynn suggests wherein the plurality of feed inserts comprises: a first set of feed inserts from the plurality of feed inserts to account for a first focal point of the first reflector; and a second set of feed inserts from the plurality of feed inserts to account for a second focal point of the second reflector, wherein a total length of the second set of feed inserts is greater than a total length of the first set of feed inserts (Fig. 6, para [0025]: different sized reflector dish 90 and the variable sized shortened boom arms 20 adjust the total length of the system feed to accommodate the required focal length of the reflector dish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the different set of feed inserts corresponding to different focal points of the reflectors as suggested in Flynn to the antenna positioning system as taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, although Barratt does not explicitly disclose the number of feed inserts of the plurality of feed inserts are selected to account for a focal length of a selected reflector from the plurality of reflectors, Barratt teaches there are different feed inserts corresponding to different length for different sized reflectors (para [0019], [0021]).
Flynn suggests wherein a number of feed inserts are selected to account for a focal length of a selected reflector (Fig. 6, para [0025]: different sized reflector dish 90 and the variable sized shortened boom arms 20 adjust the total length of the system feed to accommodate the required focal length of the reflector dish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the feed insert corresponding to the focal length of the selected reflector as suggested in Flynn to the antenna positioning system as taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points in order to maintain the antenna’s performance in different frequencies (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Barratt discloses wherein a selected splash plate of the plurality of splash plates is configured to be directly coupled to at least one feed insert from the plurality of feed inserts (fig. 1: a selected splash plate 18 is configured to be directly coupled to feed insert 14).
Regarding claim 10, Barratt discloses the antenna positioning system kit further comprising: a coupling mechanism configured to couple a first feed insert from the plurality of feed inserts to a second feed insert from the plurality of feed inserts or the first feed insert to a first splash plate of the plurality of splash plates (para [0022]-[0023]: coupling mechanism to couple the feed insert with other parts of the antenna positioning system).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Barratt discloses the following:
a method of manufacturing an antenna positioning system comprising:
identifying a first reflector from a plurality of reflectors included in an antenna positioning system kit, the first reflector having a first desired diameter (fig. 1, para [0019]: various sized reflectors 30);
identifying a first splash plate dedicated to a first desired frequency (fig. 1: splash plate 18); and
forming the antenna positioning system by coupling the first reflector to the first splash plate using the determined number of feed inserts (fig. 1: coupling the first reflector 30 to the first splash plate 18 using the determined number of feed inserts 14).
Although Barratt does not disclose a plurality of splash plates included in the antenna positioning system kit, Barratt discloses the upper hat 12 which includes the splash plate 18 can be modular, have different configurations (para [0024]) and the application of invention can be used in any common satellite frequency bands (para [0003]), it is implied that there are plurality of splash plates of different configurations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a different splash plate in the antenna positing system kit taught in Barratt based on different frequency as claimed for the purpose of feeding the desired frequency to the antenna in order to provide wireless communication.
Barratt does not disclose determining a number of feed inserts from a plurality of feed inserts included in the antenna positioning system kit for positioning the first splash plate at a focal point of the first reflector.
Flynn suggests determining a number of feed inserts (20, 85, figs. 7-8) from a plurality of feed inserts included in the antenna positioning system kit for positioning the first splash plate at a focal point of the first reflector (para [0025]: different sized reflector dish 90 and the variable sized shortened boom arms 20 adjust the total length of the system feed to accommodate the required focal length of the reflector dish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the splash plate at the focal point of the reflector as suggested in Flynn to the antenna positioning system as taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of improving the signal transmitting and reflecting between the splash plate and the reflector in order to improve the antenna’s performance in different frequencies.
Examiner’s Note - Any satellite antenna manufacturing website could be the antenna positioning system kit recited in claim 11 because the websites would offer a plurality of reflectors, a plurality of splash plates, a plurality of feed inserts. One of ordinary skill in the art would access the website, choose a reflector, a splash plate, a number of feed insert depending the required length to place the splash plate at the focal point of the reflector and assemble these components together, the process has the same steps as the method of manufacturing recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Barratt discloses wherein the determined number of feed inserts is one (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Barratt discloses wherein forming the antenna positioning system by coupling the first reflector to the first splash plate using the determined number of feed inserts comprises: coupling a first end of a first feed insert to the first reflector and a second end of the first feed insert to the first splash plate (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Barratt does not disclose wherein the determined number of feed inserts is greater than one.
