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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment to claim 1 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 7 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks.
In view of Applicant’s remarks, a new reference has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jidhage (US 20160380690 A1) in view of Frigon (US 11,050,470 B1).
As to claim 1, Jidhage discloses an antenna assembly comprising:
a first RF element, a second RF element, a third RF element, and a fourth RF element (Para. 29 Fig. 2 items 5 – 8);
wherein each RF element further comprises a first port and a second port (Para. 30 “each antenna device 5, 6, 7, 8 comprises at least one corresponding dual polarized antenna element 19, 20, 21, 22 arranged for transmitting and receiving signals at a first polarization P1 via the corresponding first antenna port P1A, P1B, P1C, P1D and for transmitting and receiving signals at a second polarization P2 via the corresponding second antenna port P2A, P2B, P2C, P2D. The polarizations P1, P2 are mutually orthogonal.”);
wherein the first port of each RF element is configured for a first polarization, and the second port of each RF element is configured for a second polarization (Id.); and
an RF network connected to the eight RF element ports with four output ports providing two sets of orthogonal polarizations (Para. 30 Fig. 2 items, e.g., P1A).
Jidage does not teach the four ports having at least two pairs of orthogonal polarizations wherein at least said two pairs are different.
In the same field of endeavor, Frigon teaches “FIG. 45 illustrates a radio with four ports and four directional antennas, where a first pair of two directional antennas radiates different RF signals with similar radiation patterns but with orthogonal polarization, and the second pair of two directional antennas radiates different RF signals with similar radiation patterns but with orthogonal polarization, and where the radiation pattern of the second pair of two directional antennas is different from the radiation patterns of the first pair of directional antennas, according to an embodiment.”
In view of the teachings of Frigon, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply the different pairs of orthogonality to further mitigate the presence of any interreference thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 2, Jidage in view of Frigon the antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the first polarization is least one of a 45+ slanted polarization, 45- slanted polarization, an elliptical polarization, and an orthogonal polarization (Para. 30 “orthogonal”).
As to claim 4, Jidage in view of Frigon the antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the first polarization is configured to be orthogonal to the second polarization (Para. 30 “orthogonal”).
As to claim 5, Jidage in view of Frigon the antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the first polarization is different from the second polarization (Para. 30 “orthogonal”).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20160028166 A1) in view of Frigon.
As to claim 1, Lee discloses an antenna assembly comprising:
a first RF element, a second RF element, a third RF element, and a fourth RF element (Para. 25 “FIG. 2 is an illustrative diagram of one embodiment of a dual-polarization antenna element 200. Antenna element 200 includes four radiating elements: element 210-1, element 210-2, element 210-3, and element 210-4. Antenna element 200 also includes eight feed ports, port 220-1 through port 220-8.”);
wherein each RF element further comprises a first port and a second port (Id.);
wherein the first port of each RF element is configured for a first polarization, and the second port of each RF element is configured for a second polarization (Para. 23 “The dual-feed network couples to the radiating elements via feed ports. It is realized herein the location of the feed ports on the radiating elements is a function of the wavelength and target impedance of the elements.” See also Para. 25 “dual-polarization”); and
an RF network connected to the eight RF element ports with four output ports providing two sets of orthogonal polarizations (Para. 26 “The four radiating elements are arranged in a co-planar diamond pattern.” Para. 26 “Each of the four radiating elements is shared between two cross-polarized shared-element dipole antenna elements.”).
In the same field of endeavor, Frigon teaches “FIG. 45 illustrates a radio with four ports and four directional antennas, where a first pair of two directional antennas radiates different RF signals with similar radiation patterns but with orthogonal polarization, and the second pair of two directional antennas radiates different RF signals with similar radiation patterns but with orthogonal polarization, and where the radiation pattern of the second pair of two directional antennas is different from the radiation patterns of the first pair of directional antennas, according to an embodiment.”
In view of the teachings of Frigon, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply the different pairs of orthogonality to further mitigate the presence of any interreference thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 3, Lee in view of Frigon an antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the first polarization set is at least one of a vertical polarization, a horizontal polarization, a left hand circular polarization, and a right hand polarization (Para. 26 – 27 vertical, horizontal and circular.).
Claim 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jidhage in view of Frigon and in further view of Bales (US 9391375 B1).
As to claim 6, Jidhage in view of Frigon does not disclose the antenna assembly of claim 1, further comprising a lens; wherein the lens is coupled to at least the first RF element, the second RF element, the third RF element, and the fourth RF element; wherein the power divider is coupled to at least the third RF element and the fourth RF element, and configured for a second polarization set; and wherein the third RF element and the fourth RF element are configured to produce a second beam pattern as a function of the second polarization set.
In same field of endeavor, Bales teaches “FIG. 7 shows a diagram 600 illustrating an embodiment of a 2×4 array 610 of sub-arrays each having four single-fed, single-slot coupled microstrip patch antenna elements with the two feed lines of each sub-array connected to a Rotman lens beamforming system. Array 610 may be the same as array 500 shown in FIG. 6 (col. 5 ll. 27 – 35).” Bales further teaches “The use of T-junction and Wilkinson power combiners/dividers in the vertical direction creates a “corporate” feed network for the elements arrayed vertically. However, the different amounts of additional phase that feed each element would make such a vertical linear array not work on its own. Rather, two vertical linear sub-arrays should be used in conjunction to produce a composite circularly polarized phased array (e.g. a column in array 500) that has greater gain, can beam steer in the horizontal (azimuth) direction, and has a narrower, fixed beam in the vertical (elevation) direction (col. 8 ll. 4 – 25).” Also, Bales’ Fig. 10 shows a graph of co-polarization and cross polarization beam patterns for the array shown in Fig. 6 without any beam steering. Bales’ further teaches witching/phasing blocks 1420, 1430, 1440 and 1450 connected to associated feed ports shown in Fig. 14.
In view of the teachings of Bales, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply the lens and dividers in order to focus energy in particular directions and to prevent interference from other directions thereby improving signal-to-noise. It would also be obvious to use different polarized antenna patterns in order to reduce the effects from any one interfering source thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 7, Jidhage in view of Frigon and Bales teaches the communication system of claim 6, wherein the second beam pattern differs from the second beam pattern in at least one of a vertical and a horizontal beamwidth.
Bales further teaches “A need exists for an antenna that provides wideband transmission and reception at radio frequencies that can be electronically reconfigured among four different polarizations: vertical linear polarization (VLP), horizontal linear polarization (HLP), right hand circular polarization (RHCP), and left hand circular polarization (LHCP), in a compact, planar form factor (col. 1 ll. 19 – 26).”
In view of the teachings of Bales, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply various antennae patterns such as vertical and horizontal in order to reduce the effects from any one interfering source thereby improving accuracy.
Claim 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view of Frigon and in further view of Bales (US 9391375 B1).
As to claim 6, Lee does not disclose the antenna assembly of claim 1, further comprising a lens; wherein the lens is coupled to at least the first RF element, the second RF element, the third RF element, and the fourth RF element; wherein the power divider is coupled to at least the third RF element and the fourth RF element, and configured for a second polarization set; and wherein the third RF element and the fourth RF element are configured to produce a second beam pattern as a function of the second polarization set.
In same field of endeavor, Bales teaches “FIG. 7 shows a diagram 600 illustrating an embodiment of a 2×4 array 610 of sub-arrays each having four single-fed, single-slot coupled microstrip patch antenna elements with the two feed lines of each sub-array connected to a Rotman lens beamforming system. Array 610 may be the same as array 500 shown in FIG. 6 (col. 5 ll. 27 – 35).” Bales further teaches “The use of T-junction and Wilkinson power combiners/dividers in the vertical direction creates a “corporate” feed network for the elements arrayed vertically. However, the different amounts of additional phase that feed each element would make such a vertical linear array not work on its own. Rather, two vertical linear sub-arrays should be used in conjunction to produce a composite circularly polarized phased array (e.g. a column in array 500) that has greater gain, can beam steer in the horizontal (azimuth) direction, and has a narrower, fixed beam in the vertical (elevation) direction (col. 8 ll. 4 – 25).” Also, Bales’ Fig. 10 shows a graph of co-polarization and cross polarization beam patterns for the array shown in Fig. 6 without any beam steering. Bales’ further teaches witching/phasing blocks 1420, 1430, 1440 and 1450 connected to associated feed ports shown in Fig. 14.
In view of the teachings of Bales, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply the lens and dividers in order to focus energy in particular directions and to prevent interference from other directions thereby improving signal-to-noise. It would also be obvious to use different polarized antenna patterns in order to reduce the effects from any one interfering source thereby improving accuracy.
As to claim 7, Lee in view of Frigon and Bales teaches the communication system of claim 6, wherein the second beam pattern differs from the second beam pattern in at least one of a vertical and a horizontal beamwidth.
Bales further teaches “A need exists for an antenna that provides wideband transmission and reception at radio frequencies that can be electronically reconfigured among four different polarizations: vertical linear polarization (VLP), horizontal linear polarization (HLP), right hand circular polarization (RHCP), and left hand circular polarization (LHCP), in a compact, planar form factor (col. 1 ll. 19 – 26).”
In view of the teachings of Bales, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply various antennae patterns such as vertical and horizontal in order to reduce the effects from any one interfering source thereby improving accuracy.
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 MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights