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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/21/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-12 are currently pending. Amendments to the drawings, Specification and the claims have overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/29/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 11): “with respect to the axis” should read “with respect to the common axis”.
Claim 3 (line 2): “axis” should read “common axis”.
Claim 5 should depend on claim 4, as claim 1 does not include the sub-reflecting board protrusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 6-12 are objected to due to their dependency.
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 and 3-12 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 (lines 9-10) recites “a dielectric disposed between the coaxial waveguide and a sub-reflecting board” and line 13 recites “a higher order mode suppressor disposed on edges of the sub-reflecting board”. As the positional relationship between the sub-reflecting board and the elements of the feedhorn is not defined, and the sub-reflecting board is not positively recited, it is not clear if the Applicant is claiming the sub-reflecting board as part of the feedhorn. Also, the structural relationship between the higher order mode suppressor and the other claimed structure is not clear. Clarification is therefore required.
For examination purposes, claim 1 is interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claim 4 (line 2) recites the limitation “wherein the sub-reflecting board has a sub-reflecting board protrusion formed as a conductor”. It is not clear what the Applicant means by formed as a conductor. It is not clear if the Applicant intended to claim the sub-reflecting board protrusion is formed of a conductive material or if some other meaning is intended. Clarification is required.
For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claim 12 recites “the higher order mode suppressor extends axially towards the dielectric and extends past at least the fine protrusion”. As the sub-reflecting board, and therefore the higher order mode suppressor, extends in more than one direction, it is not clear which axis is being referred to in this claim. It is also not clear where the higher order mode suppressor is extending from. Claim 12 is therefore indefinite.
For examination purposes, claim 12 is interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claims 3, 5-11 are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchelson et al. (US 2021/0265740 – of record; “Mitchelson” or “M”) in view of Haluba et al. (US 2011/0309987; “Haluba” or “H”).
Claim 1: As best understood, Mitchelson discloses (fig 1 & fig 2A below) A feedhorn for a multiband antenna (title, Microwave antenna systems include a parabolic reflector antenna having a feed bore and a feed assembly. The feed assembly includes a coaxial waveguide structure that extends through the feed bore, a sub-reflector, and a first dielectric block that is positioned between the coaxial waveguide structure and the sub-reflector; ¶75, “dual-band feed assembly”), the feedhorn comprising:
a coaxial waveguide (coaxial waveguide structure 110 of fig 2A) comprising:
a first waveguide (central waveguide 120) disposed on one side of a reflecting board (parabolic reflector antenna 20) and is configured to pass a first band signal (¶88, “The central waveguide 120 may be sized so that it will not support propagation of the low-band signals (i.e., the central waveguide 120 rejects any signals in the low-band incident thereon)”);
a second waveguide (outer waveguide 130) that shares a common axis with the first waveguide (120), has a diameter greater than that of the first waveguide (120), and is configured to pass a second band signal (¶98, “the outer waveguide 130 may include a low-pass filter 170 that may reduce or prevent high frequency energy that is incident on the outer waveguide 130 from propagating through the outer waveguide 130 to the low-band radios.”); and
a dielectric (dielectric block 140, 150) disposed between the coaxial waveguide (110) and a sub-reflecting board (sub-reflector 160), the dielectric being on one side of the coaxial waveguide (110) and radially protrudes with respect to the common axis,
wherein a fine protrusion is formed on a surface of the dielectric (surfaces of dielectric 140, 150 both have a stepped profile comprising protrusions).
M does not explicitly teach a higher order more suppressor disposed on edges of the sub-reflecting board. However, M does teach (¶95) one or more circular grooves or rings 162 formed on edges of the sub-reflecting board (160).
Haluba, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that cavities form a higher order mode suppressor (¶40, “The precise dimensions of the cavities may be provided using EM simulation to find cases in which higher order modes and cross-polarization modes are suppressed, while the desired mode is allowed to pass.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedhorn of M to provide a higher order mode suppressor disposed on edges of the sub-reflecting board, as taught by H. Doing so suppresses unwanted signal modes to ensure more efficient power transmission while allowing the desired mode to pass (¶99 of H).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 1.
M discloses (fig 2A) wherein a distance to the dielectric (140, 150) from the common axis changes in a direction from the coaxial waveguide to the sub-reflecting board (160) (dielectric 140, 150 has a varying thickness).
Claim 6: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 1.
M discloses, wherein a first slot (¶92, opening in distal end of outer waveguide) is formed inside the second waveguide (130), and the feedhorn further comprises a waveguide fixer (annular flange 154) that is comprised in the dielectric (150), has a size less than or equal to a size of the first slot, and is inserted into the first slot to fix the dielectric (¶92, “ The annular flange 154 may be received within the distal end of the outer waveguide 130”) (fig 2A).
Claim 7: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 6.
M discloses wherein the waveguide fixer (154) protrudes in a radius direction of the coaxial waveguide (110) and comprises a radius direction protrusion (annotated fig. 2A below, P1) with an end being formed to an outer circumferential surface of the first waveguide (120).
PNG
media_image2.png
361
363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 1.
M does not explicitly disclose wherein a second band signal suppressor is formed on an outer circumferential surface of the first waveguide (120). However, M does disclose a second band signal suppressor (annular ridges 172) which are formed on the second waveguide (130) and protrude inwardly (¶98, “The low-pass filter 170 may be implemented as a series of annular ridges 172 that project inwardly from the outer sidewall of the outer waveguide 130”). M further states (¶101) that numerous modifications may be made to the dual-band coaxial feed assembly 100 without departing from the scope of the invention, and that other elements could be rearranged accordingly. For example, the low-pass filter could be within the central waveguide 120.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedhorn of M in view of H, wherein the second band signal suppressor could be formed on an outer circumferential surface of the first waveguide, as taught in para. [101] of M, rather than being formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second waveguide, as shown in fig. 2A of M. Doing so simplifies manufacturing of the feedhorn (¶99 of M).
Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 9.
M discloses wherein the second band signal suppressor (low-pass filter 170) comprises a plurality of protruding elements (annular ridges 172).
M does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of protruding elements protrudes from the inside of the first waveguide outwardly.
However, M does disclose annular ridges (172) which are formed on the second waveguide (130) and protrude inwardly which have the effect of suppressing a second band signal (¶98, “The low-pass filter 170 may be implemented as a series of annular ridges 172 that project inwardly from the outer sidewall of the outer waveguide 130”). M further states (¶101) that numerous modifications may be made to the dual-band coaxial feed assembly 100 without departing from the scope of the invention, and that other elements could be rearranged accordingly. For example, the low-pass filter could be within the central waveguide 120.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedhorn of M in view of H, wherein the annular ridges could be formed on an outer circumferential surface of the first guide and protrude outwardly, as taught in para. [101] of M, rather than being formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second waveguide (130) and protruding inwardly, as shown in fig. 2A of M. Doing so simplifies manufacturing of the feedhorn (¶99 of M).
Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 11: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 1.
M does not explicitly disclose wherein a second slot is formed inside the sub-reflecting board, and the feedhorn further comprises a sub-reflecting board fixer that is comprised in the dielectric, has a size less than or equal to a size of the second slot, and is inserted into the second slot to fix the dielectric.
However, M does teach the mechanism of affixing/securing two components of the system by inserting one component into another component, where one of the components is a dielectric (¶77, “The first dielectric block may be inserted into a distal end of the central waveguide and may act as a mechanical support that mounts the sub-reflector at an appropriate distance from the coaxial waveguide structure.”). M therefore teaches, as best understood, a second slot is formed inside the sub-reflecting board, and the feedhorn further comprises a sub-reflecting board fixer that is comprised in the dielectric, has a size less than or equal to a size of the second slot, and is inserted into the second slot to fix the dielectric.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the feedhorn of M in view of H, wherein a second slot is formed inside the sub-reflecting board, and the feedhorn further comprises a sub-reflecting board fixer that is comprised in the dielectric, has a size less than or equal to a size of the second slot, and is inserted into the second slot to fix the dielectric. Doing so is a known method of fixing a component to a dielectric (¶77 of M).
Claim 12: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 1.
The modified M teaches, as best understood, wherein the higher order mode suppressor (cavities of Haluba/grooves 162 formed in sub-reflector 160 of M) extends axially towards the dielectric (140/150) and extends past at least the fine protrusion (the stepped profiles formed on dielectric 140/150).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchelson et al. (US 2021/0265740; “Mitchelson” or “M”) in view of Haluba et al. (US 2011/0309987; “Haluba” or “H”), and further in view of Lebayon (US 2022/0094066).
Claim 4: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 1.
M does not explicitly disclose wherein the sub-reflecting board has a sub-reflecting board protrusion formed as a conductor on one side of the sub-reflecting board, wherein the sub-reflecting board protrusion extends axially through an opening of the dielectric and is surrounded by the dielectric.
As best understood, Lebayon teaches (fig. 13D) wherein the sub-reflecting board (¶131, “the sub-reflector 320 is metallic”) has a sub-reflecting board protrusion (tip of 320) formed as a conductor on one side of the sub-reflecting board, wherein the sub-reflecting board protrusion extends axially through an opening of the dielectric (¶129, dielectric support 200) and is surrounded by the dielectric (shown in fig. 13D).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lebayon to the feedhorn of M in view of H, wherein the sub-reflecting board has a sub-reflecting board protrusion formed as a conductor on one side of the sub-reflecting board, wherein the sub-reflecting board protrusion extends axially through an opening of the dielectric and is surrounded by the dielectric. Doing so allows for a received signal to be directed into the waveguides in order to fulfil the RF performances for both of the frequency bands and to fix the dielectric support (¶131 of Lebayon).
Claim 5: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 4.
M fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first air layer is formed between the dielectric and the sub-reflecting board protrusion.
Lebayon teaches (fig. 5 and fig. 13D) wherein a first air layer is formed between the dielectric (¶82, inner surface 204B of cylindrical dielectric support 200) and the sub-reflecting board protrusion (tip of 320) (as the dielectric support 200 is cylindrical, air inside dielectric support 200 surrounds the sub-reflecting board protrusion).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lebayon to the feedhorn of M in view of H, wherein a first air layer is formed between the dielectric and the sub-reflecting board protrusion, as taught by Lebayon. Doing so allows for the overall weight of the feedhorn to be reduced by providing a hollow cylindrical dielectric.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchelson et al. (US 2021/0265740; “Mitchelson” or “M”) in view of Haluba et al. (US 2011/0309987; “Haluba” or “H”), and further in view of Daoud et al. (US 2005/0173782; “Daoud”).
Claim 8: the modified M teaches the feedhorn of claim 6.
M does not explicitly disclose wherein a second air layer is formed between the waveguide fixer and the first waveguide. However, fig. 2A shows a gap (annotated fig. 2A, G) between the waveguide fixer (flange 154) and the first waveguide (120).
Daoud teaches an electromagnetic shielding structure which can be used as a waveguide (¶33). Daoud also teaches that parts of the structure can have gaps or holes for ventilation or weight reduction, and that the gaps can be dimensioned to account for the wavelengths to be blocked or directed (¶38).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a gap filled with air to provide a second air layer in the feedhorn of Mitchelson in view of Haluba, as taught by Daoud. Doing so allows for the overall weight of the feedhorn to be reduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 21, 2026, with respect to claims 1-12 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