Flynn suggests wherein the determined number of feed inserts is greater than one (fig. 6: there are 2 feed inserts 85 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one feed inserts as suggested in Flynn to the method taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points in order to maintain the antenna’s performance in different frequencies (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 15, Barratt does not disclose wherein forming the antenna positioning system by coupling the first reflector to the first splash plate using the determined number of feed inserts comprises: coupling a first end of a first feed insert to the first reflector and a second end of the first feed insert to a first end of a second feed insert; and coupling a second end of the second feed insert to the first splash plate.
Flynn suggests wherein forming the antenna positioning system by coupling the first reflector to the first splash plate using the determined number of feed inserts comprises: coupling a first end of a first feed insert to the first reflector and a second end of the first feed insert to a first end of a second feed insert; and coupling a second end of the second feed insert to the first splash plate (fig. 6: coupling a first end of a first feed insert 20 to the first reflector 90 and a second end of the first feed insert 20 to a first end of a second feed insert 85; and coupling a second end of the second feed insert 85 to the first splash plate 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the first and second feed inserts as suggested in Flynn to the method taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points in order to maintain the antenna’s performance in different frequencies (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, although Barratt does not explicitly disclose wherein forming the antenna positioning system by coupling the first reflector to the first splash plate using the determined number of feed inserts comprises: determining the first desired frequency of the antenna positioning system; and selecting the first splash plate from the plurality of splash plates that comprises: a second splash plate dedicated to an X-band feed; a third splash plate dedicated to a Ka-band feed; and a fourth splash plated dedicated to a Ku-band feed, Barratt suggests that the splash plate 18 can have different configuration (para [0024]) and the application of invention can be used in any common satellite frequency bands which include X-band, Ka-band, Ku-band (para [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a configuration for a splash plate operating in different frequency bands as claimed for the purpose of feeding the desired frequency to the antenna in order to provide wireless communication.
Regarding claim 17, although Barratt does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: determining that a desired frequency of the antenna positioning system has changed from the first desired frequency to a second desired frequency; and based on the determining, replacing the first splash plate with a second splash plate from the plurality of splash plates, the second splash plate associated with the second desired frequency, Barratt suggests that the splash plate 18 can have different configuration (para [0024]) and the application of invention can be used in any common satellite frequency bands which include X-band, Ka-band, Ku-band (para [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a different splash plate operating in different frequency bands as claimed for the purpose of feeding the desired frequency to the antenna in order to provide wireless communication.
Regarding claim 18, Barratt discloses the method further comprising: determining that a desired size of a reflector has changed; replacing the first reflector with a second reflector that has a second desired diameter greater than the first desired diameter; and based on the second desired diameter (para [0019] various sized reflectors 30, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could select a desired size of reflector and replace the first reflector with the second reflector).
Although Barratt does not explicitly disclose adding at least one feed insert from the plurality of feed inserts to the number of feed inserts to account for the second desired diameter, Barratt suggests changing the total length of the feed insert 14 to work with different sized reflector 30 (para [0019]).
Flynn suggests adding at least one feed insert from the plurality of feed inserts to the number of feed inserts to account for the second desired diameter (fig. 6, para [0025]: feed insert 20 is added to adjust the total length of the system feed to accommodate the required focal length of the reflector dish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the feed insert as suggested in Flynn to the method taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points in order to maintain the antenna’s performance in different frequencies (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Barratt discloses the method further comprising: determining that a desired size of a reflector has changed; replacing the first reflector with a second reflector that has a second desired diameter less than the first desired diameter (para [0019]: various sized reflectors 30.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could select a desired size of reflector and replace the first reflector with the second reflector).
Although Barratt does not explicitly disclose based on the second desired diameter, removing at least one feed insert from the number of feed inserts to account for the second desired diameter, Barratt suggests changing the total length of the feed insert 14 to work with different sized reflector 30 (para [0019]).
Flynn suggests based on the second desired diameter, removing at least one feed insert from the number of feed inserts to account for the second desired diameter (Fig. 8, para [0025]: feed insert 20 is removed from fig. 6 to adjust the total length of the system feed to accommodate the required focal length of the reflector dish).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the feed insert as suggested in Flynn to the method taught in Barratt as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the total length of the positioning system to work with different sizes of reflector dish having different focal points in order to maintain the antenna’s performance in different frequencies (Flynn, para [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Barratt discloses wherein the antenna positioning system comprises a coupling mechanism configured to couple components of the antenna positioning system (para [0022]-[0023]: there are coupling mechanisms to couple the feed insert with other parts of the antenna positioning system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the specification objections, Applicant argued that “This is again incorrect and is premised on an overly narrow interpretation of the Specification. Figure 4 very clearly shows an antenna positioning system that includes a plurality of reflectors, a plurality of splash plates, and a plurality of feed inserts.”
Examiner respectfully disagree. Fig. 4 shows an antenna positioning system that includes a plurality of reflectors, a plurality of splash plates, and a plurality of feed inserts but the spec does not mention about the method of manufacturing an antenna positioning system. The process of selecting a reflector from a plurality of reflector, a plash plate from a plurality of plash plates, a number of feed inserts from a plurality of feed inserts and putting them together are not the method of manufacturing. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “manufacture” means “something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery” but here there is no product is created. One of ordinary skill in the art would access any satellite antenna manufacturing website, choose a reflector, a splash plate, a number of feed insert depending the required length to place the splash plate at the focal point of the reflector and assemble these components together, the process has the same steps as the method of manufacturing recited in claim 11.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35USC 112(b) rejection of claim 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “The Applicant disagrees and directs the Examiner to at least ¶19 of the Specification.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because ¶19 of the spec does not clarify the difference between “a selected reflector” recited in claim 8 and “a chosen reflector” recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35USC 112(b) rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “The Specification very clearly provides support that at least one feed is coupled to at least one splash plate.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because the spec does not clarify the difference between “a selected splash plate” recited in claim 9 and “a chosen splash plate” recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35USC 112(b) rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “The Applicant disagrees as the last step very clearly recites "forming" an apparatus.”
Examiner respectfully disagree. The process of selecting a reflector from a plurality of reflector, a plash plate from a plurality of plash plates, a number of feed inserts from a plurality of feed inserts and putting them together are not the method of manufacturing. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “manufacture” means “something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery” but here there is no product is created. One of ordinary skill in the art would access any satellite antenna manufacturing website, choose a reflector, a splash plate, a number of feed insert depending the required length to place the splash plate at the focal point of the reflector and assemble these components together, the process has the same steps as the method of manufacturing recited in claim 11.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that:
This approach differs from the Applicant's claimed system namely, Barratt always employs the same number of segments and the only aspect that differs across reflectors is the length of the middle segment. In comparison, the claimed system employs a plurality of feed inserts, the number of which can change based on the reflector used, i.e., "wherein a number of feed inserts selected for use with a chosen reflector form the plurality of reflectors is based on a diameter of the chosen reflector." Barratt simply fails to contemplate this functionality as the number of feed inserts is always the same.
In the Action, the Examiner alleges, without any support, that "[i]t would have been obvious...to select a different splash plate in the antenna positioning system kit taught in Barratt based on different frequency as claimed for the purpose of feeding the desired frequency to the antenna in order to provide wireless communication." See Office Action, p. 8. The Applicant disagrees. The Examiner has not provided a sufficient obviousness argument based on the standard set forth in the MPEP. The Examiner has failed to cite to any art in the record (or out of the record) for this alleged position. If the Examiner is taking official notice, the Examiner should do so in accordance with MPEP 2144.03. Otherwise, the Examiner's unsupported statement that it would be obvious to modify Barratt cannot support a finding of obviousness.
Examiner respectfully disagree because:
Barratt was not used to disclose wherein a number of feed inserts selected for use with a chosen reflector from the plurality of reflectors is based on a diameter of the chosen reflector, Flynn reference was used to teach that the number of feed inserts (20, 85, figs. 7-8) selected for use with a chosen reflector from the plurality of reflectors is based on a diameter of the chosen reflector (para [0025]).
The prior art does have support for this limitation. Barratt discloses the upper hat 12 which includes the splash plate 18 is a modular component and can have different configurations (para [0024]) and the application of invention can be used in any common satellite frequency bands (para [0003]), it is implied that there are a plurality of splash plates of different frequency bands, of different size and shape to feed the corresponding signal to the reflector depending on the requirements of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845