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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2-9 be found allowable, claims 11-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 have only the following slight differences in wording:
claim 2 recites an apparatus while claim 11 recites a system;
claim 2 recites a laser while claim 11 recites a laser system; and
claim 2 recites an interferometer while claim 11 recites an interferometer system.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1 lines 8-10 and claim 10 lines 9-11, in “a controller configured to control positioning of the laser and the interferometer based on information associated with the laser beam received by the controller and the signals received from the antenna element” it is unclear what “information associated with the laser beam received by the controller and the signals received from the antenna element” is used “to control positioning of the laser and the interferometer”. The term “information” appears only in the Background section, and no details are provided. Other paragraphs relevant to the controller include [0029]-[0031], [0038], [0052]-[0053], and [0055]-[0056]. However none appear to provide explanation of this feature. Examiner would appreciate clarification.
Claim 19 lines 4-5 “receiving information associated with the laser beam for coarse mechanical positioning of the antenna element” and lines 8-9 “positioning the laser and the interferometer based on the received information associated with the laser beam and the signals received from the antenna element” are indefinite for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 10, that is, because it is unclear what the “information” comprises and how it is used to position the laser and the interferometer.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 105676226 A, cited on IDS, copy of translation attached to this action) in view of Sikina (US 9331751 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Hu are lined through] an apparatus (Fig. 1; page 1 line 5 “radio frequency array antenna calibration device”) for testing an antenna element (page 4 line 21 “the radiating antenna”; Fig. 2 in view of page 4 lines 9-11 “the radiation antenna”) of an antenna array (page 1 line 5 “radio frequency array antenna”), the apparatus comprising:
a laser configured to generate a laser beam for coarse mechanical positioning of the antenna element (1, Fig. 1; page 4 lines 5-8 “A shown in Fig. 1... The five red points at the center of the four receiving antennas... are the laser emitting sources”);
an interferometer comprising a plurality of antennas (A-D, Fig. 1) configured to receive signals from the antenna element for fine electrical positioning of the antenna element (page 4 lines 24-26 “Then, measurements can be performed using the radio frequency measurement method”), wherein the laser and the interferometer are collocated (Fig. 1 shows collocation of laser 1 and interferometer A-D); and
Hu does not appear to teach a controller configured to control positioning of the laser and the interferometer based on information associated with the laser beam received by the controller and the signals received from the antenna element. This feature has been rejected as indefinite. For purposes of this rejection, Sikina (US 9331751 B2) teaches a controller (56, Fig. 4) configured to control positioning of an apparatus for testing an antenna element of an antenna array (42, 44, 48, Fig. 4 in view of 10:22-38 and 10:41-43; the antenna array itself is shown at 46). Control of the positioning based on information associated with the received signals appears to be taught at 90 and 94, Fig. 7 in view of the receiving arrangement taught at 10:41-43.
Sikina’s controller provides for testing all of the antenna elements of array 46 (abstract “calibrate an array antenna using near-field antenna measurements individually for each antenna element in an antenna under test (AUT)”). It would have been obvious to modify Hu in view of Sikina in order to provide for testing of all antenna elements in Hu’s array.
As best understood, the limitations of claim 19 are met by Hu and Sikina for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Hu teaches:
determining whether the antenna element is mechanically aligned based on the generated laser beam (page 4 lines 16-18, esp “Before phase-ranging, the distance between each antenna and the center of rotation is adjusted to a wavelength range”); and
determining whether the antenna element is electrically aligned based on the signals received from the antenna element (page 4 lines 16-18 “and then radio frequency ranging is performed, so that the problem of range ambiguity can be solved”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-9, the prior art does not teach or make obvious at least a removable center antenna as recited in claim 2. Hu’s apparatus has a laser at its center, and Hu teaches “The main function is to combine the laser measurement with a device that assists in improving the alignment accuracy of the array antenna” (page 1 lines 5-7). A center antenna would interfere with Hu’s laser and therefore with the main function of Hu’s invention, while providing no clear advantage. Claims 3-9 depend on claim 2.
Claims 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 differs from claim 1 in reciting “the plurality of antennas including a removable center antenna” in lines 6-7. As discussed above with respect to claims 1-9, the prior art does not teach or make obvious this feature. Claims 11-18 depend on claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ge (US 20200358177 A1) teaches, as best understood, an apparatus (Fig. 1) for testing an antenna element of an antenna array (“To-be-tested phase array”, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising a laser for coarse mechanical positioning (para. [0195] “an alignment manner may be laser alignment” and a plurality of antennas) and an interferometer comprising a plurality of antennas configured to receive signals from the antenna element for fine electrical positioning of the antenna element (“Mirror array for correction and testing”, Fig. 1), wherein the laser and the interferometer are collocated (implied by para. [0195]); and
a controller configured to control positioning of the laser and the interferometer based on information associated with the laser beam received by the controller and the signals received from the antenna element (lower portion of Fig. 1, including “Test control device”, etc.).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li (US 12580309 B2) teaches calibrating a multi-element array using a reflected laser signal (abstract, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
918
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648