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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites the limitation “an electrically small antenna having at least two sectors, wherein the at least two sectors are coupled to operate in at least a first mode and a second mode; and” twice which appears to be a minor oversight. For purpose of examination, the repeated limitation will be omitted. 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.
Claims 1-18 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the resonance of the non-radiative mode at a negative frequency" in the 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2-18 are likewise rejected.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-11 & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scarborough et al. "Efficient Subharmonic Frequency Conversion Using Space-Time Induced Bound States in the Continuum" (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Scarborough et al. teaches an antenna assembly (Figs. 1a-2b) comprising:
an electrically small antenna (SDTWM antenna Figs. 1a, 1b P. 396) having at least two sectors (three stixels Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395), wherein the at least two sectors are coupled to operate in at least a first mode and a second mode (radiative states and states that cannot radiate P. 396), the first mode is a radiative mode having a resonance (radiative states P. 396), and the second mode is a non-radiative mode (states that cannot radiate P. 396); and
at least one time-varying reactive component (“time-variation of the capacitor” C Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395) having a parametric modulation frequency configured to at least partially couple the resonance of the radiative mode to the resonance of the non-radiative mode at a negative frequency (“parametric amplification and frequency conversion” P. 395; “coupled to radiative states through the space-time-modulated capacitors” P. 396),
wherein the parametric modulation frequency of the at least one time-varying reactive component is greater than or less than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the radiative mode to the negative frequency of the non-radiative mode (“the signal frequency (fs) should be well below the resonant frequency of the monopole (fi)” P. 396).
Regarding Claim 2, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the non-radiative mode has a high quality factor resonance with a low radiation efficiency (low radiation efficiency implied from non radiating states P. 396).
Regarding Claim 3, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the at least two sectors are capacitively coupled to operate in the first mode and the second mode (implied from the radiative states and non radiative states coupled through the capacitors P. 396).
Regarding Claim 4, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the at least two sectors are inductively coupled to operate in the first mode and the second mode (implied through inductor Lm Figs. 1a, 1b).
Regarding Claim 5, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the at least one time-varying reactive component includes a time-varying capacitor (“time-variation of the capacitor” C Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395).
Regarding Claim 6, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the at least one time-varying reactive component includes at least one of a varactor diode (varactor diodes P. 396), a ferroelectric material, a transistor, a piezoelectric material, a Josephson junction, a non-linear element, or a microelectromechanical system.
Regarding Claim 7, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the at least one time-varying reactive component is coupled to one or more of the at least two sectors of the electrically small antenna (“time-variation of the capacitor” C Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395).
Regarding Claim 8, Scarborough et al. teaches further comprising a port electrically coupled with the at least two sectors, wherein the at least one time-varying reactive component is coupled to a port of the electrically small antenna (coaxial ports denoted by P1-P4 in Fig. 2(a) P. 396).
Regarding Claim 9, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein a wave number in a radiating medium multiplied by a radius of a smallest sphere enclosing the electrically small antenna is less than 0.5 (implied from 0.25 wavelength / quarter-wavelength P. 396).
Regarding Claim 10, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein: wherein the at least two sectors are coupled to operate in at least a third mode; the first mode and the second mode are coupled according to a first modulation frequency; and the first mode and a third mode are coupled according to a second modulation frequency different from the first modulation frequency (implied from several of the frequencies generated and seen in Fig. 2b P. 396-397).
Regarding Claim 11, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the parametric modulation frequency of at least one time-varying reactive component is less than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the radiative mode to the negative frequency of the non-radiative mode (“the signal frequency (fs) should be well below the resonant frequency of the monopole (fi)” P. 396).
Regarding Claim 13, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein: the electrically small antenna is a rotationally symmetric electrically small antenna (Figs. 1a, 1b); and the electrically small antenna is divided into N identical sectors (Figs. 1a, 1b).
Regarding Claim 14, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein components in each of the at least two sectors are modulated with the same temporal modulation periods (implied when in state that are in phase P. 395).
Regarding Claim 15, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein each of the at least two sectors has a time delay in its modulation waveform as compared to other ones of the at least two sectors (implied when in state that are out of phase and time-variation of the capacitor within stixel P. 395).
Regarding Claim 16, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the electrically small antenna is configured to operate according to spatially-discrete traveling-wave modulation (spatially-discrete traveling-wave modulation (SDTWM) abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein the at least two sectors are electrically connected in parallel (parallel P. 396).
Regarding Claim 18, Scarborough et al. teaches wherein a topology of the electrically small antenna is at least one of a top hat monopole (monopole P. 396), a square antenna, or a patch antenna.
Regarding Claim 19, Scarborough et al. teaches an antenna assembly (Figs. 1a-2b) comprising:
an electrically small antenna (SDTWM antenna Figs. 1a, 1b P. 396) having at least two sectors (three stixels Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395), wherein the at least two sectors are coupled to operate in at least a first mode and a second mode (radiative states and states that cannot radiate P. 396); and
at least one time-varying reactive component (“time-variation of the capacitor” C Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395) having a parametric modulation frequency configured to at least partially couple a resonance of the first mode to a negative frequency resonance of the second mode (“parametric amplification and frequency conversion” P. 395; “coupled to radiative states through the space-time-modulated capacitors” P. 396),
wherein the parametric modulation frequency of the at least one time-varying reactive component is greater than or less than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the first mode to the negative frequency resonance of the second mode (“the signal frequency (fs) should be well below the resonant frequency of the monopole (fi)” P. 396), to operate the electrically small antenna according to spatially-discrete traveling-wave modulation (spatially-discrete traveling-wave modulation (SDTWM) abstract).
Regarding Claim 20, Scarborough et al. teaches an antenna assembly (Figs. 1a-2b) comprising:
an electrically small antenna (SDTWM antenna Figs. 1a, 1b P. 396) having at least two sectors (three stixels Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395), wherein the at least two sectors are coupled to operate in at least a first mode and a second mode (radiative states and states that cannot radiate P. 396); and
at least one time-varying reactive component (“time-variation of the capacitor” C Figs. 1a, 1b P. 395) having a parametric modulation frequency configured to at least partially couple a resonance of the first mode to a negative frequency resonance of the second mode (“parametric amplification and frequency conversion” P. 395; “coupled to radiative states through the space-time-modulated capacitors” P. 396),
wherein the parametric modulation frequency of the at least one time-varying reactive component is greater than or less than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the first mode to the negative frequency resonance of the second mode (“the signal frequency (fs) should be well below the resonant frequency of the monopole (fi)” P. 396), and
wherein the at least two sectors are electrically connected in parallel (parallel P. 396).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scarborough et al. "Efficient Subharmonic Frequency Conversion Using Space-Time Induced Bound States in the Continuum" (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 12, Scarborough et al. teaches the antenna assembly of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Scarborough et al. is silent on wherein the parametric modulation frequency of the at least one time-varying reactive component is greater than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the radiative mode to the negative frequency of the non-radiative mode.
However, Scarborough et al. teaches the effect of signal frequency and the resonant frequency on the conversion efficiency (P. 396).
In this particular case, configuring the parametric modulation frequency of the at least one time-varying reactive component to be greater than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the radiative mode to the negative frequency of the non-radiative mode is known in the art as evident by Scarborough et al. to obtain the desired conversion efficiency.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the parametric modulation frequency of the at least one time-varying reactive component to be greater than a frequency value which exactly couples the resonance of the radiative mode to the negative frequency of the non-radiative mode based on the teachings of Scarborough et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the desired conversion efficiency.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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 M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845