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 amendment filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 22-41 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections, claim objections, and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/22/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 22, 32 and 39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “Lee does not disclose such features. The Office relies on FIG. 1 of Lee which does not show the recited features. Lee in FIG. 1 illustrates a single feed 108 for the lens 208. The Office's proposed modification of Lee would not have resulted in the claimed feature. Thus, the proposed modification of Lee would have failed to meet all limitations of claim 1 and therefore claim 1 would not have been obvious.”
The arguments are moot because claims 22, 32 and 39 are now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US-20120013517-A1 (hereafter Lee) in view of Besoli et al, US-20180115083-A1 (hereinafter Besoli).
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 22-29, 32-36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US-20120013517-A1 (hereafter Lee) in view of Besoli et al, US-20180115083-A1 (hereinafter Besoli).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses the following:
a satellite communication system comprising:
a phased array lens antenna comprising a plurality of lens sets (208, fig. 1) arranged in at least two dimensions (fig. 1), each lens set of the plurality of lens sets comprising:
an all-dielectric plano-convex lens (fig. 1, para [0026]: lens 208 is made of dielectric material) that defines a respective focal region (fig. 1: focal region of the lens is where the transmission signals dispersed from the feed 108), wherein the all-dielectric plano-convex lens of at least two lens sets of the plurality of lens sets has a planar first surface proximate the focal region (fig. 1: planar first surface of lens 208 is proximate to focal region at feed 108) and a positive curved second surface, opposite the planar first surface and distal the focal region (fig. 1),
wherein the all-dielectric plano-convex lens has a diameter (para [0037]), and
a feed (108) positioned within the focal region of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens of each lens set (fig. 1).
Lee does not disclose each lens set comprising a cluster of independent feeds positioned within the focal region of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens.
Besoli suggests each lens set comprising a cluster of independent feeds (512-518, fig. 5) positioned within the focal region of the lens (531a, para [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cluster of independent feeds as suggested in Besoli to the lens sets taught in Lee as claimed for the purpose of generating multiple beams simultaneously and steering the beam without moving the part in order to improve the gain and the directivity of the phased array lens antenna.
Although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from an apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is less than the diameter, Lee discloses the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 23, although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is more than 30% less than the diameter, Lee disclose the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be more than 30% less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses wherein the all-dielectric plano- convex lens is electrically small (para [0022]: micro lens).
Regarding claim 25, Lee does not disclose wherein the independent feeds of the cluster are spaced from each other by at least 1 cm.
Besoli suggests wherein the independent feeds of the cluster are spaced from each other by a distance of a multiple integer of the quarter wavelength (para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the independent feeds of the cluster taught in Lee and Besoli to be spaced from each other by at least 1 cm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest.
Regarding claim 26, although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the all- dielectric plano-convex lens is several multiples less than the diameter, Lee disclose the thickness of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the lens taught in Lee to be several multiples less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 27, although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is more than 30% less than the diameter, Lee disclose the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be more than 30% less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 28, Lee does not disclose wherein the independent feeds of the cluster are spaced from each other by at least 1 cm.
Besoli suggests wherein the independent feeds of the cluster are spaced from each other by a distance of a multiple integer of the quarter wavelength (para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the independent feeds of the cluster taught in Lee and Besoli to be spaced from each other by at least 1 cm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest.
Regarding claim 29, although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is more than 30% less than the diameter, Lee disclose the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be more than 30% less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 32, Lee discloses the following:
a satellite communication system configured to produce multiple independent beams, comprising:
a plurality of lens sets (208, fig. 1) arranged in two or three dimensions to form a phased array lens antenna (fig. 1), wherein a first lens set of the plurality of lens sets comprises:
a plano-convex lens (208) that defines a focal region (fig. 1: focal region of the lens is where the transmission signals dispersed from the feed 108), wherein the plano-convex lens is made only of dielectric material (para [0026]: lens 208 is made of dielectric material) and has a planar first surface proximate the focal region (fig. 1: planar first surface of lens 208 is proximate to focal region at feed 108) and a positive curved second surface, opposite the first surface and distal the focal region (fig. 1),
wherein the plano-convex lens has a diameter (para [0037]); and
a feed (108) positioned within the focal region of the plano- convex lens of the first lens set and configured to produce respective beams (fig. 1).
Lee does not disclose the first lens set comprising a plurality of independent feeds positioned within the focal region of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens.
Besoli suggests the first lens set comprising a plurality of independent feeds (512-518, fig. 5) positioned within the focal region of the lens (531a, para [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of independent feeds as suggested in Besoli to the lens sets taught in Lee as claimed for the purpose of generating multiple beams simultaneously and steering the beam without moving the part in order to improve the gain and the directivity of the phased array lens antenna.
Although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from an apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is less than the diameter, Lee disclose the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 33, Lee discloses wherein the all-dielectric plano- convex lens is electrically small (para [0022]: micro lens).
Regarding claim 34, although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is more than 30% less than the diameter, Lee disclose the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be more than 30% less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 35, Lee does not disclose wherein the independent feeds of the plurality are spaced from each other by at least 1 cm.
Besoli suggests wherein the independent feeds of the plurality are spaced from each other by a distance of a multiple integer of the quarter wavelength (para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the independent feeds of the cluster taught in Lee and Besoli to be spaced from each other by at least 1 cm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest.
Regarding claim 36, although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the all- dielectric plano-convex lens is several multiples less than the diameter, Lee disclose the thickness of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the lens taught in Lee to be several multiples less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Regarding claim 39, Lee discloses the following:
a satellite communication system configured to produce multiple independent beams, comprising:
a plurality of lens sets (208, fig. 1) arranged in two or three dimensions to form a phased array lens antenna (fig. 1), wherein a first lens set of the plurality of lens sets comprises:
a radio frequency lens (208) that defines a focal region (fig. 1: focal region of the lens is where the transmission signals dispersed from the feed 108), wherein the radio frequency lens is made only of dielectric material (para [0026]: lens 208 is made of dielectric material) and has a planar first surface proximate the focal region (fig. 1: planar first surface of lens 208 is proximate to focal region at feed 108) and a positive curved second surface, opposite the first surface and distal the focal region (fig. 1),
wherein the radio frequency lens has a diameter (para [0037]); and
a feed (108) positioned within the focal region of the radio frequency lens of the first lens set and configured to produce respective beams (fig. 1).
Lee does not disclose the first lens set comprising independent feeds positioned within the focal region of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens.
Besoli suggests the first lens set comprising a plurality of independent feeds (512-518, fig. 5) positioned within the focal region of the lens (531a, para [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of independent feeds as suggested in Besoli to the lens sets taught in Lee as claimed for the purpose of generating multiple beams simultaneously and steering the beam without moving the part in order to improve the gain and the directivity of the phased array lens antenna.
Although Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance from an apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region is less than the diameter, Lee disclose the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface to the planar first surface of the lens and the diameter of the lens can be adjusted (para [0027], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance from the apex of the positive curved second surface of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens to the focal region taught in Lee to be less than the diameter as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest (Lee, para [0027]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Claims 30-31, 37-38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Besoli as applied to claims 22, 32 and 39 above, and further in view of Black, JR. et al, US-20100202061-A1 (hereinafter Black, JR).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Lee and Besoli does not disclose wherein the all-dielectric plano- convex lens is a gradient-index (GRIN) lens.
Black, JR. discloses wherein the all-dielectric plano- convex lens is a gradient-index (GRIN) lens (para [0026]).
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 all-dielectric plano- convex lens taught in Lee and Besoli to be a GRIN lens as taught in Black, JR. as claimed for the purpose of changing the refractive index of different layers of the lens in order to steer the beam into a desired direction (Black, JR., para [0007]).
Regarding claim 31, Lee does not disclose wherein the independent feeds of the cluster are spaced from each other by at least 1 cm.
Besoli suggests wherein the independent feeds of the cluster are spaced from each other by a distance of a multiple integer of the quarter wavelength (para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the independent feeds of the cluster taught in Lee and Besoli to be spaced from each other by at least 1 cm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Lee and Besoli does not disclose wherein the all-dielectric plano- convex lens is a gradient-index (GRIN) lens.
Black, JR. discloses wherein the all-dielectric plano- convex lens is a gradient-index (GRIN) lens (para [0026]).
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 all-dielectric plano- convex lens taught in Lee and Besoli to be a GRIN lens as taught in Black, JR. as claimed for the purpose of changing the refractive index of different layers of the lens in order to steer the beam into a desired direction (Black, JR., para [0007]).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Lee and Besoli does not disclose wherein a refractive index profile within the all-dielectric plano-convex lens is between 1 and 4.5.
Black, JR. suggests wherein a refractive index profile within the all-dielectric plano-convex lens is between 1 and 4.5 (para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the refractive index profile of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens taught in Lee and Besoli to be between 1 and 4.5 as suggested by Black, JR. as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to change the refractive index of different layers of the lens in order to steer the beam into a desired direction (Black, JR., para [0007]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Lee and Besoli does not disclose wherein a refractive index profile within the all-dielectric plano-convex lens is between 1 and 4.5.
Black, JR. suggests wherein a refractive index profile within the all-dielectric plano-convex lens is between 1 and 4.5 (para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the refractive index profile of the all-dielectric plano-convex lens taught in Lee and Besoli to be between 1 and 4.5 as suggested by Black, JR. as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to change the refractive index of different layers of the lens in order to steer the beam into a desired direction (Black, JR., para [0007]).
Regarding claim 41, Lee does not disclose wherein the independent feeds are spaced from each other by at least 1 cm.
Besoli suggests wherein the independent feeds are spaced from each other by a distance of a multiple integer of the quarter wavelength (para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the independent feeds of the cluster taught in Lee and Besoli to be spaced from each other by at least 1 cm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to adjust the angle of dispersion depending on the wavelength of interest.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Oh et al, US-20150200452-A1, fig. 4B – plurality of feeds behind a plano-convex lens
Stenberg et al, US-4332018-A – plurality of feeds behind a plurality of lens
Oh et al, US-20160240923-A1, fig. 10 – plurality of feeds behind each of the plurality of lens
Black, JR. et al, US-20100202061-A1, fig. 7-8 – a plurality of feeds behind a plano-convex lens
Chen et al, CN-205488535-U, fig. 2 – plurality of feeds behind each of the plurality of lens
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 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 HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights