DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2025, 02/13/2025, and 11/18/2025 are 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chieh (US 2022/0302603 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chieh teaches a method of full duplex ([0002] frequency division duplexing for transmit and receive) wireless communication, the method comprising:
transmitting a first radio frequency signal from a first circularly polarized dipole antenna ([0028] dipole antenna) of an antenna array ([0002] right hand circular polarization and left hand circular polarization, one is for transmit and one is chosen for receive); and
concurrent ([0002] frequency division duplexing for transmit and receive) with the transmitting, receiving a second radio frequency signal with a second circularly polarized dipole antenna of the antenna array, the second circularly polarized dipole antenna having a different polarization than the first circularly polarized dipole antenna ([0002] right hand circular polarization and left hand circular polarization, one is chosen for transmit and one is chosen for receive), the first radio frequency signal being in a different frequency band than the second radio frequency signal ([0002] separate frequencies for transmit and receive).
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Chieh.
Chieh further teach the method wherein the second radio frequency signal is received from a satellite ([0002] satellite communication).
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 of this title, 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, 6-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somersalo (US 2024/0063547 A1) in view of Chieh (US 2022/0302603 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Somersalo teaches an antenna array comprising:
a first circularly polarized dipole antenna (Fig. 4, 110, [0044] circular polarization with 90 degree phase shift, [0046] LHCP and RHCP) comprising a first pair of conductive elements (112, 114);
a second circularly polarized dipole antenna (Fig. 4, 120, [0046] LHCP and RHCP) comprising a second pair conductive elements (122, 124), the second pair of conductive elements being geometrically orthogonal to the first pair of conductive elements ([0045] 120 perpendicular to 110).
However, Somersalo does not explicitly teach the antenna array comprising:
a beamformer integrated circuit configured to drive the first circularly polarized dipole antenna such that the first circularly polarized dipole antenna transmits a first radio frequency signal while the second circularly polarized dipole antenna receives a second radio frequency signal, the first radio frequency signal having a different polarization and being in a different frequency band than the second radio frequency signal.
Chieh teaches an antenna array comprising:
a beamformer integrated circuit configured to drive (implicit) the first circularly polarized dipole antenna ([0028] dipole antennas) such that the first circularly polarized dipole antenna transmits ([0002] one polarization chosen for transmit) a first radio frequency signal ([0002] The frequencies for transmit and receive could be separate frequencies) while the second circularly polarized dipole antenna ([0002] one polarization is chosen for receive) receives a second radio frequency signal, the first radio frequency signal having a different polarization and being in a different frequency band than the second radio frequency signal ([0002] two types of polarization, separate frequencies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to recognize that the antenna array of Somersalo would have two different radio frequencies with two different circular polarizations for transmit and receive RF signals when used for satellite communication as such configuration is typical (Chieh, [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo in view of Chieh does not explicitly teach the antenna array wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is oriented at angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to an edge of the beamformer integrated circuit.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to orient a beamformer integrated circuit with respect to a circularly polarized dipole antenna because Applicant has not disclosed that orienting the first circularly polarized dipole antenna at angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to an edge of the beamformer integrated circuit provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with an arbitrary location of the beamformer integrated circuit because Somersalo in view of Chieh does not limit the location of a beamformer to perform the function of the antennas as intended.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Somersalo in view of Chieh to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo further teaches the antenna array wherein the first pair of conductive elements comprise microstrips ([0040] microstrip line).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo further teaches the antenna array wherein the first radio frequency signal and the second radio frequency have respective frequencies in a range from 15 gigahertz to 100 gigahertz ([0003] 30 to 300 GHz).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo further teaches the antenna array, further comprising a plurality of additional circularly polarized dipole antennas connected to the beamformer integrated circuit, wherein the plurality of additional circularly polarized dipole antennas have a same polarization as the first circularly polarized dipole antenna, and wherein the beamformer integrated circuit is configured to concurrently drive the plurality of additional circularly polarized dipole antennas and the first circularly polarized dipole antenna (Fig. 6, [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, Somersalo teaches an antenna array comprising:
a plurality of first circularly polarized antenna (Figs. 4 and 6, 110, [0044] circular polarization with 90 degree phase shift, [0046] LHCP and RHCP);
a first beamformer integrated circuit connected to the first circularly polarized antennas (implicit);
a second circularly polarized antenna (Fig. 4, 120, [0046] LHCP and RHCP), having a different polarization than the first circularly polarized antennas ([0045] 120 perpendicular to 110); and
a second beamformer integrated circuit connected to the second circularly polarized antennas (implicit).
However, Somersalo does not explicitly teach the antenna array comprising:
the antenna array including twice as many first circularly polarized antennas as second circularly polarized antennas; and
the antenna array is configured for full duplex communication using at least the first circularly polarized antennas and the second circularly polarized antennas.
Chieh teaches an antenna array is configured for full duplex communication ([0002] time division duplexing or frequency division duplexing) using at least the first circularly polarized antennas and the second circularly polarized antennas ([0002] two types of circular polarizations, one for transmit, and one for receive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to recognize that the antenna array of Somersalo would have full duplex communication with two circular polarizations for satellite communication applications as such configuration is typical (Chieh, [0002]).
Somersalo in view of Chieh does not teach the antenna array comprising the antenna array including twice as many first circularly polarized antennas as second circularly polarized antennas.
However, the antenna array including twice as many first circularly polarized antennas as second circularly polarized antennas is mere duplication of parts unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, Applicant has not disclosed a new and unexpected result by including twice as many first circularly polarized antennas as second circularly polarized antennas.
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Chieh further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first beamformer integrated circuit is a transmit beamformer integrated circuit, and wherein the second beamformer integrated circuit is a receive integrated circuit ([0002] For satellite communications, typically one is chosen for transmit and one is chosen for receive.).
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Chieh further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first beamformer integrated circuit is a receive beamformer integrated circuit, and wherein the second beamformer integrated circuit is a transmit integrated circuit ([0002] For satellite communications, typically one is chosen for transmit and one is chosen for receive.).
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Chieh further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first circularly polarized antennas are associated with a higher frequency band than the second circularly polarized antennas ([0002] separate frequencies, one should be higher than the other).
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations of claim 10 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first circularly polarized antennas comprise a first dipole antenna, and the second circularly polarized antenna comprises a second dipole antenna that is geometrically orthogonal to the first dipole antenna (Figure 3, geometrically orthogonal antennas 112, [0043] dual polarized dipoles; Figure 4, [0044] two dipole antennas 110, 120 geometrically orthogonal to each other, [0047] Dipole phase difference is 90 degrees for circular polarization).
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations of claim 15 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo further teaches the antenna array, wherein the first dipole antenna comprises microstrips ([0040] microstrip line).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somersalo (US 2024/0063547 A1) in view of Chieh (US 2022/0302603 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rossman (US 2009/0303002 A1).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Somersalo in view of Chieh.
Somersalo in view of Chieh does not explicitly teach the antenna array wherein the beamformer integrated circuit is connected to the first circularly polarized dipole antenna by way of differential feedlines.
Rossman teaches an antenna wherein a beamformer integrated circuit is connected to the first circularly polarized dipole antenna by way of differential feedlines (Fig. 3, 54 connected via delay element 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Rossman to the teachings of Somersalo in view of Chieh in order to implement phase difference (Rossman, [0014]) for the circular polarization of the dipole antenna as required by Somersalo in view of Chieh, as is well known in the art.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh (US 2022/0302603 A1) in view of Somersalo (US 2024/0063547 A1).
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Chieh.
Chieh does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is geometrically orthogonal with the second circularly polarized dipole antenna.
Somersalo teaches a method, wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is geometrically orthogonal with the second circularly polarized dipole antenna (Figure 3, geometrically orthogonal antennas 112, [0043] dual polarized dipoles; Figure 4, [0044] two dipole antennas 110, 120 geometrically orthogonal to each other, [0047] Dipole phase difference is 90 degrees for circular polarization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the two orthogonal dipole antennas of Somersalo to the teachings of Chieh in order to manufacture low cost compact antenna arrays (Somersalo, [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Chieh.
Chieh further teach the method wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is connected to a transmit beamformer integrated circuit of the antenna array ([0002] one is chosen for transmit), and the first radio frequency signal is in a higher frequency band than the second radio frequency signal (separate frequencies, one should be higher than the other).
Chieh does not explicitly teach the dipole antenna is connected by a single feedline.
Somersalo further teaches the dipole antenna is connected by a single feedline (Fig. 1, 117, [0033] a RF feed 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Somersalo to the teachings of Chieh as well known in the art to provide RF signal for circular polarization (Chieh, [0028] single-fed, circular polarization; Somersalo, [0048] dipole antenna with 90 degree phase shift).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chieh (US 2022/0302603 A1) in view of Anderson (US 2016/0156109 A1).
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Chieh.
Chieh does not explicitly teach the method wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is geometrically orthogonal with the second circularly polarized dipole antenna.
Anderson teaches a method, wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is geometrically orthogonal with the second circularly polarized dipole antenna (Fig. 2A, 204 and 206 are geometrically orthogonal, [0035] right and left circular polarization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the two orthogonal dipole antennas of Anderson to the teachings of Chieh in order to manufacture low cost antenna arrays (Anderson, [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna array wherein the first pair of conductive elements are connected to each other by a half wavelength delay line, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, claims and 4 are objected to due to their dependencies to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna array wherein the first circularly polarized antennas are each connected to the first beamformer integrated circuit by a single feedline, and the second circularly polarized antennas are each connected to the second beamformer by differential feedlines, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844