DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The substitute specification of December 31, 2024 has been ENTERED.
The substitute specification of February 21, 2025 has been ENTERED.
The replacement drawing sheets of December 31, 2024 have been APPROVED.
The replacement drawing sheets of February 21, 2025 have been APPROVED.
The drawings of September 16, 2024 as corrected by the replacement drawing sheets of December 31, 2024 and by the replacement drawing sheets of February 21, 2025 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Prior Art Rejections
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 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Bars et al (GB 2579239 A), hereinafter Le Bars (‘239).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of antenna systems.
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. An antenna array configured to operate at a minimum frequency, comprising: a substantially planar substrate having non-uniformly distributed thereupon at respective locations a plurality of broadband antennas to form thereby a two-dimensional (2D) array of non-uniformly spaced antenna array elements; wherein the substrate location of each antenna array element is separated from the substrate location of each adjacent antenna array element by a respective distance of at least half the wavelength of the minimum frequency, the locations of the antenna array elements on the substrate being selected in accordance with a desired reduction in a broadband side lobe level (SLL) of a radio frequency (RF) transmission signal.”
First, looking to independent claim 1, Le Bars et al (‘239) plainly discloses, “An antenna array” (line 1), noting, for example, page 1 at lines 10-12.
The claim 1, “substantially planar substrate” (line 2) is not explicitly disclosed by Le Bars (‘239). Le Bars et al (‘239) discloses an array antenna of “substantially planar” shape, noting, for example, Figure 8 and page 12 at lines 21-23. In that any antenna array must be supported by a surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the antenna arrays as disclosed in Le Bars et al (‘239) would have to have a surface on which to rest, which could broadly be called a “substrate.” Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “substrate” on which the Le Bars et (‘239) antenna array could rest for the advantage of mechanical stability for the array, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further claim 1 limitations, “having non-uniformly distributed thereupon at respective locations a plurality of broadband antennas to form thereby a two-dimensional (2D) array of non-uniformly spaced antenna array elements” (lines 2-4) are plainly met by Le Bars et al (‘239) as modified above, noting, for example, item 402 in drawing Figure 8, and, the disclosure of a “sparse array” (page 1 at line 11).
The additional claim 1 limitations, “wherein the substrate location of each antenna array element is separated from the substrate location of each adjacent antenna array element by a respective distance of at least half the wavelength of the minimum frequency, the locations of the antenna array elements on the substrate being selected in accordance with a desired reduction in a broadband side lobe level (SLL) of a radio frequency (RF) transmission signal” (lines 5-9) are met by Le Bars et al (‘239) as modified above, noting, for example, page 5 at lines 1-2; page 6 at lines 1-2 (meaning, if separations of antenna elements are one-half λ, then when “antenna elements are missing, the separation would be greater than one-half λ); page 7 at lines 30-33; page 12 at lines 21-23; page 14 at lines 27-28; and, the last sentence of the Abstract (especially noting “low side-lobes”).
In that each and every claim limitation in independent claim 1 is present in Le Bars et al (‘239) as modified above, independent claim 1 is obvious over Le Bars et al (‘239).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 25 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1 in that claim 25 differs from claim 1 only in that claim 25 starts with the words, “An antenna system …”, while claim 1 starts with the words, “An antenna array …”.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 and 26 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.
Allowable Claims
Claims 17-24 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of Cheng et al (‘451); Nakaya et al (‘727); and, Weily et al (‘129) is of general interest for the disclosure related to perturbations.
Boufounos et al (‘713) is of general interest for the disclosure related to “sparse recovery.”
Lee et al (‘575) is of general interest for the disclosure related to suppressed sidelobes and the use of a sparse antenna array.
Fu et al (‘924) is of general interest for the disclosure related to an array that reduces sidelobe levels.
Mo (‘897) is of general interest for the disclosure related to using a sparse array to reduce sidelobes.
Cohen et al (‘221) is of general interest for the disclosure related to “2D or 3D sparse matrix recovery”; Figure 1A; and, the last sentence in the Abstract.
Leeper (‘848) is of genera interest for the disclosure related to thinned antenna arrays with improved sidelobe level control.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights