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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6188360 (“Kato” or “K”) in view of US 4499473 (“Rao” or “R”) and “Arrays: Linear, Planar, and Circular,” Antenna Theory Analysis and Design, 3rd Edition, Constantine Balanis, 2005, pp. 283-371 (“Balanis Arrays” or “BA”)
Regarding claim 1, K teaches a device comprising a lens (that of fig 13), a planar, arrangement of individually controllable feeds for the lens (30a-30d, as shown in figs 11 and 12, are controllable, as stated in column 8, lines 59-67), wherein each planar, arrangement of individually controllable feeds is in a fixed relation to its respective lens (as shown).
Nevertheless, K fails to teach that the device is a satellite communication terminal. However, it was old and well-known that any antenna can be scaled to operate at any frequency. Thus, it would have been obvious to employ K device as a satellite communication terminal in order to communicate with satellites.
Nevertheless, K fails to teach a housing. However, it was old and well-known to enclose antennas and circuitry within a housing. The motivation would have been to protect the antenna and circuitry from damage.
Nevertheless, K fails to teach a plurality of lenses contained within the housing and arranged in a two-dimensional array; and control circuitry contained within the housing and coupled to the respective, planar, arrangements of individually controllable feeds for the lens, the control circuitry configured to simultaneously create a first combined beam from the plurality of lenses and directed at a first satellite by selecting corresponding individual feeds of the respective, planar arrangements of individually controllable feeds and a second combined beam from the plurality of lenses and directed at a second satellite by selecting corresponding individual feeds of the respective, planar, arrangements of individually controllable feeds, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to control the first combined beam independently of the second combined beam.
However, beam-forming arrays of antennas were old and well-known. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine multiple identical copies of K’s lens antenna to form a phased array to allow forming further narrowed beams from multiple beams of K’s respective lens antennas. The motivation would have been to allow additional beam steering performance. Each formed beam would be individuated from any other and would be independent. In addition, it was old and well-known to allow communication with multiple satellites in order to receive data from the different satellites.
Nevertheless, K fails to teach at least three lenses of the plurality of the lenses. However, it was old and well-known that beamwidth is dependent upon the number of copies of an antenna in a phased array. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide at least three copies of K’s antenna, each with a lens. The motivation would have been to provide for a narrow bean, which provides for greater steering accuracy.
Nevertheless, K fails to teach that the arrangement of individually controllable feeds are two-dimensional arrangements of individually controllable feeds. However, figs 3 and 4 of R teaches using a two-dimensional arrangement of feeds beneath a lens. In addition, BA teaches that moving from a linear array to a two-dimensional array allows for scanning in multiple dimensions. Thus, it would have been obvious to provide that that the arrangement of individually controllable feeds are two-dimensional arrangements of individually controllable feeds. The motivation would have been to provide for scanning in two dimensions.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of claim 1 is a satellite communication terminal (as discussed above) configured to produce or receive multiple beams (as discussed above), comprising: a housing (as discussed above); a two-dimensional array of plano-convex lenses disposed within the housing (as it would be given that multiple copies of K’s antenna would be used); a feed array comprising multiple feed clusters (multiple antennas, each with its own two-dimensionally arranged feed cluster would be provided), wherein each feed cluster contains individually addressable feeds (as discussed in column 8, lines 59-67) arranged across two dimensions (according to the teachings of R and BA) underneath and in fixed relation to a respective plano-convex lens of the two-dimensional array of plano-convex lenses (as shown in fig 13), wherein the feed clusters occupy a smaller footprint than the respective plano-convex lens (as shown in fig 13); control circuitry disposed within the housing and coupled to the feed array and configured to individually address the individually addressable feeds of the feed clusters (as discussed above) to coherently operate correspondingly positioned feed elements in the multiple feed clusters arranged underneath the respective plano-convex lenses (as discussed above).
Nevertheless, K fails to teach that the modified device is configured to produce or receive multiple beams simultaneously. However, it was old and well-known to produce multiple beams simultaneously in a phased array. The motivation would have been to track or communicate with multiple objects simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of claim 1 would be such that each of the respective, planar, two-dimensional arrangements of individually controllable feeds is disposed on a substantially flat printed circuit board (as shown in fig 13).
Regarding claim 3, K fails to teach that the housing comprises a substantially planar or slightly curved top surface adjacent the plurality of lenses.
However, it was old and well-known for housing to have top planar surfaces in order to fully protect housing contents. In addition, it was old and well-known to locate top surfaces adjacent antennas in order to allow antennas to better radiate without interference from the body of the housing.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of claim 3 would be such that the top surface of the housing is substantially planar (see above).
Regarding claim 7, K fails to teach that the phase centers of the plurality of lenses define a random arrangement. However, random arrays were old and well-known to reduce sidelobe levels.
Regarding claim 8, K fails to teach that the phase centers of the plurality of lenses define a non-uniform arrangement. However, random arrays were old and well-known to reduce sidelobe levels.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of 1 would be such that the control circuitry is configured to not activate at least some feeds of each respective, planar, two-dimensional arrangement of individually controllable feeds when creating the first combined beam and the second combined beam (column 8, lines 59-67 states that the feeds are individually selectable; array beamforming would occur after such selection since array beamforming is intended to further narrow the beam).
Regarding claim 10, K teaches that the at least some feeds not activated are positioned between activated feeds (as shown in fig 13).
Regarding claim 11, K teaches that the control circuitry is configured to create the first combined beam with a wavelength that is less than half a dimension of each of the at least three lenses (lenses are treated according to optical principles, which means that wavelengths are very small compared to lens dimensions).
Regarding claim 12, K teaches that at least some feeds of the respective, planar, two-dimensional arrangements of individually controllable feeds are offset from a focal point of their respective lens (fig 13).
Regarding claim 14, K teaches that each of the feed clusters is disposed on a substantially flat printed circuit board arranged substantially parallel to a flat surface of the respective plano-convex lens (as shown in fig 13).
Regarding claim 15, K fails to teach that the housing comprises a substantially planar or slightly curved top surface adjacent the two-dimensional array of plano- convex lenses.
However, it was old and well-known for housing to have top planar surfaces in order to fully protect housing contents. In addition, it was old and well-known to locate top surfaces adjacent antennas in order to allow antennas to better radiate without interference from the body of the housing.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of claim 15 would be such that the top surface of the housing is substantially planar.
Regarding claim 17, K fails to teach that phase centers of the plano-convex lenses define a random arrangement. However, random arrays were old and well-known to reduce sidelobe levels.
Regarding claim 18, K fails to teach that phase centers of the plano-convex lenses define a non-uniform arrangement. However, random arrays were old and well-known to reduce sidelobe levels.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of claim 1 would be such that the control circuitry would be configured to create a first combined beam from correspondingly positioned feed elements in the multiple feed clusters (see the beams illustrated in fig 13 of K) with a wavelength that is less than half a dimension of each of the plano-convex lenses (lenses are treated according to optical principles, which means that wavelengths are very small compared to lens dimensions).
Regarding claim 20, K teaches that at least some feeds of the multiple feed clusters are offset from a focal point of their respective plano-convex lens (see fig 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not convincing. Applicant argues that Kato provides no basis for desiring beam forming arrays of antennas. However, the rejection relied upon Official Notice for a teaching of beam-forming arrays. (In addition, the rejection later referred to BA, which teaches the use and theory of such arrays. Fig. 6.28 of BA compares linear and two-dimensional arrays, for example.) Thus, Kato’s failure to teach or motivate is not relevant to the presented rejection.
Applicant also argues that no reference is cited to support beam-forming in Kato’s context. However, as would be appreciated by a person of skill, the only context relevant to beam-forming arrays of antenna is that a device be an antenna. Kato’s device is an antenna. (This is discussed in the first few pages of BA.)
Applicant asserts, without argument or evidence, that a POSA would not have found the proposed modifications straightforward and would have represented a significant change in form and function without a reasonable expectation of success. However, while possibly costly and complex, creating beam-forming arrays of antennas is a well-settled subject, with well-known governing equations and expectations of success (as attested by BA).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRAHAM P SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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.
/GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845