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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on March 09th 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 13-20 and 40-41 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to the drawings and claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on December 10th 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 – “when the least one of the first and second branches” should be corrected to “when the at least one of the first and second branches”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation “move above a certain elevation” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what elevation the claim is referring to. Based on the specifications and drawings it seems to elevations is an elevation level beyond the spherical reflector. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “a certain elevation beyond the spherical reflector” to bring the claim more in line with what is taught in the specifications and drawings.
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) 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustincic et al. (US 3534373 A) in view of Hou et al. (US 20220149536 A1) and Kihara et al. (WO 2013084619 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Gustincic et al. discloses a spherical reflector antenna (Spherical reflector antenna as seen in figures 1-3 of Gustincic et al.), comprising:
a spherical reflector having a reflective surface (Spherical reflector 10 that comprises a reflective surface for reflecting radiation; Paragraph 26-53 and figure 1-2 of Gustincic et al.);
a cylindrical waveguide line feed located along a focal line of the spherical reflector (Cylindrical waveguide line feed 11 is located along a focal axis and comprises a plurality of axially spaced rings with slots 22 wherein each ring is divided by radial fins formed by conductive discs 21; Paragraph 26-53 and figure 3a-3b of Gustincic et al.).
Gustincic et al. fails to disclose a visor member detachably attached to the reflective surface and configured to move on the reflective surface of the spherical reflector, the visor member including a first branch, a second branch, and a connecting member that connects the first and second branches wherein the first branch and the second branch are configured to move independently as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectively.
However, Hou et al. also discloses a visor member detachably attached to the reflective surface and configured to move on the reflective surface of the spherical reflector, the visor member including a first branch, a second branch, and a connecting member that connects the first and second branches (Extension 416c serves as a visor member attached to the reflective surface of the spherical reflector 414 wherein 416c comprises ear portions serving as branches sticking out on the end and connected by a central connecting member wherein 416c can be configured to be re-positioned to place the ears portions in different locations so they can reflect and prevent spillover from different parts of the antenna; Paragraph 38-44 and figure 4-5 of Hou et al.).
Kihara et al. further discloses wherein the first branch and the second branch are configured to move independently as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectively (Antenna reflector comprises a primary reflector in the form of central portion 2 and side portions 3 wherein a first portion 3 can serve as a first branch and a second portion 3 can serve as a second branch wherein said branches would be connected by a connector 4 and bending portion 6a-b allows each branch reflector 3 to move independently; Pg. 2-10 as well as figure 2-3 and 6 of Kihara et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. to have a visor member detachably attached to the reflective surface and configured to move on the reflective surface of the spherical reflector, the visor member including a first branch, a second branch, and a connecting member that connects the first and second branches as taught by Hou et al. to prevent unwanted radiation by reducing reflector antenna spillover lobes and back lobes (Paragraph 30-33 and 39-42 of Hou et al.). It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. and Hou et al. to have wherein the first branch and the second branch are configured to move independently as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectively as taught by Kihara et al. so the portions 3 can move independently and so antenna can maintain high mirror accuracy (Pg. 4 and 6-9 of Kihara et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
351
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
598
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
602
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Gustincic et al. fails to disclose wherein the first branch and the second branch may be configured to move together as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectively.
However, Hou et al. does disclose wherein the first branch and the second branch may be configured to move together as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectively (Ear portions of 416c that stick out serve as the first and second branch that move together to reflect the unwanted radiation in the form of the rabbit ear radiation to reduce side lobes wherein the ear portions would serve as a first and second additional reflectors; Paragraph 30-44 and figure 4-5 of Hou et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. to have the first branch and the second branch may be configured to move together as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectively as taught by Hou et al. to prevent unwanted radiation by reducing reflector antenna spillover lobes and back lobes (Paragraph 30-33 and 39-42 of Hou et al.).
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 15, Gustincic et al. fail to disclose wherein the visor is made of a sheet of metal having a spherical contour that fits into the reflective surface of the spherical reflector.
However, Hou et al. does disclose wherein the visor is made of a sheet of metal having a spherical contour that fits into the reflective surface of the spherical reflector (Extension portion 416c can be any shape as needed including a spherical shape like 416b wherein 416c would be made from metal since it is designed to help reflect radiation similar to main reflector 414; Paragraph 30-44 and figure 4-5 of Hou et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. to have the visor is made of a sheet of metal having a spherical contour that fits into the reflective surface of the spherical reflector as taught by Hou et al. to prevent unwanted radiation by reducing reflector antenna spillover lobes and back lobes (Paragraph 30-33 and 39-42 of Hou et al.).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustincic et al. (US 3534373 A) in view of Hou et al. (US 20220149536 A1) and Deguchi et al. (JP 3763428 B2).
Regarding Claim 17, Gustincic et al. discloses a spherical reflector antenna (Spherical reflector antenna as seen in figures 1-3 of Gustincic et al.), comprising:
a spherical reflector having a reflective surface (Spherical reflector 10 that comprises a reflective surface for reflecting radiation; Paragraph 26-53 and figure 1-2 of Gustincic et al.);
a cylindrical waveguide line feed located along a focal line of the spherical reflector (Cylindrical waveguide line feed 11 is located along a focal axis and comprises a plurality of axially spaced rings with slots 22 wherein each ring is divided by radial fins formed by conductive discs 21; Paragraph 26-53 and figure 3a-3b of Gustincic et al.).
Gustincic et al. fails to disclose a visor member detachably attached to the reflective surface and configured to move on the reflective surface of the spherical reflector, the visor member including a first branch, a second branch, and a connecting member that connects the first and second branches wherein the visor is actuated by an actuator.
However, Hou et al. also discloses a visor member detachably attached to the reflective surface and configured to move on the reflective surface of the spherical reflector, the visor member including a first branch, a second branch, and a connecting member that connects the first and second branches (Extension 416c serves as a visor member attached to the reflective surface of the spherical reflector 414 wherein 416c comprises ear portions serving as branches sticking out on the end and connected by a central connecting member wherein 416c can be configured to be re-positioned to place the ears portions in different locations so they can reflect and prevent spillover from different parts of the antenna; Paragraph 38-44 and figure 4-5 of Hou et al.).
Deguchi et al. further discloses wherein the visor is actuated by an actuator (Reflector antenna comprises a main reflector 1 with two secondary reflecting structures 4a serving as a first and second branch connected by a connecting member in the form of mesh 11 such that they serve as a visor wherein deployment mechanism drives the components 4f and 11 into position and holds them thus deployment mechanism 10 serves as an actuator for the visor structure; Paragraph 16-25 and figure 7 of Deguchi et al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. to have a visor member detachably attached to the reflective surface and configured to move on the reflective surface of the spherical reflector, the visor member including a first branch, a second branch, and a connecting member that connects the first and second branches as taught by Hou et al. to prevent unwanted radiation by reducing reflector antenna spillover lobes and back lobes (Paragraph 30-33 and 39-42 of Hou et al.). It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. and Hou et al. to have wherein the visor is actuated by an actuator as taught by Deguchi et al. so the visor can be deployed (Paragraph 16-19 of Deguchi et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
579
291
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Gustincic et al. fails to disclose wherein the actuator is controlled by a software program
Deguchi et al. further discloses wherein the actuator is controlled by a software program (Reflector antenna comprises a main reflector 1 with two secondary reflecting structures 4a serving as a first and second branch connected by a connecting member in the form of mesh 11 such that they serve as a visor wherein deployment mechanism drives the components 4f and 11 into position and holds them thus deployment mechanism 10 serves as an actuator for the visor structure and would be controlled by a software to deploy when the reflector antenna is in space; Paragraph 16-25 and figure 7 of Deguchi et al).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Gustincic et al. and Hou et al. to have wherein the actuator is controlled by a software program as taught by Deguchi et al. so the visor can be deployed (Paragraph 16-19 of Deguchi et al.).
Additional Comments Regarding the Claim Rejections
Examiner’s note – Regarding claims 11, 13, 17, 19-20, and 41 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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 5, 8, 20, and 40-41 allowed.
Claim 14 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 1, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the sleeve is held by at least one RF transparent arm positioned along the waveguide and configured to rotate the sleeve the predetermined amount over the predetermined time, thereby varying the radiation antenna patterns” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 14 and 41, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the connecting member engages with a sprocket or gear member, thereby driving the first and second branches to make an elevation movement of the visor when the waveguide line feed is above a predetermined elevation in response to an elevation movement of the waveguide line feed” as recited in claim 14 and 41.
Regarding claim 16, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “herein the members driving the first and second branches are transparent to radio frequency (RF)” as recited in claim 16.
Regarding claims 20, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the first branch includes a first arm member and a first reflective plate that is supported by the first arm member, and the second branch includes a second arm member and a second reflective plate that is supported by the second arm member” as recited in claim 20.
Gustincic et al., Enders et al., Cardiasmenos et al., and Hou et al. are cited as teaching some of the elements of the claimed invention including a spherical reflector antenna, spherical antenna, a cylindrical waveguide with slots/rings/fins, a sleeve, a first motor, a second motor, a visor with two branches and a connecting member.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 5, 8, and 41 depend from claim 1 and as such are also allowable for the reasons stated above.
Response to Arguments
“Regarding the rejection of claim 12, the Examiner alleges that it would be obvious to modify the unitary, fixed subreflector 416 of Hou to not only be two pieces, but also be able to move independently of each other. For example, Hou at [0041] recites that the extension 416A is "placed and attached to the rim of the main reflector." The Examiner cites Newin[sic] v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&lnt1969). The Examiner alleges that the motivation to modify Hou would be to wanting to make the ear portions separate so they can prevent unwanted radiation by reducing reflector antenna spillover lobes and back lobes (Paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0039]-[0042] of Hou) while being placed in different non related locations from each other. Applicant respectfully does not agree that such a modification - making parts separate, but still connected to each other and able to move independently of each other - would be obvious to a skilled person. Nerwin v. Erlichman is directed only to making parts separate. Applicant respectfully submits that that Examiner is using impermissible hindsight to argue that it would be obvious to separate the joined reflectors of part 416 but further to remain connected to each other and then also to be able to move independently of each other.”
Applicant's arguments filed on March 09th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “reflectors connected to each other and then also to be able to move independently of each other”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Amended claim 11 only requires “the first and second branch may be configured to move independent as a first additional reflector and a second additional reflector, respectfully”, this does not require them both to move at the same time or still be connected when moving together. For example if a visor member with two branches connected to each was designed wherein said branches separate and either one of the branches can then move as an additional reflector, that would still read on the claim requirement. As such modifying the joined reflectors of 416 which can already move as additional reflectors to be separate components would still read on the claims since each separate reflector would act as an independent reflector. Furthermore, the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform and broadens the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11, 17, and 19 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.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 10978808 B2 (Walker; Christopher K.) discloses a reflector antenna comprising a waveguide line feed comprised of slotted rings separated by radial fins.
EP 2466688 A1 (LE BAYON ARMEL et al.) discloses a reflector comprising two secondary reflectors connected by a cord placed on the main reflector and can serve as a visor element.
US 3604010 A (Schwartz; Leonard et al.) discloses waveguide elements that serve as a cover for a slotted waveguide to affect the radiation pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dameon E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights