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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “Substrate” as recited in claim 2 which is not labeled, “Printed circuit board” in claim 3 which is not labeled, a “First plurality” and “Second plurality” as recited in claim 19 which is not shown or labeled, and “Annular support” as recited in claim 20 which is not shown or labeled as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown and labeled in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein said plurality of antenna assemblies is comprised of a first plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to transmit signals and a second plurality of the antenna assemblies” which make the claim unclear. It is unclear as to what antennas are being referred in regards to the antenna assemblies. Would these be the plurality of antenna assemblies, first/second plurality of antenna assemblies, or some other antennas. Furthermore the user of a first/second plurality is confusing in relation to the original plurality. Based on the specifications it seems the applicant is refereeing to a first/second subgroup of the plurality of antenna assemblies. For the purposes of examination, the examiner as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “wherein said plurality of antenna assemblies is comprised of a first subgroup of the plurality antenna assemblies configured to transmit signals and a second subgroup of the plurality of antenna assemblies.”
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 5-6, 10-11, 12, and 20-21 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 5 recites the limitation “periphery of an area comprising all patches of the antenna” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 only recites a single patch antenna but does not recite a plurality of patch antennas. As such for the term “all patches”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “periphery of an area comprising the patch antenna”.
Claim 6 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 5.
Claim 10 and 21 recite the limitations “substantially closed” and “substantially constant orientation” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “substantially closed/constant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus it is unclear as to what it means for something to be substantially closed or substantially constant. How would substantially closed/constant be different from closed/constant, by some percentage of error? For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claims to mean “and is closed other than the open mouth” and “constant orientation”.
Claim 11 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “one or more sidewalls taper at an angle of 0 to 135 degrees” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to how 0 degrees could be a taper angle. If the angle was set to 0 degrees than the deflector sidewalls would be parallel with no taper, as such a taper would at least require an angle greater than 1 degree. Furthermore the direction of the taper is never given and as such we have no way to know in what direction the antenna is supposed to taper. Based on the drawings and specifications it seems that the taper is in a vertical direction relative to the periphery of the patch antenna. For the purposes of examination, the examiner as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “one or more sidewalls taper, in a vertical direction relative to the periphery of the patch antenna, at an angle of 1 to 135 degrees”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “to define an at least partially annular array of the antenna assemblies” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what a partially annular array would and what would constitute one. An annular array would be interpreted as a circular/ring shaped array so what would constitute a portion? Would one assembly be a part of an annular array or would two assembly’s disposed at an angle from each other be a part of an annular array. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “to define an annular array of the antenna assemblies”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 6 of co-pending Application No. 18878331 (U.S. publication US20250385726A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of dependent claim 6 teach a patch antenna with a deflector such that said limitation of 18878331 is identical to that of independent claim 1 of applicants application 18837336.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pending Claims of Application 18/878336
Pending Claims of Application 18/878331
1. (Currently amended) An antenna assembly, comprising: a patch antenna; and a deflector for reducing sidelobe gain of the patch antenna, which projects from a plane of the patch antenna.
1. (Currently amended) A communications system, comprising: at least one lighter than air vehicle, which, in use, is maintained at a substantially constant position at an altitude of 15km to 22km, wherein the vehicle comprises a communications payload for providing a communications relay service with a ground station within one or more or all of the C band, the X band, the Ku band, the K band, and the Ka band.
6. (Currently amended) The communications system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the communications payload comprises at least one antenna assembly comprising a patch antenna and a deflector for reducing sidelobe gain of the patch antenna, which projects from a plane of the patch antenna.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sevar (IDS Reference US 20220011143 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sevar discloses an antenna assembly (Device 7 as seen in figure 9 of Sevar), comprising;
a patch antenna; and a deflector for reducing sidelobe gain of the patch antenna, which projects from a plane of the patch antenna (Patch antennas 1 and a deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 which is designed to reduce the side lobe; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Sevar further discloses wherein the patch antenna is mounted on a substrate, and wherein the deflector is supported by and/or attached to the substrate (Patch antenna elements of patch 1 are mounted on a substrate with a closed end of the reflector tube supported/attached to the substrate of the patches; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Sevar further discloses wherein the deflector comprises one or more sidewalls (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 5 as best understood, Sevar further discloses wherein each of the one or more sidewalls extends along a portion of a periphery of an area comprising all patches of the antenna (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Sevar further discloses wherein one or more of the one or more sidewalls taper (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Sevar further discloses wherein the deflector comprises a plurality of sidewalls (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Sevar further discloses wherein adjacent sidewalls are joined to one another or are spaced from one another (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Sevar further discloses wherein the deflector surrounds the patch antenna (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 10 as best understood, Sevar further discloses wherein the deflector projects from the plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth, and is substantially closed other than the open mouth (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 12 as best understood, Sevar further discloses wherein one or more of the one or more sidewalls taper at an angle of 0 to 135 degrees (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Sevar further discloses an array, comprising: a plurality of antenna assemblies being comprised of at least one antenna assembly according to claim 1 (Multiple antenna devices 7 may be used in array as seen in figure 11 of Sevar).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevar (IDS Reference US 20220011143 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 20200227821 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Sevar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board.
However Wu et al. does disclose wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board (Phased array antenna 60 may comprise multiple patches 110 mounted on a substrate 120 wherein substrate 20 may be a printed circuit board and said device comprises reflector walls 140; Paragraph 67-97 and figure 9 of Wu et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board as taught by Wu et al. due to the low cost and since the dielectric properties of a substrate can impact the antenna performance.
PNG
media_image3.png
566
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Sevar further discloses wherein the deflector comprises four sidewalls (Deflector in the form of reflector tube 8 may comprise 4 sidewalls arranged around the periphery of the patch antenna wherein the reflector projects from a plane of the patch antenna to an open mouth end such that the other end connected to the patch is closed and wherein said reflector tube 8 may have pyramidal shape that would have the sidewalls of reflector 8 taper at an angle between 1-135 degrees; Paragraph 1-25 and figure 9 of Sevar et al.).
Sevar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the patch antenna has a rectangular profile.
However, Wu et al. does disclose wherein the patch antenna has a rectangular profile (Patch antenna elements 110 of phased array 60 may be designed to have any shape as need including shapes with straight edges which would include rectangular patches; Paragraph 62-64 and figure 6 of Wu et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have the patch antenna have a rectangular profile as taught by Wu et al. since the shape of the patch antennas determine the radiation pattern.
Regarding Claim 15, Sevar fails to explicitly disclose wherein an inner surface of the deflector is reflective or absorptive to signals in one or more of the Ku band, the Ka band, the C band, the K band, or the X band.
However, Wu et al. does disclose wherein an inner surface of the deflector is reflective or absorptive to signals in one or more of the Ku band, the Ka band, the C band, the K band, or the X band (Patch antennas of the phased array antenna 60 can be designed to operate in bands from 10ghz-300ghz which include the Ku, Ka, C, K, and X band from 4-40ghz such that the inner surface of the deflector in the form of conductive wave 140 which may block the signals of said patches by reflecting them; Paragraphs 24 and 83-95 as well as figure 9-10 of Wu et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have an inner surface of the deflector is reflective or absorptive to signals in one or more of the Ku band, the Ka band, the C band, the K band, or the X band as taught by Wu et al. to transmit signals in multiple bands for different things like satellite, cellular, or near-field communication and have said signals be reflected such that they remain focused in a single direction with the same phase (Paragraph 24 and 89 of Wu et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Sevar fails to explicitly disclose wherein said patch antenna is configured for receiving and/or transmitting signals in one or more of the Ku band, the Ka band, the C band, the K band, or the X band
However, Wu et al. does disclose wherein said patch antenna is configured for receiving and/or transmitting signals in one or more of the Ku band, the Ka band, the C band, the K band, or the X band (Patch antennas of the phased array antenna 60 can be designed to operate in bands from 10ghz-300ghz which include the Ku, Ka, C, K, and X band from 4-40ghz such that the inner surface of the deflector in the form of conductive wave 140 which may block the signals of said patches by reflecting them; Paragraphs 24 and 83-95 as well as figure 9-10 of Wu et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have patch antenna be configured for receiving and/or transmitting signals in one or more of the Ku band, the Ka band, the C band, the K band, or the X band as taught by Wu et al. to transmit signals in multiple bands for different things like satellite, cellular, or near-field communication and have said signals be reflected such that they remain focused in a single direction with the same phase (Paragraph 24 and 89 of Wu et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Sevar fails to disclose wherein the patch antenna comprises a via-fed patch array antenna.
However, Wu et al. does disclose wherein the patch antenna comprises a via-fed patch array antenna (Patch antennas 110 used to make up phased array 60 may be designed to be fed by a conductive path 114 which may be a via; Paragraph 61-64 and figure 6-7 of Wu et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have the patch antenna comprises a via-fed patch array antenna as taught by Wu et al. to feed the patch antennas from the positive conductors of a feeding line to supply signals to the patches (Paragraph 61-64 of Wu et al.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevar (IDS Reference US 20220011143 A1) in view of Nagaishi et al. (US 20210143533 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Sevar fails to disclose wherein said plurality of antenna assemblies is comprised of a first plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to transmit signals and a second plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to receive signals.
However, Nagaishi et al. does disclose wherein said plurality of antenna assemblies is comprised of a first plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to transmit signals and a second plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to receive signals (Antenna assemblies may include a patch 110a disposed on a substrate 100 wherein a horn structure 200 serves as a deflector and multiple assemblies can be configured into an array wherein a first subgroup of the array 10-1 serves to transmit signals and a second subgroup of the array 10-2 serves to receive signals; Paragraph 42-49 and 144-151 as well as figure 12 of Nagaishi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have said plurality of antenna assemblies is comprised of a first plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to transmit signals and a second plurality of the antenna assemblies configured to receive signals as taught by Nagaishi et al. such that a control system can control the arrays to supply signals to be transmitted to one array and receive signals to be read from another array to control the behavior of a mobile object with the array relative to the objects around it (Paragraph 149-151 of Nagaishi et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
727
489
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevar (IDS Reference US 20220011143 A1) in view of Bielas (US 20120200449 A1).
Regarding Claim 20 as best understood, Sevar fails to disclose wherein the antenna assemblies are mounted to an annular support to define an at least partially annular array of the antenna assemblies.
However, Bielas does disclose wherein the antenna assemblies are mounted to an annular support to define an at least partially annular array of the antenna assemblies (Antenna assemblies like 722a-b are mounted on a annular support 702 such that the array is defined as an annular array; Paragraph 33-37 and figure 7b of Bielas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have the antenna assemblies are mounted to an annular support to define an at least partially annular array of the antenna assemblies as taught by Bielas to provide coverage in multiple directions including improved capability in a forward and backward direction (Paragraph 33 of Bielas).
PNG
media_image5.png
652
760
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Sevar fails to disclose a control means configured to independently switch on or off any of the antenna assemblies of the array.
However, Bielas does disclose a control means configured to independently switch on or off any of the antenna assemblies of the array (Control circuity 110 may be used to control a plurality of arrays 112 to allow switching between in use; Paragraph 31-33 and figure 6 of Bielas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have a control means configured to independently switch on or off any of the antenna assemblies of the array as taught by Bielas to control the array to switch between elements to maintain communication with one or more communication stations (Paragraph 31 of Bielas).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevar (IDS Reference US 20220011143 A1) in view of Kay et al. (US 20200119811 A1).
Regarding Claim 21 as best understood, Sevar fails to disclose comprising: a three-axis gimbal for maintaining a substantially constant orientation of the antenna array during use.
However, Kay et al. does disclose comprising: a three-axis gimbal for maintaining a substantially constant orientation of the antenna array during use (3-axis gimbal may be uses as a part of the mechanical actuator positioner for the RFT array 146 or a phased array to hold it in place and orient it in a constant orientation; Paragraph 41 and 68 as well as figure 3 of Kay et al.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Sevar to have a three-axis gimbal for maintaining a substantially constant orientation of the antenna array during use as taught by Kay et al. to selectively orient an array antenna (Paragraph 41 of Kay et al.).
PNG
media_image6.png
702
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additional Comments Regarding the Claim Rejections
Examiner’s note – Regarding claims 16, 19, and 22, 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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20150207213 A1 (Forslund; Ola et al.) teaches a patch antenna array surrounded by a reflector device to reduce side lobes and concentrate the beam lobes.
US 20200057135 A1 (SASAKI; Satoshi et al.) teaches an array of units wherein each unit comprises a patch and a horn unit around the patch wherein said horn serves as a reflector unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights