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 § 102
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, 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (WO 2023/091876 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Li (Figure 1A) teaches an apparatus comprising:
one or more antennas 120 RE-P;
control circuitry 110 coupled to the one or more antennas, the control circuitry configured to drive the antennas to emit radiation;
a radome RA under which the one or more antennas are disposed; and a partially reflective surface (PRS) (plurality of directors 130) in or on the radome, the PRS configured to enhance a gain of emission of the radiation by the one or more antennas (para [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Li (Figure 1A) teaches that the PRS comprises an array of metal portions 130.
Regarding claim 11, the structure of Li (Figure 1A) would enable a method comprising the steps of driving one or more antennas 120 RE-P to emit radiation, wherein the one or more antennas are disposed under a radome RA; and controlling phase-shifting by a partially reflective surface (PRS) (plurality of directors 130) in or on the radome, to cause the radiation to have an intensity peak in a target direction (para [0059]).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lee et al (KR 10-2021-0072410 A), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except explicitly mention that the PRS is embedded within the radome.
Lee (Figure 2) teaches an apparatus comprising a partially reflective surface 130 embedded within a radome 110.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Li to place the PRS embedded within the radome, as taught by Lee, doing so would provide a smooth, flush aerodynamic profile as well as providing environmental protection from potential damage.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Takemoto (WO 2019/172348 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except explicitly mention that the PRS is dome-shaped to correspond to a shape of the radome.
Takemoto (Figure 1) teaches a radome covering a plurality of antennas having a dome-shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the PRS to have a dome-shape to correspond to a shape of the radome, as taught by Takemoto, doing so would allow the radio frequency signals to pass through at uniform angles with would reduce signal distortion or phase delay that flat panels can cause.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Takemoto (Figure 1) teaches that the radome having a spherical cap shape. Thus it would have been obvious that the PRS conforming to a surface of the radome would also have a spherical cap shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, neither Li, Lee nor Takemoto teaches that the PRS further comprises a plurality of controllable components that are controllable to perform phase-shifting on the radiation emitted by the one or more antennas; and a plurality of control inputs of the plurality of controllable components, wherein the control circuitry is configured to deliver control signals to the plurality of control inputs to adjust the phase-shifting.
Claims 7-10 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending, either directly or indirectly, on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al (US 2010/0225563 A1) discloses a radome having features for increasing the gain of the antenna.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights