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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-18, and 20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the claimed invention is novel and non-obvious over Hollenbeck and is explicitly designed to operate seamlessly across a wider bandwidth without gaps or performance drops but Hollenbeck does disclose a concentric coaxial feed assembly as mapped out in the non-final rejection mailed 11/19/2024. Applicant fails to show how Hollenbeck does not disclose or suggest a similar configuration. Since Hollenbeck does disclose a nested concentric coaxial feed, it has the structure that is capable of performing the function of operating seamlessly across a wider bandwidth without gaps or performance drops. Applicant claims Hollenbeck includes a central metallic support and outer 4 to 6 metallic supports to hold the sub-reflector and that it yields blockage but claim 1 states that the sub-reflector is supported by one or more sub-reflector supports which Hollenbeck includes. Claim 1 says nothing about the support “minimizing the impact on the antenna gain and sidelobes” and therefore does not need to be in Hollenbeck. Applicant argues that Morz doesn’t cover 8 bands with a bandwidth ratio of 36:1 but the limitations of claim 1 say “a plurality of radio frequency tracking networks configured to operate at one or more frequency bands” which Morz reads on because Morz covers two frequency bands. Applicant reads “uses waveguide horn without dielectric rod to avoid physical damage, thermal degradation and manufacturing complexity” into the claim. It is not required that Morz has this feature as it is not claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Hollenbeck does feature a nested coaxial feed assembly and therefore is capable of performing the function of operating seamlessly across a wider bandwidth without gaps or performance drops and has the features of claim 1. The features of claim 3, 4 and 16 have nothing to do with claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, the feature “two or more nested coaxial cavities” is not claimed and therefore does not apply to Hollenbeck.
Regarding claim 9, applicant states that Hollenbeck does not disclose the inclusion of a cylindrical core waveguide but claim 9 states that “first waveguide is at least one of a circular horn open-ended waveguide and a cylindrical core waveguide.” Examiner chose to reject “a circular horn open-ended waveguide”.
Regarding claim 10, Hollenbeck discloses that 920 and 940 are coaxial horns (see para. 0075 and 0076) and “two or more nested coaxial cavities” is not claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Hollenbeck reads on the claim of one or more subreflector supports extending from the feed cone. The 4 supports without the central metallic support is not claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 20, applicant argues that Hollenbeck does not disclose dynamic frequency selection tailored to communication channel requirements but you can select signals for specific frequency bands to route (dynamic frequency selection is not claimed) what is and all of the signal processing is taught in Morz (it has a means for generating an antenna tracking storage signal).
Regarding claim 11, Rao does teach a coaxial waveguide (it is a cylindrical waveguide 30 with an inner chamber 32) and it has a beam forming network (see Col. 1 lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues that Mitchelson is limited to dual band operation and that applicant’s invention includes 8 frequency bands but this feature is not in the claim. Mitchelson relies on fixed impedance matching which is used to adjust the impedance of the concentric assembly which reads on applicant’s claim and it is not required for Mitchelson to have dynamic and precise impedance adjustment across a broader range of frequencies because this is not claimed. Also, improving signal isolation and reducing cross-band interference is not claimed.
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that Mitchelson does not teach the impedance matching structure being designed with ramps, steps, or descending curves but Mitchelson teaches a series of stepped cylinders in para. 0088 and therefore reads on the claim. Since the stepped cylinders read on the structure of the claim, it is capable of performing the function that the applicant is arguing. Also, this function is not claimed.
Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that the applicant’s invention covers a much larger bandwidth than Mitchelson and that Mitchelson does not cover the bands continuously but applicant fails to specify the frequency band ratio in the claim and fails to explicitly claim that it is continuous.
Regarding claim 13, applicant argues that their invention covers eight frequency bands and that Mitchelson pertains to dual-band operation but eight frequency bands is not claimed and two frequency band falls into operating in “multiple frequency bands including at least one of…”
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that Mitchelson fails to disclose the components switches or amplifiers or coaxial cables etc. but the claim says “one or more antenna components include at least one of switches, filters…”. One or more means it can be only filters.
Regarding claim 7, applicant argues that the applicant’s invention discloses waveguide ports as well as coaxial ports but the coaxial ports are not claimed. The frequency ranges that applicant argues are also not claimed.
Regarding claim 16, applicant argues that the claimed invention is novel and non-obvious over Hollenbeck and is explicitly designed to operate seamlessly across a wider bandwidth without gaps or performance drops but Hollenbeck does disclose a concentric coaxial feed assembly as mapped out in the non-final rejection mailed 11/19/2024. Applicant fails to show how Hollenbeck does not disclose or suggest a similar configuration. Since Hollenbeck does disclose a nested concentric coaxial feed, it has the structure that is capable of performing the function of operating seamlessly across a wider bandwidth without gaps or performance drops. Applicant claims Hollenbeck includes a central metallic support and outer 4 to 6 metallic supports to hold the sub-reflector and that it yields blockage but claim 1 states that the sub-reflector is supported by one or more sub-reflector supports which Hollenbeck includes. Biancotto does reduce blockage, see para. 0006.
Regarding claim 17, applicant argues that Mitchelson is limited to dual band operation and that applicant’s invention includes 8 frequency bands but this feature is not in the claim. Mitchelson relies on fixed impedance matching which is used to adjust the impedance of the concentric assembly which reads on applicant’s claim and it is not required for Mitchelson to have dynamic and precise impedance adjustment across a broader range of frequencies because this is not claimed. Also, improving signal isolation and reducing cross-band interference is not claimed.
Regarding claim 18, applicant argues that Mitchelson does not teach the impedance matching structure being designed with ramps, steps, or descending curves but Mitchelson teaches a series of stepped cylinders in para. 0088 and therefore reads on the claim. Since the stepped cylinders read on the structure of the claim, it is capable of performing the function that the applicant is arguing. Also, this function is not claimed.
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 1-2, 8-10, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck et al (U.S Publication US 20190207321 A1 hereby referred as Hollenbeck) in view of Morz (Publication DE 102013011651 A1 hereby referred as Morz).
Regarding claim 1, Hollenbeck discloses:
A nested concentric coaxial feed assembly of a multi-band ground antenna for supporting multiple frequency bands (900) (Fig. 19), comprising: an elongated housing (975) configured to enclose one or more antenna components (encloses 955 and 985); a feed cone (the area including 910, 945 and 935) attached at one end of said elongated housing (the end of 975), wherein said feed cone (the area including 910, 945 and 935) comprises: a first waveguide (940); and one or more coaxial cylinders (945 and 935), wherein said one or more coaxial cylinders (945 and 935) are configured to encircle said first waveguide (encircle 940), thereby forming one or more coaxial waveguides (see para. 0047, applies to Fig. 19), which are bounded between pairs of consecutive coaxial cylinders (945 and 935); a sub-reflector (960) located at a distal end of said feed cone (see Fig. 19) having an outer rim supported by one or more sub-reflector supports (the outer rim supported by 970);
Hollenbeck does not disclose “and a plurality of radio frequency (RF) tracking networks configured to operate at one or more frequency bands for providing accurate positioning of the multi-band ground antenna to receive radio frequency signals,”
However, Morz teaches and a plurality of radio frequency (RF) tracking networks configured to operate at one or more frequency bands for providing accurate positioning of the multi-band ground antenna to receive radio frequency signals (“The antenna feed system has at least two excitation waveguides coaxial with each other forming both orthogonal H11 waves and a TEM wave, and means are provided for generating an antenna tracking storage signal from the TEM wave radiation pattern.”, page 2 and 3, see Fig. 1 K1-K4 which generate s storage signal for antenna tracking) whereby, said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly operates seamlessly across a wider bandwidth without any gaps or performance drops (these frequency bands have continuous ranges “According to the invention, in an antenna feed system with coaxially arranged exciters for more than two widely spaced frequency bands (e.g. the frequency bands 2.025 GHz to 2.3 GHz, and 8 GHz to 8.5 GHz and 25.5 to 27 GHz) ”, page 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of radio frequency (RF) tracking networks configured to operate at one or more frequency bands for providing accurate positioning of the multi-band ground antenna to receive radio frequency signals as taught by Morz with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to store a signal for antenna tracking (page 1, Morz) and to have good performance. Furthermore, 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 2, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck further discloses:
wherein said multi-band ground antenna (900) further comprises: an antenna reflector (see para. 0005), wherein said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (935, 945 and 940) is installed at a reflector focal point of said antenna reflector (“incoming radio waves are gathered and focused by the antenna's main reflector onto the feed horn”, see para. 0005).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck further discloses:
wherein said one or more coaxial waveguides (940 and 945, 920 and 935) comprise at least one of an intermediate waveguide (940 and 945) and an outermost waveguide (920 and 935).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck embodiment of Fig. 19 does not disclose:
wherein said first waveguide (940) is at least one of a circular horn open-ended waveguide and a cylindrical core waveguide
However, Hollenbeck embodiment of Fig. 4 teaches wherein said first waveguide (240) is at least one of a circular horn open-ended waveguide (see para. 0049).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the teaching of Hollenbeck embodiment of Fig.4 wherein the first waveguide is at least one of a circular horn open-ended waveguide in order to transmit higher frequency signals (para. 0049, Hollenbeck).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck further discloses:
said one or more coaxial waveguides (940 and 945, 920 and 935) are coaxial horn open-ended waveguide (see para. 0075 and 0076).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck further discloses:
wherein said one or more sub-reflector supports (970) are extending from the feed cone (the area including 910, 945 and 935).
Regarding claim 20, Hollenbeck discloses:
A method for operating a multi-band ground antenna to support multiple frequency bands using a nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (900) (Fig. 19), comprising: selecting a desired frequency band based on a required communication channel (see para. 0075); directing signals through a corresponding waveguide based on a frequency coverage (see para. 0075); utilizing one or more integrated components within a feed cone (the area including 910, 945 and 935) for signal processing and transmission or reception (see para. 0075); dual polarization (see para. 0076 on dual polarization),
Hollenbeck does not disclose “and maintaining continuous bandwidth, and tracking capability across all supported frequency bands.”
However, Morz teaches and maintaining continuous bandwidth (these frequency bands have continuous ranges “According to the invention, in an antenna feed system with coaxially arranged exciters for more than two widely spaced frequency bands (e.g. the frequency bands 2.025 GHz to 2.3 GHz, and 8 GHz to 8.5 GHz and 25.5 to 27 GHz) ”, page 3), and tracking capability across all supported frequency bands (“The antenna feed system has at least two excitation waveguides coaxial with each other forming both orthogonal H11 waves and a TEM wave, and means are provided for generating an antenna tracking storage signal from the TEM wave radiation pattern.”, page 2 and 3, see Fig. 1 K1-K4 which generate s storage signal for antenna tracking).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a continuous bandwidth, and tracking capability across all supported frequency bands as taught by Morz with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to store a signal for antenna tracking (page 1, Morz) and to have good performance. Furthermore, 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.).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck et al (U.S Publication US 20190207321 A1 hereby referred as Hollenbeck) in view of Morz (Publication DE 102013011651 A1 hereby referred as Morz) in view of Rao et al (U.S. Publication US 9972897 B1 hereby referred as Rao).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein at least one coaxial waveguide is incorporated with a beam forming network (BFN) for limiting power usage.”
However, Rao teaches at least one coaxial waveguide (30) is incorporated with a beam forming network (BFN) for limiting power usage (see Col. 1 lines 61-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one coaxial waveguide incorporated with a beam forming network (BFN) for limiting power usage as taught by Rao with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to limit the maximum power that can be transmitted by the antenna (Col. 1 lines 64-65, Rao).
Claims 3-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck et al (U.S Publication US 20190207321 A1 hereby referred as Hollenbeck) in view of Morz (Publication DE 102013011651 A1 hereby referred as Morz) in view of Mitchelson et al (U.S Publication US 20200313296 A1 hereby referred as Mitchelson)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly further comprises at least one impedance matching structure encircling at least one of said coaxial cylinder, wherein said at least one impedance matching structure is configured to adjust the impedance of the nested concentric coaxial feed assembly.”
However, Mitchelson teaches said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (400) (Fig. 4) further comprises at least one impedance matching structure (440) encircling at least one of said coaxial cylinder (412), wherein said at least one impedance matching structure (440) is configured to adjust the impedance of the nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (see para. 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have nested concentric coaxial feed assembly further comprising at least one impedance matching structure encircling at least one of said coaxial cylinder, wherein said at least one impedance matching structure is configured to adjust the impedance of the nested concentric coaxial feed assembly as taught by Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to reduce or minimize reflections (para. 0075, Mitchelson).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said at least one impedance matching structure having a shape includes at least one of a ramp, steps and a descending curve”.
However, Mitchelson teaches wherein said at least one impedance matching structure (440) having a shape includes at least one of steps (see para. 0088, a series of stepped cylinders)...
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one impedance matching structure having a shape includes at least one of steps as taught by Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck so that microwave signals in the high-band are efficiently coupled between the waveguide and the impedance matching structure (para. 0088, Mitchelson).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said multi-band ground antenna is configured to operate across a wide range of frequencies varies between 2 GHz and 36 GHz.”
However, Mitchelson teaches said multi-band ground antenna (10) (Fig. 1) is configured to operate across a wide range of frequencies varies between 2 GHz and 36 GHz (can be in a microwave low frequency band and/or in a high frequency band and the microwave frequency bands are between 1 GHz and 300 GHz, see para. 0003).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said multi-band ground antenna configured to operate across a wide range of frequencies varies between 2 GHz and 36 GHz as taught by Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to perform at multiple frequency bands (para. 0065 and 0066, Mitchelson). Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said multi-band ground antenna is configured to operate in multiple frequency bands include at least one of C, X, Ku, K, upper Ka bands, S and Ka-bands.”
However, Mitchelson suggests the teaching wherein said multi-band ground antenna is configured to operate in multiple frequency bands include at least one of C, X, Ku, K, upper Ka bands, S and Ka-bands (can be in a microwave low frequency band and/or in a high frequency band and the microwave frequency bands are between 1 GHz and 300 GHz, see para. 0003).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said multi-band ground antenna configured to operate in multiple frequency bands include at least one of C, X, Ku, K, upper Ka bands, S and Ka-bands as suggested by the teachings of Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to perform at multiple frequency bands (para. 0065 and 0066, Mitchelson). Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said one or more antenna components include at least one of switches, filters, amplifiers, coaxial cables and other components.”
However, Mitchelson teaches wherein said one or more antenna components include at least one of filters (160) (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more antenna components including at least one of filters as taught by Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to reduce high frequency energy incident on the outer waveguide (para. 0079).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck et al (U.S Publication US 20190207321 A1 hereby referred as Hollenbeck) in view of Morz (Publication DE 102013011651 A1 hereby referred as Morz) in view of Forslund (U.S. Publication US 20220352650 A1 hereby referred as Forslund).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly further comprises one or more waveguide ports, wherein said one or more waveguide ports are configured for providing a sum signal or a difference signal for each frequency band including a C-band, an S-band, a K-band, a Ka-band, a Ku-band, a X-band, and an L-band.”
However, Forslund suggests the teaching said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (antenna feed 1) (Fig. 1) further comprises one or more waveguide ports (8a, 8b, 8c, 8d), wherein said one or more waveguide ports (8a, 8b, 8c, 8d and 13) are configured for providing a sum signal or a difference signal for each frequency band including a C-band, an S-band, a K-band, a Ka-band, a Ku-band, a X-band, and an L-band (can include X-band, Ku-band and others, see para. 0013,)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have nested concentric coaxial feed assembly further comprising one or more waveguide ports, wherein said one or more waveguide ports are configured for providing a sum signal or a difference signal for each frequency band including a C-band, an S-band, a K-band, a Ka-band, a Ku-band, a X-band, and an L-band as taught by Forslund with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to connect to the waveguides and output frequencies (para. 0013, Forslund). Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck et al (U.S Publication US 20190207321 A1 hereby referred as Hollenbeck) in view of Biancotto et al (U.S Publication US 20200280135 A1 hereby referred as Biancotto).
Regarding claim 16, Hollenbeck discloses:
A nested concentric coaxial feed assembly of a multi-band ground antenna for supporting multiple frequency bands (800) (Fig. 15), comprising an elongated housing (880 and 810) configured to enclose one or more antenna components (encloses 890); a feed cone (the area including 820 and 840) attached at one end of said elongated housing (the end of 880 and 810), wherein the feed cone (the area including 820 and 840) comprises: a circular horn open-ended waveguide (840) located on a central axis of said feed cone (the central axis of the area including 820 and 840); a first coaxial cylinder (the cylinder encircling 840) encircling said circular horn open-ended waveguide (840), thereby forming an intermediate waveguide (the waveguide with 840), which is bounded between said first coaxial cylinder (the cylinder encircling 840) and said circular horn open ended waveguide (840); and a second coaxial cylinder (the cylinder encircling 820 and 840) encircling said first coaxial cylinder (the cylinder encircling 840), thereby forming an outermost waveguide (the waveguide with 820), which is bounded between said second coaxial cylinder (the cylinder encircling 820 and 840) and said first coaxial cylinder (the cylinder encircling 840); and a sub-reflector (860) located at a distal end of said feed cone (see Fig. 15) having an outer rim supported by one or more sub-reflector supports (870), wherein the sub-reflector (869)
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein the sub-reflector having an inner reflecting surface that is shaped to minimize RF blockage effects and improve gain of the multi-band ground antenna.”
However, Biancotto teaches wherein the sub-reflector having an inner reflecting surface that is shaped to minimize RF blockage effects and improve gain of the multi-band ground antenna (“the cone feed and sub-reflector dimensions are made to be relatively small to reduce blockage of the signal path from the reflector dish to free space”, para. 0006).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sub-reflector having an inner reflecting surface that is shaped to minimize RF blockage effects and improve gain of the multi-band ground antenna as taught by Biancotto with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to reduce blockage of the signal path from the reflector dish to free space (para. 0006, Biancotto).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollenbeck et al (U.S Publication US 20190207321 A1 hereby referred as Hollenbeck) in view of Biancotto et al (U.S Publication US 20200280135 A1 hereby referred as Biancotto) in view of Mitchelson et al (U.S Publication US 20200313296 A1 hereby referred as Mitchelson).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly further comprises at least one impedance matching structure encircling at least one of said coaxial cylinder, wherein said at least one impedance matching structure is configured to adjust the impedance of the nested concentric coaxial feed assembly.”
However, Mitchelson teaches said nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (400) (Fig. 4) further comprises at least one impedance matching structure (440) encircling at least one of said coaxial cylinder (412), wherein said at least one impedance matching structure (440) is configured to adjust the impedance of the nested concentric coaxial feed assembly (see para. 0048).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have nested concentric coaxial feed assembly further comprising at least one impedance matching structure encircling at least one of said coaxial cylinder, wherein said at least one impedance matching structure is configured to adjust the impedance of the nested concentric coaxial feed assembly as taught by Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck in order to reduce or minimize reflections (para. 0075, Mitchelson).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Hollenbeck teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Hollenbeck does not disclose “wherein said at least one impedance matching structure having a shape includes at least one of a ramp, steps and a descending curve”.
However, Mitchelson teaches wherein said at least one impedance matching structure (440) having a shape includes at least one of steps (see para. 0088, a series of stepped cylinders)...
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one impedance matching structure having a shape includes at least one of steps as taught by Mitchelson with the coaxial feed assembly of Hollenbeck so that microwave signals in the high-band are efficiently coupled between the waveguide and the impedance matching structure (para. 0088, Mitchelson).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALADDIN ABDULBAKI whose telephone number is (571) 270-5990. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30. 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.
/ALADDIN ABDULBAKI/
Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights