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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/28/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are no illustrative labels or numerals in either the Drawings, or, the Specification showing the “slot structure” and the “two upward vertical arms” as claimed in claims 1 and 2.
No new matter should be entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Although claim 8 is correctly indicated as (cancelled) the language still remains therein (i.e. “The low-frequency band dipole unit according to claim 1”)
Claim 10 is objected to as being a method claim depending from an apparatus claim (claim 9).
This is construed as mixing different statutory classes of inventions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “slot structure” of the support structure and the “two upward vertical arms” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
There are no illustrative labels or numerals in either the Drawings, or, the Specification showing the “slot structure” and the “two upward vertical arms” as claimed in claims 1 and 2.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the
limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in
dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further
limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate
by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of
improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “An adjustment method for the multi-frequency band array antenna according to claim 9” , thus is not written so as to entirely encompass the limitations of claim 9, and therefore fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito (US Patent No. 6072439A in view Gonzalez et al, (US Patent No 11342688 B2) in view of Teillet et al (US Patent 6717555 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ippolito discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) A low-frequency band dipole unit (11a), comprising: a first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole), a second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole), and a support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b);
wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) are in a criss-cross perpendicular arrangement;
wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) is in a T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in an order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a shape of a straight line when viewed from above; a front face of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) is engraved with a first microstrip line (75) in a form of a microstrip (75) or in a manner of a dielectric plate clad with copper, and is configured for feeding the low-frequency band dipole unit in +45° polarization (col. 1, lines 36-38); a back face of the first microstrip dipole arm is engraved with a metal ground (18b; col. 4, lines 52-53) in the form of the microstrip or in the manner of the dielectric plate clad with copper (73, 18b; col. 4, lines 17-19);
wherein the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) is in the T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in the order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in the shape of a straight line when viewed from above; a front face of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) is engraved with a second microstrip line (75) in the form of the microstrip (75) or in the manner of the dielectric plate clad with copper, and is configured for feeding the low-frequency band dipole unit in -45° polarization (col. 1, lines 36-38); a back face of the second microstrip dipole arm is engraved with another metal ground (18a; col. 4, lines 52-53) in the form of the microstrip or in the manner of the dielectric plate clad with copper (73, 18a; col. 4, lines 17-19); wherein the two upward vertical arms of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the two upward vertical arms of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are configured to reduce coupling and blocking with other-frequency band dipole units by shortening transverse dimensions of the first microstrip dipole arm and the second microstrip dipole arm and enabling flexible nested arrangement with other-frequency band array units (col. 7, lines 24-28);
wherein the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) has a slot structure (82) for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a); wherein the first microstrip line (75) of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) has a first-stage bent segment (75 of 18b) upwards starting from a first feeding port, which is denoted as a first bent segment; the second microstrip line (75) of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has another first-stage bent segment (75 of 18a) upwards starting from a second feeding port, which is denoted as a second bent segment; wherein a length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) is less than a length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a), and a difference in the length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) and the length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a) is less than a width of the first microstrip line (75) or the second microstrip line (75); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are each in a face structure, and wherein each of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has a thickness that lies in a range between 0.254 and 3.048 mm (col. 7, lines 21-24).
Ippolito does not teach:
wherein, for the first and second microstrip dipole arms, respectively, the two upward vertical arms being formed by upwardly bending two ends of a horizontal portion of the T-shaped thin arm structure to shorten a transverse dimension of the first and second microstrip dipole arms ,or,
wherein the slot structure of the support structure clamps the first and second microstrip dipole arms at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first and second microstrip dipole arms.
Gonzalez et al teaches:
wherein, for first and second microstrip dipole arms( 103, Fig 11), respectively, two upward vertical arms(204, Fig 11) being formed by upwardly bending (column 12, lines 2-6) two ends of a horizontal portion of a thin arm structure to shorten a transverse dimension of the first and second microstrip dipole arms(column 9, lines 12-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was effectively filed, to bend the two ends of the first and second dipole arms upwardly to shorten a transverse dimension thereof as taught by Gonzalez et asl in the horizontal portion of the T-shaped thin arm structure of the antenna assembly of Ippolito for the purpose of increasing the electrical length of the dipole arms, without increasing the footprint thereof(column 9, lines 12-18).
Teillet et al teaches:
wherein the slot structure(74, Fig 9) of the support structure (72, Fig 9) clamps the first and second microstrip dipole arms at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first and second microstrip dipole arms(see Fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to include a support structure with a slot structure positioned and arranged as taught by Teillet et al in the antenna assembly of Ippolito and Gonzalez et al for the purpose of maintaining the crossed dipoles in a position orthogonal to each other(column 4, lines 11-17)
Regarding claim 5, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the low-frequency band dipole unit has two feeding ports (80 of 18a and 18b); the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) corresponds to the first feeding port (80 of 18b), and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) corresponds to the second feeding port (80 of 18a); and each of the first feeding port (80 of 18b) and the second feeding port (80 of 18a) corresponds to a polarization form (col. 4, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 6, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) is an integrated structure on which the slot structure (82) is provided for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole).
Claims 2, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito (US Patent No. 6072439A in view of Teillet et al (US Patent 6717555 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Ippolito discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) A low-frequency band dipole unit (11a), comprising: a first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole), a second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole), and a support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) are in a criss-cross perpendicular arrangement; the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) is in a T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in the order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a straight line when viewed from above; the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) is in the T-shaped thin arm structure having two upward vertical arms (end arms of 18a and 18b extend vertically), has a thickness in the order of millimeters (col. 7, lines 21-24), and is in a straight line when viewed from above; the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) are each in a form of double faces clad with copper, wherein one face is clad with copper entirely (73, 18a; col. 4, lines 17-19), and another face is etched with a microstrip line (75); wherein the one face, clad with copper entirely (73, 18a; col. 4, lines 17-19), of the first microstrip dipole arm has a copper cladding identical with the the copper cladding region of the one face, clad with copper entirely (18b dipole) of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole) ; the microstrip line etched in the other face of the first microstrip dipole arm (75 of 18b dipole) is different from the microstrip line etched in the other face of the second microstrip dipole arm (75 of 18a dipole); wherein the two upward vertical arms of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the two upward vertical arms of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are configured to reduce coupling and blocking with other-frequency band dipole units by shortening transverse dimensions of the first microstrip dipole arm and the second microstrip dipole arm and enabling flexible nested arrangement with other-frequency band array units (col. 7, lines 24-28); the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) has a slot structure (82) for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a); wherein the microstrip line (75) of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) has a first-stage bent segment (75 of 18b) upwards starting from a first feeding port, which is denoted as a first bent segment; the microstrip line (75) of the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has another first-stage bent segment (75 of 18a) upwards starting from a second feeding port, which is denoted as a second bent segment; and a length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) is less than a length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a), and a difference in the length of the first bent segment (75 of 18b) and the length of the second bent segment (75 of 18a) is less than a width of the first microstrip line (75) or the second microstrip line (75); wherein the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) are each in a face structure, and wherein each of the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) has a thickness that lies in a range between 0.254 and 3.048 mm (col. 7, lines 21-24).
Ippolito does not teach:
wherein the slot structure of the support structure clamps the first and second microstrip dipole arms at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first and second microstrip dipole arms.
Teillet et al teaches:
wherein the slot structure(74, Fig 9) of the support structure (72, Fig 9) clamps the first and second microstrip dipole arms at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first and second microstrip dipole arms(see Fig 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to include a support structure with a slot structure positioned and arranged as taught by Teillet et al in the antenna assembly of Ippolito for the purpose of maintaining the crossed dipoles in a position orthogonal to each other(column 4, lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 13, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the low-frequency band dipole unit has two feeding ports (80 of 18a and 18b); the first microstrip dipole arm (18b) corresponds to the first feeding port (80 of 18b), and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a) corresponds to the second feeding port (80 of 18a); and each of the first feeding port (80 of 18b) and the second feeding port (80 of 18a) corresponds to a polarization form (col. 4, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 14, Ippolito further discloses (Fig. 4c, 5, and 6) wherein the support structure (bottom support of 18a, 18b) is an integrated structure on which the slot structure (82) is provided for clamping and supporting the first microstrip dipole arm (18b dipole) and the second microstrip dipole arm (18a dipole).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view Gonzalez et al, in view of Teillet et al in view of Hyjazie et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111396 A1), hereinafter known as Hyjazie.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al, and Teillet at al, as modified, does not specifically teach wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot oriented upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with another slot oriented downwards, and the other slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm.
However, Hyjazie teaches (Fig. 5B and 5D) wherein a microstrip plate (521) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520) is provided with a slot oriented upwards (523), and the slot (523) is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate (521) and the length of the first bent segment (right segment of 522) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520); a microstrip plate (511) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510) is provided with another slot oriented downwards (513), and the other slot (513) is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment (right segment of 512) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al and Teillet et al with Hyjazie to include “wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot oriented upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with another slot oriented downwards, and the other slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm.,” as taught by Hyjazie, for the purpose of reducing height (see also [0045]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view of Teillet et al in view of Hyjazie et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0111396 A1), hereinafter known as Hyjazie.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ippolito and Teillet, as modified does not specifically teach wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot oriented upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with another slot oriented downwards, and the other slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm.
However, Hyjazie teaches (Fig. 5B and 5D) wherein a microstrip plate (521) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520) is provided with a slot oriented upwards (523), and the slot (523) is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate (521) and the length of the first bent segment (right segment of 522) of the first microstrip dipole arm (520); a microstrip plate (511) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510) is provided with another slot oriented downwards (513), and the other slot (513) is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment (right segment of 512) of the second microstrip dipole arm (510).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito and Teillet et al with Hyjazie to include “wherein a microstrip plate of the first microstrip dipole arm is provided with a slot oriented upwards, and the slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than a difference between a height of the microstrip plate and the length of the first bent segment of the first microstrip dipole arm; a microstrip plate of the second microstrip dipole arm is provided with another slot oriented downwards, and the other slot is centered transversely, and has a length less than the length of the second bent segment of the second microstrip dipole arm.,” as taught by Hyjazie, for the purpose of reducing height (see also [0045]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view of Gonzalez et al, in view of Teillet et al in view of Mamo et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0240188 A1), hereinafter known as Mamo.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al, and Teillet et al does not specifically teach wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms.
However, Mamo teaches (Fig. 1A) wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal (142) support and a vertical support (164); an annular structure (142) is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure (164) is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms (102, 104); and the cylindrical structure (164) and the annular structure (142) are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar (146), wherein the reinforcing bar (146) is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms (102, 104).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al, and Teillet at al with Mamo to include “wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the two dipole arms; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms,” as taught by Mamo, for the purpose of withstanding extreme operating conditions (see also [0047]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view Teillet et al in view of Mamo et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0240188 A1), hereinafter known as Mamo.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ippolito and Teillet et al does not specifically teach wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first dipole arm and the second dipole arm; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms.
However, Mamo teaches (Fig. 1A) wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal (142) support and a vertical support (164); an annular structure (142) is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure (164) is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first dipole arm and the second dipole arm (102, 104); and the cylindrical structure (164) and the annular structure (142) are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar (146), wherein the reinforcing bar (146) is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms (102, 104).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito with Mamo to include “wherein the support structure comprises two parts: a horizontal support and a vertical support; an annular structure is employed for support in a horizontal direction, and a cylindrical structure is employed for support in a vertical direction at a cross-shaped central part formed by an intersection of the first dipole arm and the second dipole arm; and the cylindrical structure and the annular structure are connected to each other by a reinforcing bar, wherein the reinforcing bar is capable of clamping and supporting a horizontally disposed parts of the dipole arms,” as taught by Mamo, for the purpose of withstanding extreme operating conditions (see also [0047]).
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ippolito in view Gonzalez et al in view of Teillet et al in view of Puente (US Patent No. 7250918 B2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al and Teillet et al, as modified, further teaches (Ippolito Fig. 10) A multi-frequency band array antenna (Ippolito col. 3, lines 63-66), comprising multi-frequency band array units (Ippolito 210),
but does not specifically teach and wherein the multi-frequency band array antenna has a plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns therein, at least one column or quasi-column of the plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns is composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely, and the at least one column or quasi-column composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely is parallel to an axis at which other-frequency band array units are located; and at least one of the low-frequency band dipole units is located on the axis at which the other- frequency band array units are located.
However, Puente teaches (Fig. 6) the multi-frequency band array antenna has a plurality of columns (columns of 6c) and/or quasi-columns therein, at least one column or quasi-column of the plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns is composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely (left and right columns of 6c), and the at least one column or quasi-column composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely (left and right columns of 6c) is parallel to an axis at which other-frequency band array units are located (middle columns of 6c); and at least one of the low-frequency band dipole units (empty circles) is located on the axis at which the other-frequency band array units (black circles) are located.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito Gonzalez et al and, Teillet et al with Puente to include “the multi-frequency band array antenna has a plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns therein, at least one column or quasi-column of the plurality of columns and/or quasi-columns is composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely, and the at least one column or quasi-column composed of low-frequency band dipole units completely is parallel to an axis at which other-frequency band array units are located; and at least one of the low-frequency band dipole units is located on the axis at which the other- frequency band array units are located,” as taught by Puente, for the purpose of reducing cost, size, and environmental impact (see also col. 1, lines 29-36).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al, and Teillet et al, as modified, does not specifically teach determining dipole units to-be-adjusted in the multi-frequency band array antenna, wherein one or more of the dipole units to-be-adjusted are provided; acquiring radiation patterns of the dipole units to-be-adjusted each in the multi-frequency band array antenna; feeding the radiation patterns back to the multi-frequency band array antenna based on the radiation patterns, and performing amplitude-phase optimization on the dipole units to-be-adjusted corresponding to the radiation patterns; and adjusting an amplitude and phase for feeding of the multi-frequency band array antenna based on amplitude-phase optimization results of the dipole units to-be-adjusted.
However, Puente teaches determining dipole units to-be-adjusted in the multi-frequency band array antenna (claim 11), wherein one or more of the dipole units to-be-adjusted are provided (claim 11); acquiring radiation patterns of the dipole units to-be-adjusted each in the multi-frequency band array antenna (claim 11); feeding the radiation patterns back to the multi-frequency band array antenna based on the radiation patterns (claim 11), and performing amplitude-phase optimization on the dipole units to-be-adjusted corresponding to the radiation patterns (claim 11); and adjusting an amplitude and phase for feeding of the multi-frequency band array antenna based on amplitude-phase optimization results of the dipole units to-be-adjusted (claim 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the low-frequency band dipole unit of Ippolito, Gonzalez et al and Teillet et al with Puente to include “determining dipole units to-be-adjusted in the multi-frequency band array antenna, wherein one or more of the dipole units to-be-adjusted are provided; acquiring radiation patterns of the dipole units to-be-adjusted each in the multi-frequency band array antenna; feeding the radiation patterns back to the multi-frequency band array antenna based on the radiation patterns, and performing amplitude-phase optimization on dipole units to-be-adjusted corresponding to the radiation patterns; and adjusting an amplitude and phase for feeding of the multi-frequency band array antenna based on amplitude-phase optimization results of the dipole units to-be-adjusted,” as taught by Puente, for the purpose of achieving a desired radiation pattern (see also claim 11).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to additional pertinent prior art listed on the PTOL 892 Notice of reference cited, attached herewith.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
DAMEON E. LEVI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights