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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 20 under 35 USC 102, Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein as necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
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, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sevic (WO 2019/113112 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sevic teaches a method of full duplex wireless communication, the method comprising:
transmitting a first radio frequency signal (Fig. 1,
f
1
, page 5, 2nd para., a first frequency channel
f
1
) from a first circularly polarized dipole antenna (Fig. 1, page 5, 2nd para., circularly polarized antenna, 3rd para. , ANT1A, page 10, 2nd para., dipole antennas) of an antenna array (Fig. 1, Tx/Rx Array); and
concurrent with the transmitting (page 5, 3rd para., a full duplex link), receiving a second radio frequency signal (Fig. 1,
f
2
, page 5, 2nd para., a second frequency channel
f
2
) with a second circularly polarized dipole antenna (Fig. 1, page 5, 3rd para. , ANT1B, page 10, 2nd para., dipole antennas) of the antenna array such that the antenna array concurrently transmits and receives (page 5, 3rd para., a full duplex link) on a same aperture (Fig. 1, Tx/Rx in a same cell), the second circularly polarized dipole antenna having a different polarization (page 5, 2nd para., a first subset of cylinders having a notation RHP may exhibit right-handed polarization and a second subset of cylinders having a notation LHP may exhibit left-handed polarization) than the first circularly polarized dipole antenna, the first radio frequency signal being in a different frequency band than the second radio frequency signal (page 5, 2nd para., a second frequency channel
f
2
, a first frequency channel
f
1
).
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Sevic.
Sevic further teaches the method wherein the first circularly polarized dipole antenna is connected to a transmit beamformer integrated circuit of the antenna array (Fig. 1, page 5, a transmit port of a transceiver 1A), and the first radio frequency signal is in a higher frequency band than the second radio frequency signal (page 5, last para. different frequencies, one should be higher than the other).
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Sevic.
Sevic further teaches the method, wherein the second radio frequency signal is received from a satellite (claim 16, 30 to 300 GHz).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevic (WO 2019/113112 A1) in view of Anderson (US 2016/0156109 A1).
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Sevic.
Sevic 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 Sevic in order to manufacture low cost antenna arrays (Anderson, [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 21 are allowed. Specifically, the independent claims 1 and 10 are allowed over the prior arts. The dependent claims 2-9 are allowed due to their dependencies to the said independent claim 1. The dependent claims 11-16 and 21 are allowed due to their dependencies to the said independent claim 10.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna array comprising:
two first circularly polarized dipole antennas each comprising a first pair of conductive elements;
the conductive elements of the second pair of conductive elements being longer than the conductive elements of the first pair of conductive elements; and
the first radio frequency signal having a different polarization and being in a different frequency band and having a higher frequency than the second radio frequency signal, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna array comprising:
a plurality of first circularly polarized antennas;
the first circularly polarized antennas associated with a higher frequency than the second circularly polarized antennas, and the antenna array including twice as many first circularly polarized antennas as second circularly polarized antennas, 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
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.
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 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 2845
Prosecution Insights