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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) .
With regards to claim 1. Endo disclose(s):
A phased array antenna (figs 1-6) for receiving and/or transmitting electromagnetic radiation [lines 21-25 in page 1], the antenna comprising a multiplicity of monotile antenna elements (see tiles in fig 3), wherein each monotile antenna element comprises an antenna feed (see shifters coupled to each antenna in figs 1, 4, 7; [lines 25-27 in page 5]; the examiner takes the position that a shifter coupled to an antenna involves feeding means) whose position is within an area of the monotile antenna element (fig 7), and the multiplicity of monotile antenna elements is configured in an aperiodic monotile phased array AMPA ([lines 19-23 in page 4]) such that the antenna has no grating lobes ([lines 29-32 in page 4]).
With regards to claim 2. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1 wherein the area of the monotile antenna element is bounded by a monotile fence (see tiles in fit 7; the examiner takes the position that monotiles involves a fence).
With regards to claim 3. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 2 wherein the position of the antenna feed is determined by vertices of the monotile fence (see antenna elements which involves feeding means in fig 7).
With regards to claim 11. Endo disclose(s):
A phased array system (figs 1-6) for receiving and/or transmitting electromagnetic radiation [lines 21-25 in page 1], the system comprising a phased array antenna, the antenna further comprising a multiplicity of monotile antenna elements (see tiles in fig 3), wherein each monotile antenna element comprises an antenna feed (see shifters coupled to each antenna in figs 1, 4, 7; [lines 25-27 in page 5]; the examiner takes the position that a shifter coupled to an antenna involves feeding means) whose position is within an area of the monotile antenna element (fig 7), and the multiplicity of monotile antenna elements is configured in an aperiodic monotile phased array AMPA ([lines 19-23 in page 4]) such that the antenna has no grating lobes ([lines 29-32 in page 4]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) in view of Tsutomu (JP 4724862 B2; see translation portion).
With regards to claim 5. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1
Endo does not disclose(s):
wherein the monotile antenna element comprises a patch antenna, a crossed-dipole antenna, or a horn antenna.
Tsutomu teaches
wherein the monotile antenna element comprises a patch antenna ([lines 11-12 in page 7]), a crossed-dipole antenna, or a horn antenna.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the monotile antenna element comprises a patch antenna, a crossed-dipole antenna, or a horn antenna as disclosed by Tsutomu in order to optimize the reduction of lobe as taught/suggested by Tsutomu ([lines 12-13 in page 3]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) in view of Komiak (US 20170302002 A1).
With regards to claim 6. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1
Endo does not disclose(s):
wherein the antenna feed comprises a material containing Copper, Aluminum, or an alloy containing Copper or Aluminum.
Komiak teaches
wherein the antenna feed comprises a material containing Copper, Aluminum, or an alloy containing Copper or Aluminum [0026].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the antenna feed comprises a material containing Copper, Aluminum, or an alloy containing Copper or Aluminum as disclosed by Komiak in order to improve radiation of electromagnetic waves as taught/suggested by Komiak ([0026]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) in view of Smits (US 20130113652 A1).
With regards to claim 7. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1
Endo does not disclose(s):
wherein the multiplicity of monotile antenna elements is fed by time-varying excitations which are mutually orthogonal in space and time.
Smits teaches
wherein the multiplicity of monotile antenna elements is fed by time-varying excitations which are mutually orthogonal in space and time [0014].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the multiplicity of monotile antenna elements is fed by time-varying excitations which are mutually orthogonal in space and time as disclosed by Smits in order to transmit and receive signals simultaneously as taught/suggested by Smits ([0014]).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) in view of Pietila (US 20170054208 A1).
With regards to claim 8 and 13. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1 and 11.
Endo does not disclose(s):
wherein the antenna operates in at least one electromagnetic radiation band belonging to a group consisting of X, Ku, and/or Ka electromagnetic bands
Pietila teaches
wherein the antenna operates in at least one electromagnetic radiation band belonging to a group consisting of X, Ku, and/or Ka electromagnetic bands [0046]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the wherein the antenna operates in at least one electromagnetic radiation band belonging to a group consisting of X, Ku, and/or Ka electromagnetic bands as disclosed by Pietila in order to implement antennas in aeronautical applications as taught/suggested by Pietila ([009]).
With regards to claim 9 and 14. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1 and 11.
Endo does not disclose(s):
wherein the antenna transmits and/or receives electromagnetic signals in a Satellite Communication (SATCOM) system
Pietila teaches
wherein the antenna transmits and/or receives electromagnetic signals in a Satellite Communication (SATCOM) system [007]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the wherein the antenna transmits and/or receives electromagnetic signals in a Satellite Communication (SATCOM) system as disclosed by Pietila in order to implement antennas in aeronautical applications as taught/suggested by Pietila ([009]).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) in view of Mehdipour (US 20180076521 A1).
With regards to claim 10 and 15. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array antenna of claim 1 and 11
Endo does not disclose(s):
wherein a directivity of the antenna decreases with an increase in a scan angle according to a cosine of the scan angle.
Mehdipour teaches
wherein a directivity of the antenna decreases with an increase in a scan angle according to a cosine of the scan angle [0031].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the wherein a directivity of the antenna decreases with an increase in a scan angle according to a cosine of the scan angle as disclosed by Mehdipour in order to regulate scan losses as taught/suggested by Mehdipour ([0031]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (JP 2010057091 A; see translation portion) in view Vigano (WO 2021142374 A1).
With regards to claim 12. Endo disclose(s):
The phased array system of claim 11
Endo does not disclose(s):
further comprising at least one of a group consisting of a phase-locked-loop (PLL), an encoder, a digital-to-analog converter (ADC), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a transmit/receive switch.
Vigano teaches
further comprising at least one of a group consisting of a phase-locked-loop (PLL), an encoder, a digital-to-analog converter (ADC), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a transmit/receive switch [0081].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device/method/system of Endo by implementing the further comprising at least one of a group consisting of a phase-locked-loop (PLL), an encoder, a digital-to-analog converter (ADC), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a transmit/receive switch as disclosed by Vigano in order to modulate and demodulate communication signals as taught/suggested by Vigano ([0080]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishizawa (JP 2015192171 A) discloses:
In the array antenna according to the second embodiment, unlike the conventional example (FIG. 7), the interval between subarray antennas 31 (referred to as an average interval) is relatively wider than the element interval, but no periodicity appears. In addition, the phase center 32 serving as a reference for phase control of the subarray antenna 31 has no periodicity and is arranged on a plurality of concentric circles. A plurality of concentric circles has an effect of narrowing the subarray interval.
As a result, the low side lobe level effect of the ring array antenna can be reflected, so that even if phase control is performed in units of subarray antennas 31 and beam formation is performed, an increase in side lobe level can be suppressed, and gain reduction can be suppressed
PNG
media_image1.png
306
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crill (US 20240419051 A1- non prior art) discloses: an aperiodic tile antenna array [0059].
PNG
media_image2.png
562
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAN LUQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1044. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, Jessica Han can be reached on 571-272-2078. 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.
/RENAN LUQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights