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
Claim 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of creating, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 30th 2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on October 13th 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on July 14th 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 21, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarborough et al. (US 20240079776A1) in view of Herscovici et al. (WO 0076027 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Scarborough et al. discloses a communication device comprising (Lens array 100 is suited to be used In a communications system thus serving as a communication device; Paragraph 76 and figure 13 of Scarborough et al.):
an antenna system comprising (Lens array 100 comprising a lens 112 and antenna elements 302 of feed elements 152; Paragraph 48-64 and figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.):
a gradient index lens (Lens array 100 can include a lens 112 which may be gradient index lens; Paragraph 16 as well as figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.), wherein the gradient index lens has a diameter and a central axis perpendicular to the diameter, the gradient index lens having a plurality of layers that respectively have different dielectric constants, the layers being arranged to provide a progressively decreasing dielectric constant from an inner layer to an outer layer of the gradient index lens (Lens may be any shape and are shown to be an oblate ellipsoidal shape wherein the lens comprises a plurality of layers wherein the center layer 9 has the highest dielectric constant which decreases as we get to the outer layer 1 with lens having a diameter and an axis perpendicular to the diameter; Paragraph 152-162 and figures 21-23 of Scarborough et al.); and
a feed antenna comprising a substantially planar array of antenna elements (Feed sets 150 comprise an array of feed elements including feed elements 152a and 152b, there can be more though, with each feed element comprising an antenna 302 thus forming a feed antenna with a planar array of antenna elements; Paragraph 48-64 and figures 3-4 of Scarborough et al.):
wherein the feed antenna is spaced apart from the gradient index lens along the central axis (Feed sets and their respective feed antennas can be spaced apart from the lens by a spacer 114 that creates an air gap between them and said feed antennas can have antenna elements like 152a that is aligned along the central axis of the lens such that the entire structure is then spaced apart from this central axis; Paragraph 48-64 as well as figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.);
and one or more processors configured to control excitation patterns for the antenna elements of the feed antenna to cause beams from the gradient index lens to be directed at any of a range of spatial locations, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the antenna elements to be excited with excitation patterns that concurrently excite multiple antenna elements of the feed antenna with different magnitudes and phase characteristics (Processing device 1202 may control components like a shifter 306 and summer/divider 308 to preform multiple beam beamforming specifically adjusting the antenna patterns to have different magnitudes and the shifter would provide different phase shifts to the respective antenna elements and this can be done concurrently since each antenna element can be connected to its own phase shifter and summer/divider; Paragraph 2, 48-64 and 97-106 as well as figure 3 and 14 of Scarborough et al.).
Scarborough et al. fails to explicitly disclose a gradient index lens having an oblate ellipsoidal shape.
However, Herscovici et al. does disclose a gradient index lens having an oblate ellipsoidal shape (Antenna system comprises a gradient index lens that can have a oblate spheroid shape which is a type of oblate ellipsoidal formed by rotating the ellipse around its minor axis; Pg. 7-10 and figure 2-3 of Herscovici 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 Scarborough et al. to comprise a gradient index lens having an oblate ellipsoidal shape as taught by Herscovici et al. since the shape of the lens affects radiation patterns and directions for the antenna system (Pg. 6 of Herscovici et al.) and lens of different sizes may be employed (Paragraph 152-162 of Scarborough 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.).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
504
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
520
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Scarborough et al. further discloses the communication device is a very small aperture terminal (VSAT) for communication in a satellite communication system, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to adjust the excitation patterns for the feed antenna to detect or track a position of a satellite (Lens antenna array may be part of a communication device in the form of a fully functional tracking terminal for tracking satellites and a part of a satellite communications systems wherein processors are configured to adjust the feed antenna to point and a quire the satellites; Paragraphs 13-17, 75, and 99-104 as well as figure 12 of Scarborough 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 9, Scarborough et al. further discloses the communication device is configured to sweep a beam from the antenna system from a range of elevation from the central axis to an elevation from a horizontal plane of 30 degrees or less by changing the excitation pattern applied to the antenna elements in the array of the feed antenna (The antenna can employ electrical beam steering to change the elevation angle over a wide range by switching the feeds behind the lens and thus changing the excitation pattern to provide coverage over a wide range of angles wherein elevation may be between 0 and 45 degrees; Paragraph 3-14, 48-64, and 151 as well figures 2 of Scarborough 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 10, Scarborough et al. further discloses the communication device is configured to sweep a beam 360 degrees about the central axis by changing the excitation pattern applied to the antenna elements in the array of the feed antenna (Antenna elements may be displaced from the center of a lens and pattern altered by a phase shifter to provide beams at a wide range of angles and the system can have full azimuthal coverage covering an azimuth angle from 0 to 360 degrees about the central axis; Paragraph 48-64 and 151 as well as figures 2 of Scarborough 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 11, Scarborough et al. further discloses a motorized mount configured rotate the array of the feed antenna about an axis of rotation, to rotate the array in a plane substantially perpendicular to the central axis, wherein the array is positioned asymmetrically with respect to the axis of rotation (Communication device may include feed support plate 170 to which feed antenna 152 are mounted and said plate can have actuators that move it around such that the array of elements can be positioned asymmetrically to an axis of rotation of the plate; Paragraph 52 and figure 6b of Scarborough et al.), and wherein the array is rotatable around the axis of rotation to change an azimuth of beams from the gradient index lens (Communication device may have the antenna array with a rotation device 652 or 662 that comprises a motor and connected to plate 170 and is configured to rotate the plate and the antenna array in a plane perpendicular to the central axis such that it can employ azimuth steering thus causing an aching in the azimuth of the beams; Paragraph 56-57 and Figure 6d of Scarborough 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 12, Scarborough et al. discloses a communication device comprising (Lens array 100 is suited to be used In a communications system thus serving as a communication device; Paragraph 76 and figure 13 of Scarborough et al.):
an antenna system comprising (Lens array 100 comprising a lens 112 and antenna elements 302 of feed elements 152; Paragraph 48-64 and figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.):
a gradient index lens (Lens array 100 can include a lens 112 which may be gradient index lens; Paragraph 16 as well as figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.), wherein the gradient index lens has a diameter and a central axis perpendicular to the diameter, the gradient index lens having a plurality of layers that respectively have different dielectric constants, the layers being arranged to provide a progressively decreasing dielectric constant from an inner layer to an outer layer of the gradient index lens (Lens may be any shape wherein the lens comprises a plurality of layers wherein the center layer 9 has the highest dielectric constant which decreases as we get to the outer layer 1 with lens having a diameter and an axis perpendicular to the diameter; Paragraph 152-162 and figures 21-23 of Scarborough et al.); and
a feed antenna comprising a substantially planar array of antenna elements (Feed sets 150 comprise an array of feed elements including feed elements 152a and 152b, there can be more though, with each feed element comprising an antenna 302 thus forming a feed antenna with a planar array of antenna elements; Paragraph 48-64 and figures 3-4 of Scarborough et al.):
wherein the feed antenna is spaced apart from the gradient index lens along the central axis (Feed sets and their respective feed antennas can be spaced apart from the lens by a spacer 114 that creates an air gap between them and said feed antennas can have antenna elements like 152a that is aligned along the central axis of the lens such that the entire structure is then spaced apart from this central axis; Paragraph 48-64 as well as figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.);
and one or more processors configured to control excitation patterns for the antenna elements of the feed antenna to cause beams from the gradient index lens to be directed at any of a range of spatial locations, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the antenna elements to be excited with excitation patterns that concurrently excite multiple antenna elements of the feed antenna with different magnitudes and phase characteristics (Processing device 1202 may control components like a shifter 306 and summer/divider 308 to preform multiple beam beamforming specifically adjusting the antenna patterns to have different magnitudes and the shifter would provide different phase shifts to the respective antenna elements and this can be done concurrently since each antenna element can be connected to its own phase shifter and summer/divider; Paragraph 2, 48-64 and 97-106 as well as figure 3 and 14 of Scarborough et al.).
Although Scarborough et al. fails to explicitly disclose the lens has a height along the central axis that is between 40% and 60% of the diameter of the lens and a gradient index lens having an oblate ellipsoidal shape. Scarborough et al. does disclose the lens has a height along the central axis (Len may have a height of 1.5cm in regards to a lens diameter of 13cm thus the height is 11% of the diameter of the lens; Paragraph 151 Scarborough et al.).
However, Herscovici et al. does disclose a gradient index lens having an oblate ellipsoidal shape (Antenna system comprises a gradient index lens that can have a oblate spheroid shape which is a type of oblate ellipsoidal formed by rotating the ellipse around its minor axis; Pg. 7-10 and figure 2-3 of Herscovici 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 Scarborough et al. to have the lens have a height along the central axis that is between 40% and 60% of the diameter of the lens 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 fact that the lens parameters like height affects its operation and beam properties at a desired angle range (Paragraph 151 of Scarborough 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 Scarborough et al. to comprise a gradient index lens having an oblate ellipsoidal shape as taught by Herscovici et al. since the shape of the lens affects radiation patterns and directions for the antenna system (Pg. 6 of Herscovici et al.) and lens of different sizes may be employed (Paragraph 152-162 of Scarborough 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 13, Although Scarborough et al. fails to explicitly disclose the maximum width is between 20% and 80% of the diameter of the lens. Scarborough et al. does disclose the array has a maximum width measured in a plane perpendicular to the central axis (Len may have a width between 4-20cm so the maximum width of the array is determined by the number of lens used aka if 4 are used then it would be between 16-80cm; Paragraph 76 and figure 16 of Scarborough 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 Scarborough et al. to have the array have a maximum width measured in a plane perpendicular to the central axis, and the maximum width is between 20% and 80% of the diameter of the lens 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 fact that the width of the antenna array determines the placement of antenna units which in turn affects the radiation patterns (Paragraph 67-68 and 78-79 of Scarborough et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Although Scarborough et al. fails to explicitly disclose array is spaced apart from the bottom surface of the lens along the central axis by a distance that is up to 50% of the diameter of the lens. Scarborough et al. does disclose the lens has a bottom surface that faces toward the array, and wherein the array is spaced apart from the bottom surface of the lens along the central axis by a distance (Bottom side of the lens may be separated from the antenna elements of the array by a spacer that would have a certain height that creates a distance between the lens bottom and the antenna array elements; Paragraph 29 and figure 1 of Scarborough 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 Scarborough et al. to have the lens have a bottom surface that faces toward the array, and wherein the array is spaced apart from the bottom surface of the lens along the central axis by a distance that is up to 50% of the diameter of the lens 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 fact that the length between the planar array and the lens affects the radiation characters and thus can be used to optimize the antenna (Paragraph 127 of Scarborough et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Scarborough et al. further discloses comprising a data storage device storing a lookup table that specifies magnitude and phase characteristics for excitation patterns that, when applied to the array, respectively provide different beam orientations;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to (i) retrieve data from the lookup table that specifies an excitation pattern for a desired beam orientation (Communication device further includes a data storage device that can communicate with the processing device such that the system and methods of the device, like digital beamforming and array control, can be done by a software accessing stored electrical information wherein digital beam forming would include applying magnitude and phase characteristics to an antenna array and thus the magnitudes and phase characteristics of the patterns would be stored in the storage device comprising the memory and a “lookup table” is inherent since the processing unit retrieves this information for use from the storage device when needed like when the antenna systems needs to re-point beams to establish communications; Paragraph 16-17, 76, and 102-104 of Scarborough et al.)and (ii) cause the antenna elements to be excited with the excitation pattern for the desired beam orientation (Method of operation include the processing device 1202 controlling components like a shifter 306 and summer/divider 308 to preform multiple beam beamforming specifically adjusting the antenna patterns to have different magnitudes and the shifter would provide different phase shifts to the respective antenna elements to control the radiation pattern and also provide multiple beams of radiation; Paragraph 48-64 and 97-100 as well as figure 2-3 of Scarborough et al.).
Although Scarborough does not explicitly disclose the data storage device storing a lookup table. Scarborough does disclose the data from an electrical information source required to perform the methods (like beamforming with specific magnitudes and phase characteristics) are stored in a data storage device and the storage of this information would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as an equivalent to a lookup table since both have the processor accesses said information to obtain phase/magnitude characteristics for beamforming.
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.).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarborough et al. (US 20240079776A1) in view of Herscovici et al. (WO 0076027 A1) and Sethumadhavan et al. (US 11552390B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Scarborough et al. further discloses the plurality of layers of the gradient index lens comprise nested ellipsoidal shells (Gradient index lens is formed by multiple layer with each layer being shaped as an ellipsoidal shell wherein they nest together; Paragraph 152-162 and figure 21-22 of Scarborough et al.).
Scarborough et al. and Herscovici et al. fail to explicitly disclose the nested ellipsoidal shells formed of polymer materials.
However, Sethumadhavan et al. does disclose the ellipsoidal shells formed of polymer materials (Antenna comprises a DRA 200 which may be a Luneburg lens 400 wherein said lens has multiple shell layers 402 that may be in a ellipsoidal shape wherein the layers are formed of polymer materials; Paragraph 16-22 and 100-108 as well as figure 4 of Sethumadhavan 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 Scarborough et al. and Herscovici et al. to have ellipsoidal shells formed of polymer materials as taught by Sethumadhavan et al. since the material used affects the dielectric constant of the layers and thus the overall functionality of the lens as a gradient index lens (Paragraph 100-103 of Sethumadhavan et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
651
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Scarborough et al. and Herscovici et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the layers are formed of at least one of polyphenylene ether (PPE), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polypropylene copolymer (PPC).
However, Sethumadhavan et al. does disclose wherein the layers are formed of at least one of polyphenylene ether (PPE), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polypropylene copolymer (PPC) (Polymers used for the layers 402 of the lens may be PPE OR PEEK; Paragraph 101 of Sethumadhavan 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 Scarborough et al. and Herscovici et al. to have the layers be formed of at least one of polyphenylene ether (PPE), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), or polypropylene copolymer (PPC) as taught by Sethumadhavan et al. since the material used affects the dielectric constant of the layers and thus the overall functionality of the lens as a gradient index lens (Paragraph 100-103 of Sethumadhavan et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Scarborough et al. and Herscovici et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the layers are formed of separately-molded components; wherein different layers are formed of different densities of polymer material.
However, Sethumadhavan et al. does disclose the layers are formed of separately-molded components, wherein different layers are formed of different densities of polymer material (Lens 400 and its layers may be formed form molding and each of the layers may be formed of polymer material comprising different densities; Paragraph 80-92 and 100-108 of Sethumadhavan 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 Scarborough et al. and Herscovici et al. to have the layers be formed of separately-molded components, wherein different layers are formed of different densities of polymer material as taught by Sethumadhavan et al. to optimize the properties of the lens and provide the desired focusing properties (Paragraph 100-103 of Sethumadhavan et al.).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarborough et al. (US 20240079776A1) in view of Herscovici et al. (WO 0076027 A1), Sethumadhavan et al. (US 11552390B2), and Stumme et al. (NPL from US Naval Research Laboratory).
Regarding Claim 6, Scarborough et al., Herscovici et al., and Sethumadhavan et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the layers are bonded together using a bonding agent.
However, Stumme et al. does disclose wherein the layers are bonded together using a bonding agent (Gradient index lens is comprised of multiple shells wherein the shells are bonded together by a bonding agent in the form of tape which serves as a pressure-sensitive adhesive; Pg. 2 and figure 2 of Stumme).
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 Scarborough et al., Herscovici et al., and Sethumadhavan et al. to have the layers be bonded together using a bonding agent as taught by Stumme et al. so that the shelled layers of the gradient index lens can be nested together and held in place (Pg. 2 of Stumme et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
624
1063
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Scarborough et al., Herscovici et al., and Sethumadhavan et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the bonding agent comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive or a matrix pre-impregnated with resin.
However, Stumme et al. does disclose wherein the bonding agent comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive or a matrix pre-impregnated with resin (Gradient index lens is comprised of multiple shells wherein the shells are bonded together by a bonding agent in the form of tape which serves as a pressure-sensitive adhesive; Pg. 2 and figure 2 of Stumme).
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 Scarborough et al., Herscovici et al., and Sethumadhavan et al. to have the bonding agent comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive or a matrix pre-impregnated with resin as taught by Stumme et al. so that the shelled layers of the gradient index lens can be nested together and held in place (Pg. 2 of Stumme et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 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 11605905 B2 (Turpin; Jeremiah P. et al.) discloses a configuration of an antenna system with a planar antenna system under a gradient index lens.
US 20210159597 A1 (BISWAS; Soumitra et al.) discloses a configuration of an antenna system with a feed antenna below a gradient index lens.
CN 109088173 A (YANG, SHI-WEN et al.) discloses a oblate ellipsoidal gradient index lens formed from multiple ellipsoidal shell layers and a feed antenna array to emit radiation into the lens.
CN 109088173 A (YANG, SHI-WEN et al.) discloses an antenna system with a feed antenna array and an oblate ellipsoidal index gradient lens.
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