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
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.
Claims 1 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al (US 2016/0315395 A1), hereinafter Byun, in view of JP 6758534 B1, hereinafter JP534.
Regarding claim 1, Byun (Figure 4) teaches a reflector antenna device comprising:
a primary radiator 800 to radiate a radio wave of a set frequency band;
a primary reflector 600 including a dielectric plate of a flat plate shape, and a plurality of resonance elements that are aligned on a surface of the dielectric plate that is a reflection surface for reflecting the radio wave, and each adjust a phase of a reflected wave of the incident radio wave (para [0071]); and
a secondary reflector 700 including a reflection surface on which the radio wave radiated from the primary radiator is incident and that reflects the incident radio wave toward the primary reflector.
Byun does not explicitly teach that the reflection surface making a route length from the primary radiator to the reflection surface of the primary reflector of a radio wave of a high frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator longer than a route length from the primary radiator to the reflection surface of the primary reflector of a radio wave of a low frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator.
JP 534 (Figures 3 and 4) teaches a reflector antenna device comprising a primary radiator 110, a primary reflector 130 and a secondary reflector 120, wherein the secondary reflector having a reflection surface on which the radio wave radiated from the primary radiator is incident and that reflects the incident radio wave toward the primary reflector, the reflection surface making a route length from the primary radiator to the reflection surface of the primary reflector of a radio wave of a high frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator longer than a route length from the primary radiator to the reflection surface of the primary reflector of a radio wave of a low frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator (para [0021] to [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary reflector of Byun to have a reflection surface on which the radio wave radiated from the primary radiator is incident and that reflects the incident radio wave toward the primary reflector, the reflection surface making a route length from the primary radiator to the reflection surface of the primary reflector of a radio wave of a high frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator longer than a route length from the primary radiator to the reflection surface of the primary reflector of a radio wave of a low frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator, as taught by JP534, doing so would enable the reflector antenna of Byun to provide high aperture efficiency at various different frequencies.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the primary radiator radiates radio waves of horizontal and vertical polarizations for increased reliability and improves connectivity and signal strength in dynamic environments.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1, Byun (para [0070]) teaches that the primary radiator is a horn antenna.
Regrading claims 17-19, as applied to claim 1, Byun (Figure 4) teaches that each of the plurality of resonance elements has a rectangular/square shape instead of a circular ring shape, a circular shape, or a rectangular ring shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for a skilled artisan to arbitrary select the shape of the resonance elements to achieve a desired reflection phase of the primary reflector suitable for a desired application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 20-36 are allowed.
Claims 3-14 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 2, Byun teaches a reflector antenna device comprising:
a primary radiator to radiate a radio wave of a set frequency band;
a primary reflector including a dielectric plate of a flat plate shape, and a plurality of resonance elements that are aligned on a surface of the dielectric plate that is a reflection surface for reflecting the radio wave, and each adjust a phase of a reflected wave of the incident radio wave; and
a secondary reflector including a reflection surface on which the radio wave radiated from the primary radiator is incident and that reflects the incident radio wave toward the primary reflector.
Byun, however, fails to further teach that the reflection surface equalizing a rate λL/dL of a wavelength λL, of a radio wave of a low frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator, and a route length difference d, that is a length between a wavefront of a spherical wave of the radio wave of the low frequency incident on the primary reflector, and the surface of the dielectric plate, and a rate λH/dH of a wavelength λH of a radio wave of a high frequency in the frequency band radiated from the primary radiator, and a route length difference dH that is a length between a wavefront of a spherical wave of the radio wave of the high frequency incident on the primary reflector, and the surface of the dielectric plate.
Claims 20-36 are allowed for at least the reason for depending, either directly or indirectly, on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Byun/JP534 fails to further teach that the reflection surface of the secondary reflector includes a plurality of reflection holes each having a truncated conical shape whose one end is an opening and whose other end is a bottom.
Claims 7 and 11 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Byun/JP534 fails to further teach that each of the reflection holes has a shape whose hole diameter narrows from the opening to the bottom, the hole diameter at a position close to the opening being set to a diameter that cuts off the incident radio wave of the low frequency, the hole diameter at a position close to the bottom being set to a diameter that cuts off the incident radio wave of the high frequency.
Claims 8 and 12 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Byun/JP534 fails to further teach that an area of an opening surface of the opening of each of the reflection holes is wider than an area of a surface of the bottom.
Claims 9 and 13 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Byun/JP534 fails to further teach that each of the reflection holes has a shape that becomes smaller from the opening to the bottom stepwise.
Claims 10 and 14 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 6.
Conclusion
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