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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-12 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/25/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Support for the amendments to claim 1 may be found for example, at least at claims 2 and 3 as well as Figs. 3 and 4 of Applicant's specification. For example, Figs. 3 and 4 of Applicant's specification show that at least some of the creased elements 221 are axially spaced annular protrusions.
In the rejection of claims 2 and 3, the Examiner concedes that Gehring does not teach the crease elements, but cites to Wang for this feature. However, Wang describes a stepped surface 2-3 of the front dielectric, which does not teach or suggest crease elements formed as axially spaced annular protrusions.
Accordingly, the Applicant contends that claim 1 fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103 and is patentable there under. The Applicant respectfully requests that the present rejection of such claim be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because the second band signal higher order mode suppression member 2-3 of Wang comprises a plurality of crease elements formed as axially spaced annular protrusions as shown in fig. 2.
Similarly, the arguments regarding claim 8 are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly added claim 12, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “configured to pass a second band signal of a signal received by the single feed horn” should read “configured to pass a second band signal of the signal received by the single feed horn” because “a signal received by the single feed horn” was recited in line 4.
Claim 12: “the protruding elements protruding outwardly into the interior volume” in lines 25-26 should read “the plurality of protruding elements protruding outwardly into the interior volume”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein the plurality of stepped elements surround the plurality of stepped elements around the dielectric body" in lines 26-27 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the plurality of stepped elements surround themselves. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as “wherein the plurality of stepped elements surround the plurality of
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehring et al, US-20110254640-A1 (hereinafter Gehring) in view of Wang et al, CN-107546475-B (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Gehring discloses the following:
a multiband diplexer for an antenna to separate a multiband wireless signal, the multiband diplexer comprising:
a first signal passing unit (waveguide 9, figs. 2-3) connected to a side of a single feed horn of the antenna (para [0036]: the common port 20 is connected to a horn) and configured to pass a first band signal (“second signal” propagates in waveguide 9, para [0033], it is implied that the first signal has a first band) of a signal received by the single feed horn (para [0036]: the common port 20 is connected to a horn); and
a second signal passing unit (waveguide 7) positioned coaxially with the first signal passing unit (figs. 2-3) and configured to pass a second band signal (“first signal” propagates in waveguide 7, para [0033]) of a signal received by the single feed horn (para [0036]: the common port 20 is connected to a horn), and
the multiband diplexer is configured to separate the first band signal and the second band signal from the signal received by the single feed horn (para [0038]: the diplexer of the invention is to split the received mode mixture into individual modes),
Although Gehring does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first signal passing unit is configured to suppress a higher order mode of the first band signal or the second signal passing unit is configured to suppress a higher order mode of the second band signal, the diplexer in Gehring has the same structure, so it is implied that it could perform the same function (According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”).
Gehring does not disclose wherein the second signal passing unit comprises:
a dielectric body; and
a second band signal higher order mode suppression member comprised in a front end of the dielectric body,
wherein the second band signal higher order mode suppression member comprises a plurality of crease elements formed as axially spaced annular protrusions,
wherein the plurality of crease elements has a height incremental from the front end towards a rear end of the dielectric body.
Wang suggests wherein the second signal passing unit comprises:
a dielectric body (2-2, fig. 2); and
a second band signal higher order mode suppression member (2-3, page 7, para 7) comprised in a front end of the dielectric body (2-2, Fig. 2),
wherein the second band signal higher order mode suppression member (2-3) comprises a plurality of crease elements formed as axially spaced annular protrusions (fig. 2),
wherein the plurality of crease elements has a height incremental from the front end towards a rear end of the dielectric body (2-2, fig. 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second band signal higher order mode suppression member comprising a plurality of crease elements as suggested in Wang to the multiband diplexer taught in Gehring as claimed for the purpose of suppressing the higher order mode in order to prevent radiating pattern deterioration to improve the antenna’s performance (Wang, Page 7, para 7).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Gehring does not disclose wherein the second band signal higher order mode suppression member further comprises: a plurality of step elements positioned outside the plurality of crease elements and inside a circular waveguide.
Wang suggests wherein the second band signal higher order mode suppression member further comprises: a plurality of step elements (4, figs. 2) positioned outside the plurality of crease elements and inside a circular waveguide (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of step elements as suggested in Wang to the multiband diplexer taught in Gehring as claimed for the purpose of suppressing the higher order mode in order to prevent radiating pattern deterioration to improve the antenna’s performance (Wang, Page 7, para 7).
Regarding claim 5, Gehring discloses wherein the first signal passing unit comprises: a coaxial waveguide (waveguide 9, fig. 2) positioned coaxially around the second signal passing unit (waveguide 7); and a second band signal suppression member (para [0033]-[0036]: corrugations 11, 13 and the waveguide/first passing unit 9 surrounds waveguide/second passing unit 7 allowing the second signal propagates inside the waveguide 7, i.e. suppressing the second signal getting out to waveguide 9) inside the coaxial waveguide (9).
Regarding claim 6, Gehring discloses wherein the second band signal suppression member comprises a plurality of stepped elements (11, 13, fig. 2), wherein the plurality of stepped elements protrudes from an outside of the coaxial waveguide to an inside of the coaxial waveguide (9) and has a height decremental from a front end to a rear end of the coaxial waveguide (fig. 2).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al, US-20200403312-A1 in view of Wang, CN-107546475-B.
Regarding claim 8, Guan discloses the following:
a broadband antenna comprising:
a reflecting board (33, fig. 2);
a single feed horn (30) positioned in a front end of the reflecting board; and
a multiband diplexer (40, 44) connected to the single feed horn (fig. 2), wherein the multiband diplexer comprises:
a first signal passing unit (diplexer 40 for high-band, para [0034]) connected to a side of the single feed horn (30); and
a second signal passing unit (44) positioned coaxially with the first signal passing unit (40, fig. 2), and the multiband diplexer (40, 44) is positioned in a rear end of the reflecting board (33).
Although Guan does not explicitly disclose a first signal passing unit configured to pass a first band signal of a signal received by the single feed horn, a second signal passing unit configured to pass a second band signal of the signal received by the single feed horn and the multiband diplexer is configured to separate the first band signal and the second band signal from the signal received by the single feed horn, Guan discloses “a high-band diplexer 40 operatively connected to an HB throat of an HB wave guide, a low-band turnstile junction 42 positioned around the HB diplexer and operatively connected to an LB throat of an LB waveguide, a low-band orthomode transducer and diplexer 44 positioned behind and operatively connected to the LB turnstile junction” (para [0034]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a diplexer is used to separate signals of different frequencies (see Diplexer Definition section, NPL “Diplexer vs. Duplexer: Key Differences and Applications Explained”).
Guan does not disclose wherein at least one of the first signal passing unit is configured to suppress a higher order mode of the first band signal or the second signal passing unit is configured to suppress a higher order mode of the second band signal,
wherein the second signal passing unit comprises:
a dielectric body; and
a second band signal higher order mode suppression member comprised in a front end of the dielectric body,
wherein the second band signal higher order mode suppression member comprises a plurality of crease elements formed as axially spaced annular protrusions,
wherein the plurality of crease elements has a height incremental from the front end towards a rear end of the dielectric body.
Wang suggests wherein the signal passing unit (2-1, 2-2, 2-3, fig. 2) is configured to suppress a higher order mode of the band signal (page 7, para 7),
wherein the second signal passing unit comprises:
a dielectric body (2-2); and
a second band signal higher order mode suppression member (2-3, page 7, para 7) comprised in a front end of the dielectric body (Fig. 2),
wherein the second band signal higher order mode suppression member (2-3) comprises a plurality of crease elements formed as axially spaced annular protrusions (fig. 2),
wherein the plurality of crease elements has a height incremental from the front end towards a rear end of the dielectric body (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second band signal higher order mode suppression member as suggested in Wang to the broadband antenna taught in Guan as claimed for the purpose of suppressing the higher order mode in order to prevent radiating pattern deterioration to improve the antenna’s performance (Wang, Page 7, para 7).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Regarding claim 10, Guan does not disclose wherein the first signal passing unit comprises:
a coaxial waveguide positioned coaxially around the second signal passing unit; and
a second band signal suppression member inside the coaxial waveguide and configured to suppress a higher order mode of the first band signal.
Wang suggests wherein the first signal passing unit comprises:
a coaxial waveguide (waveguide 1 outside of waveguide 2-1, fig. 2) positioned coaxially around the second signal passing unit (2-1, 2-2, 2-3); and
a second band signal suppression member (3, 4) inside the coaxial waveguide (1).
Although Wang does not explicitly disclose the second band signal suppression member is configured to suppress a higher order mode of the first band signal, Wang discloses the second band signal suppression member 4 configured to suppress the high-order mode (page 7, para 7). Moreover, the first signal passing unit of Wang has the same structure, so it is implied that it could perform the same function (According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second band signal suppression member as suggested in Wang to the broadband antenna taught in Guan as claimed for the purpose of preventing second band signal from getting into the coaxial waveguide and interfering with signals propagating inside the coaxial waveguide in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the second band signal suppression member comprises a plurality of protruding elements, wherein the plurality of protruding elements is around the dielectric body and protrudes outwardly from an inside of the coaxial waveguide to an outside of the coaxial waveguide”.
Regarding claim 11, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the second band signal suppression member comprises:
a plurality of stepped elements; and
a plurality of protruding elements,
wherein the plurality of stepped elements protrudes from an outside of the coaxial waveguide to an inside of the coaxial waveguide and has a height decremental from a front end to a rear end of the coaxial waveguide, and
the plurality of protruding elements is around the dielectric body and protrudes outwardly from an inside of the coaxial waveguide to an outside of the coaxial waveguide”.
However, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the first signal passing unit comprises:
a coaxial waveguide positioned coaxially around the second signal passing unit;
a second band signal suppression member inside the coaxial waveguide, wherein the second band signal suppression member comprises a plurality of stepped elements defining a stepped inner surface of the coaxial waveguide and defining an interior volume of the coaxial waveguide,
wherein each stepped element of the plurality of stepped elements protrude inwardly from the coaxial waveguide into the interior volume and the plurality of stepped elements increase in diameter from a front end to a rear end of the coaxial waveguide; and
a plurality of protruding elements surrounding at least a portion of a dielectric body in the interior volume, the protruding elements protruding outwardly into the interior volume, wherein the plurality of stepped elements surround the plurality of stepped elements around the dielectric body”.
However, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845