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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 12 and 24-28 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 12 recites “wherein each panel of the plurality of panels further comprises…the plurality of microstrip lines coupled with radiating fins of the radiating fins by vias”. The limitation “radiating fins of radiating fins” causes confusion as to what is being claimed and is indefinite because it is unclear which of the radiating fins or the radiating fins referred to earlier in the claim is being recited since the wording is the same for the part of the whole of the radiating fins. A skilled artisan would not be appropriately able to determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim 24 recites “the at least one tapered slot antenna element comprises: a first set of tapered slot antenna elements…a second set of tapered slot antenna elements”. However Claim 1 recites “each panel…comprising…at least one tapered slot antenna element…wherein tapered slot antenna elements of the plurality of antenna panels..” It is unclear and indefinite whether the first set and second set of tapered antenna elements of claim 24 have any relation to the tapered slot antenna elements in claim 1 in a manner so as to cause confusion as to what is being claimed. For example, it is unclear if the first and second set of tapered slot antenna elements seek antecedent basis from the tapered slot antenna elements of claim 1. Further, if each panel has at least one tapered slot antenna element which is then expanded into comprising a first set and a second set of tapered slot antenna elements, it is unclear which tapered slot antenna elements provide the plurality of polarizations. A skilled artisan would not be able to appropriately determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220368000 A1 (hereinafter “Hollenbeck”).
Claim 1: Hollenbeck teaches an antenna array (e.g., see FIG. 10, 15-16, 27, 30) comprising: a plurality of antenna panels (e.g., see 600, 900 in FIG. 10 relative to latter tapered slot embodiments; see 1606 in FIG. 16, Para. 136; 600 and 900 shown in FIG. 17-19, 21-23; see 906 in FIG. 24; see 2550a-b in FIG. 27; see 2850a-b in FIG. 29; see 2800 in FIG. 30) each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels comprising, respectively: a substantially planar base section (e.g., 900 relative to latter tapered slot embodiments, 1606, 906, 2550a-b, 2850a-b), wherein base sections of the plurality of antenna panels are disposed in parallel with each other (e.g., as shown); and at least one tapered slot antenna element (e.g., see 1608, 1610 in FIG. 16-18; see 1812a-b, 1814a-b in FIG. 21-24) projecting in a direction away from an extent of the base section along the direction (as shown), wherein tapered slot antenna elements of the plurality of antenna panels provide a plurality of polarizations (e.g., see Para. 121, 138, 142, 171, 183, 202).
Claim 2: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 1, wherein for each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels, the base section and the at least one tapered slot antenna element are integrally formed of a metal material (e.g., as shown, see Para. 67, 81, 130).
Claim 5: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 1, wherein the plurality of antenna panels are arranged in an alternating pattern, such that tapered slot antenna elements of adjacent antenna panels contact each other (e.g., see as shown in FIG. 23, see Paras. 164, 168).
Claim 6: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 1, wherein, for each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels, the at least one tapered slot antenna element comprises a plurality of tapered slot antenna elements disposed along the extent of the base section in the direction (as shown in the Figures, Id.).
Claim 7: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 6, wherein the plurality of antenna panels comprise: a first set of antenna panels providing a first polarization of the plurality of polarizations, each antenna panel of the first set of antenna panels having respective plurality of tapered slot antenna elements in a first orientation relative to the plane of the respective base section; and a second set of antenna panels providing a second polarization of the plurality of polarizations, each antenna panel of the second set of antenna panels having respective tapered slot antenna elements in a second orientation relative to the plane of the base section, wherein the plurality of antenna panels are arranged in an alternating pattern of antenna panels of the first set of antenna panels and the second set of antenna panels (e.g., see a first set 1090 in FIG. 10 and a second set 1060 oriented orthogonally to 1090 being relative to later tapered slot embodiments; see 1608 arranged orthogonal to 1610 in FIG. 16 and alternating pattern; e.g., see FIG. 23; alternative panels in FIG. 24).
Claim 8: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 7, wherein the first orientation is coplanar with, or substantially parallel to, the plane of the base section, and wherein the second orientation is orthogonal to the plane of the base section (e.g., as shown in FIG. 16, 27, 29-30).
Claim 9: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 8, wherein each antenna panel of the second set of antenna panels further comprises respectively: twist sections disposed between the base section and the tapered slot antenna elements (e.g., see twist sections 902b, 926a-b, 927a-b in FIGS. 9-10, Para. 111-114 relative to latter embodiments, i.e., see in FIG. 24, see Para. 146, 151, 161, 163).
Claim 10: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 6, wherein, for each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels, the tapered slot antenna elements comprise: a first set of tapered slot antenna elements in a first orientation relative to a plane of the base section; and a second set of tapered slot antenna elements in a second orientation relative to the plane of the base section, wherein the tapered slot antenna elements are arranged in an alternating pattern of tapered slot antenna elements of the first set of tapered slot antenna elements and the second set of tapered slot antenna elements (e.g., see a first set 1090 in FIG. 10 and a second set 1060 oriented orthogonally to 1090 and 900 being relative to later tapered slot embodiments; see 1608 arranged orthogonal to 1610 in FIG. 16 having alternating pattern and orthogonal to 1606; e.g., see FIG. 23; alternative panels in FIG. 24).
Claim 11: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 10, wherein the first orientation is at a first angle to the plane of the base section, and wherein the second orientation is at a second angle complementary to the first angle (e.g., as shown as cited previously, Id.).
Claim 21: Hollenbeck the antenna array of claim 1, wherein, for each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels (e.g., wherein the panels are further limited to the ones containing 900 in an alternating pattern), the at least one tapered slot antenna element comprises: the base section disposed in a first plane (e.g., for each 1608 in FIGS. 16-18; for each 1812a-b in FIGS. 21-24, see a bottom base forming section); a set of radiating fins (e.g., see top projecting fins) coupled with, and projecting upwardly from, the base section and disposed in a different second plane; and a twist section disposed between the base section and the set of radiating fins (e.g., see Paras. 146, 161, 163; e.g., as shown in FIG. 24 by 926a, 927a), wherein a slot line (e.g., see the arrows pointed to 900) extends from between the set of radiating fins, through the twist section and along a contour of the twist section, toward the base section (e.g., slot line extending down from fins to contour of twist as shown in FIG. 24 between 926a, 927a).
Claim 22: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 21, wherein the base section, the twist section, and the set of radiating fins are integrally formed of a metal material (e.g., see Para. 136, 148, 155).
Claim 23: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 21, wherein the second plane is orthogonal to the first plane (e.g., as shown).
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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “A Mechanically Robust Modular Vivaldi Array Panel for Ultra-wideband Sensing Applications” by J.B. Yan (hereinafter “Yan”)(of prior record see IDS disclosed 11/22/2023) in view of US 6891511 B1 (hereinafter “Angelucci”).
Claim 1: Yan teaches an antenna array comprising: a plurality of antenna panels (e.g., see panel in FIG. 5, plurality in FIG. 7) each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels comprising, respectively: a substantially planar base section (e.g., base of 16 element array as shown in FIG. 4-5), wherein base sections of the plurality of antenna panels are disposed in parallel with each other (e.g., as shown in FIG. 7); and at least one tapered slot antenna element (e.g., see Vivaldi antenna element design in FIG. 1) projecting in a direction away from an extent of the base section along the direction (as shown),
Yan does not teach wherein tapered slot antenna elements of the plurality of antenna panels provide a plurality of polarizations.
However, Angelucci teaches tapered slot antenna elements of a plurality of antenna panels (e.g., see 130/132, 150/152 in FIGS. 4-5) provide a plurality of polarizations (e.g., see 134, 154 in FIG. 4-5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form wherein the tapered slot antenna elements of the plurality of antenna panels provide a plurality of polarizations as taught by Angelucci in order to implement an antenna array which can provide orthogonal polarizations as is known in the art.
Claim 3: the modified invention of Yan teaches the antenna array of claim 1, wherein each tapered slot antenna element of the plurality of antenna panels defines a respective slot line between radiating fins of the tapered slot antenna element and extending toward the respective base section (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1, 4), and wherein each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels further comprises, respectively: a substrate (e.g., see FIG. 5: PCB power divider) having a first surface coupled with the base section; and at least one feed (e.g., see with feed lines) comprising: a microstrip line (e.g., see FIG. 1: microstrip line and stripline Wilkinson power divider discussed in section III) disposed on an opposing second surface of the substrate and partly overlapping with the slot line; and a via extending through the substrate and coupling the microstrip line with a radiating fin of the radiating fins (e.g., see FIG. 1: via).
Claim 4: the modified invention of Yan teaches the antenna array of claim 3, wherein, for each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels, the at least one tapered slot antenna element comprises a plurality of tapered slot antenna elements disposed along the extent of the base section in the direction (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4-5), and wherein each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels further comprises, respectively: a power divider overlapping with the base section, the power divider coupled with multiple tapered slot antenna elements of the tapered slot antenna elements (e.g., see FIG. 4: PCB power divider with antenna feed lines and Section III discussion).
Claim(s) 24 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck in view of US 20210376463 A1 (hereinafter “Massman”).
Claim 24: Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 1, wherein, the plurality of antenna panels, the at least one tapered slot antenna element comprises: a first set of tapered slot antenna elements coupled with the base section, and having a first orientation relative to a plane of the base section; and a second set of tapered slot antenna elements coupled with the base section, and projecting in a direction away from an extent of the base section along the direction, and having a second orientation relative to the plane of the base section, wherein the second orientation is different from the first orientation (e.g., see a first set 1090 in FIG. 10 and a second set 1060 oriented orthogonally to 1090 being relative to later tapered slot embodiments; see 1608 arranged orthogonal to 1610 in FIG. 16 and alternating pattern; e.g., see FIG. 23; alternative panels in FIG. 24)
However Hollenbeck does not teach for each antenna panel of the plurality of antenna panels, the at least one tapered slot antenna element comprises the first set and the second set of tapered slot antenna elements.
However Massman teaches a plurality of antenna panels each having a base section (e.g., see 303 in FIG. 3) wherein for each panel comprises a first set of tapered slot antenna elements and second set of tapered slot antenna elements coupled with the base section (e.g., see 110a, 112a, see Para. 27, shown in FIG. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form each panel of the plurality of panels of Hollenbeck comprises the first set and second set of the tapered slot antenna elements as taught by Massman in order to implement additional diversity antenna elements in each panel so as to increase the diversity of the antenna system.
Claim 28: the modified invention of Hollenbeck teaches the antenna array of claim 24, wherein the first orientation is at a first angle to the plane of the base section, and wherein the second orientation is at a second angle complimentary to the first angle (wherein Hollenbeck teaches orthogonal polarized tapered slot antenna elements and Massman implements a panel having both).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 and 25-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/AMAL PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845