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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0009330 A1) in view of Popp (U.S. Patent 7,433,556 B1) and Gusev (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0140203 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 1 an antenna apparatus comprising: an antenna 11 that transmits and receives signals; antenna-side equipment that transmits and receives signals to and from the antenna (Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 14B radar transmitter 167 and radar receiver 166); a base 28 that rotatably supports the antenna; a slip ring that transmits and receives electrical signals to and from the antenna-side equipment and base-side equipment included in the base (Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 11 and paragraph [0043] slip ring assembly 108 to allow command and signals between the top and bottom of the slip ring); an optical rotary joint that transmits and receives optical signals to and from the antenna-side equipment and the base-side equipment included in the base (Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 16 and paragraph [0043] fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ) 107—116 of FIG. 16—that transmits and receives optical signals to and from the antenna-side equipment and the base-side equipment included in the base; FIG. 16 shows an arrow 187 of one direction, however, it should be bidirectional as shown in FIG. 15). The difference between Knight et al. and the claimed invention is that Knight et al. does not teach a processor that acquires information including an actual angle of the optical rotary joint, identifies, in a data table that indicates a correspondence relationship between respective angles of the optical rotary joint and variation amounts of transmission signals from a desired power at the respective angles, an angle that is the same as the actual angle included in the acquired information, and identifies a variation amount of a transmission signal associated with the identified angle, the variation amount being a variation amount from the desired power; and an amplifier that performs a process for cancelling out the variation amount.
Popp teaches in FIG. 1 an optical rotary joint. Popp teaches in FIG. 5 and col. 6, lines 6-23 that the attenuation of the rotary joint depends upon its position. A controller 22 obtains angle information to generate a position dependent signal for controlling a variable attenuator in such a way that the output signal after the attenuator has a constant value (i.e. the variation is cancelled).
The angle dependent attenuation values preferably have been pre-calculated or measured during manufacturing or any calibration procedure and are preferably stored in a table, a memory, or a microcontroller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Popp with the system of Knight et al. because compensating variation of the signals facilitates downstream process of the signals. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compensate variable of the signals due to angle position, as taught by Popp, in the system of Knight et al.
The combination of Knight et al. and Popp uses attenuator instead of amplifier for compensation. Gusev teaches in paragraph [0030] that equalization can be done using either variable attenuator or variable amplifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Gusev with the modified system of Knight et al. and Popp to use amplifier instead of attenuator for compensation because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use amplifier instead of attenuator for compensation, as taught by Gusev, in the modified system of Knight et al. and Popp.
Regarding claim 2, Popp teaches in col. 6, lines 19-23 that the angle dependent attenuation values preferably have been pre-calculated or measured during manufacturing or any calibration procedure and are preferably stored in a table, a memory, or a microcontroller.
Regarding claim 4, Popp teaches in col. 6, lines 9-11 that angle encoder and controller 22 generates a position dependent signal which controls the attenuator 21.
Regarding claim 5, since the transmitting signal travels from the base to the antenna via the rotary joint where the compensation is performed, the antenna transmits the transmission signal after the amplifier has performed the process for cancelling out the variation amount.
Regarding claim 7, Gusev teaches in paragraph [0101] computer readable storage medium for storing computer code which, when executed by a processor, performs a method.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2014/0009330 A1) in view of Popp (U.S. Patent 7,433,556 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a processing method performed by an antenna apparatus wherein an antenna 11 transmits and receives signals, antenna-side equipment transmits and receives signals to and from the antenna (Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 14B radar transmitter 167 and radar receiver 166), a base 28 rotatably supports the antenna, a slip ring transmits and receives electrical signals to and from the antenna-side equipment and base-side equipment included in the base (Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 11 and paragraph [0043] slip ring assembly 108 to allow command and signals between the top and bottom of the slip ring), and an optical rotary joint transmits and receives optical signals to and from the antenna-side equipment and the base-side equipment included in the base (Knight et al. teaches in FIG. 16 and paragraph [0043] fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ) 107—116 of FIG. 16—that transmits and receives optical signals to and from the antenna-side equipment and the base-side equipment included in the base). The difference between Knight et al. and the claimed invention is that Knight et al. does not teach that the processing method comprising acquiring information including an actual angle of the optical rotary joint; identifying, in a data table that indicates a correspondence relationship between respective angles of the optical rotary joint and variation amounts of transmission signals from a desired power at the respective angles, an angle that is the same as the actual angle; identifying a variation amount of a transmission signal associated with the identified angle, the variation amount being a variation amount from the desired power; and performing a process for cancelling out the variation amount.
Popp teaches in FIG. 1 an optical rotary joint. Popp teaches in FIG. 5 and col. 6, lines 6-23 that the attenuation of the rotary joint depends upon its position. A controller 22 obtains angle information to generate a position dependent signal for controlling a variable attenuator in such a way that the output signal after the attenuator has a constant value (i.e. the variation is cancelled). The angle dependent attenuation values preferably have been pre-calculated or measured during manufacturing or any calibration procedure and are preferably stored in a table, a memory, or a microcontroller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Popp with the system of Knight et al. because compensating variation of the signals facilitates downstream process of the signals. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compensate variable of the signals due to angle position, as taught by Popp, in the system of Knight et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
It is respectfully submitted that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest each and every element of claim 1. For example, the cited references, taken individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest "a processor that acquires information including an actual angle of the optical rotary joint, identifies, in a data table that indicates a correspondence relationship between respective angles of the optical rotary joint and variation amounts of transmission signals from a desired power at the respective angles, an angle that is the same as the actual angle included in the acquired information, and identifies a variation amount of a transmission signal associated with the identified angle, the variation amount being a variation amount from the desired power," when considered with the other elements of claim 1.
The argument is not persuasive. Popp teaches in FIG. 5 and col. 6, lines 6-23 that the attenuation of the rotary joint depends upon its position. A controller 22 obtains angle information to generate a position dependent signal for controlling a variable attenuator in such a way that the output signal after the attenuator has a constant value (i.e. the variation is cancelled).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl28 August 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights