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 on May 8, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are currently pending.
New Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed on May 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference.
The examiner agrees with the applicant regarding Ohno failing to teach and/or disclose the amended features of claims 1, 7 and 13, previously presented in the now canceled claims 2, 8 and 14.
However, a new interpretation of the of the previously applied reference of CN 110148839 A by Feng Yang et al. teaches the amended features of claims 1, 7 and 13.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's argument. The examiner contends that the amended features in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below are disclosed by the previously applied reference of CN 110148839 A by Feng Yang et al., US 20210305693 by Wayne R. Howe et al. and/or US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled “plurality of radio wave radiation holes”, as described in the specification (paragraph 11, lines 2-3), should be provided with descriptive reference character.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“plurality of radio wave radiation holes”, is not labeled, see specifications, page 3, paragraph 11.
When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter). (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.74 ).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-6, 9-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Although claims 3-6, 9-12, and 15-18 depend on claims 2, 8, and 14, respectively, these claims have been canceled. Consequently, the dependent claims fail the limitations required by their dependency. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For purpose of examination the examiner interprets the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. teaches An antenna device (fig. 1), comprising:
a resonance cavity (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow); and
a feeding waveguide (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [4] annotated hereinbelow) coupled to a rear wall of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow),
wherein a plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 2 [801-806, 811-816, 901-906]) are formed on a face (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) opposite to a position where the feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow),
wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 2 [801-806, 811-816, 901-906]) comprises:
a main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801]) formed through a front face of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) where the feeding waveguide (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [4] annotated hereinbelow) is coupled to the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow); and
a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 2 [811-816, 901-906]) formed through the front face (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the resonance cavity (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) to surround the main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image1.png
1045
1195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) in view of US 4242685 by Gary G. Sanford et al. (hereinafter Sanford et al.).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Yang et al. teaches the resonant cavity (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [2, 3]).
Yang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the resonant cavity has a polygonal cross section.
However, Sanford et al. teaches wherein the resonant cavity (resonant cavity, p. 2, col. 1, ll. 61-65, fig. 2 [10]) has a polygonal cross section (polygonal cross-section, p. 2, col. 1, ll. 61-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the resonant cavity has a polygonal cross section as taught by Sanford et al. in the antenna of Yang et al. for the benefit of introducing boundaries to force electromagnetic waves to disperse asymmetrically.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Yang et al. teaches the resonant cavity (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [2, 3]).
Yang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the resonant cavity has a square cross section.
However, Sanford et al. teaches wherein the resonant cavity (resonant cavity, p. 2, col. 1, ll. 61-65) has a square cross section (square cross-section, p. 2, col. 1, ll. 61-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the resonant cavity has a square cross section as taught by Sanford et al. in the antenna of Yang et al. for the benefit of molding the energy into a specific beam shape.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) in view of US 20240178560 by Bao Tran et al. (hereinafter Tran et al.).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Yang et al. teaches each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 2 [801-806, 811-816, 901-906]).
Yang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes has a hexagonal cross section, and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb.
However, Tran et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 4A) has a hexagonal cross section (¶ 0548, hexagonal cross section), and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 4A) are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb (¶ 0548, honeycomb).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes has a hexagonal cross section, and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb as taught by Tran et al. in the antenna of Yang et al. for the benefit of delivering high-gain main beams, and implement strong nulling for noise cancellation.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) in view of US 20050057402 by Takeshi Ohno et al. (hereinafter Ohno et al.).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Yang et al. teaches the main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801]) and the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 2 [811-816, 901-906]).
Yang et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the main radiation hole is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes in at least one of a shape and a size.
However, Ohno et al. teaches wherein the main radiation hole (fig. 47 [227]) is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 47 [225a-225d]) in at least one of a shape and a size (fig. 47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the main radiation hole is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes in at least one of a shape and a size as taught by Ohno et al. in the antenna of Yang et al. for the benefit of shaping the far-field radiation pattern, increasing side lobe levels and altering the beamwidth.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210305693 by Wayne R. Howe et al. (hereinafter Howe et al.) in view of US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) and in further view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Howe et al. teaches An array antenna device (fig. 3C [320]), comprising:
a plurality of antenna elements (fig. 3C [324]) periodically arranged to form a two-dimensional planar array (fig. 3C);
Howe et al. does not explicitly teach and a plurality of feeding waveguides each provided to supply a transmit signal to a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements, wherein each of the plurality of antenna elements comprises a resonance cavity and is coupled to one of the plurality of feeding waveguides at a rear wall, wherein, in each of plurality of antenna elements, a plurality of radio wave radiation holes are formed on a face of the resonance cavity opposite to a position where a feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity, wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes comprises: a main radiation hole formed through a front face of the resonance cavity at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall where the feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity; and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes formed through the front face of the resonance cavity to surround the main radiation hole.
However, Adams et al. teaches and a plurality of feeding waveguides (¶ 0004, plurality of feed waveguides) each provided to supply a transmit signal (¶ 0004, supply respective electromagnetic waves) to a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements (¶ 0004, antenna elements), wherein each of the plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) comprises a resonance cavity (fig. 1 [106] annotated hereinbelow) and is coupled to one of the plurality of feeding waveguides (fig. 1 [112] annotated hereinbelow) at a rear wall (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow), wherein, in each of plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow), a plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow) are formed on a face (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [106] annotated hereinbelow) opposite to a position where a feeding waveguide (fig. 1 [112] annotated hereinbelow) is coupled to the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [106] annotated hereinbelow).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and a plurality of feeding waveguides each provided to supply a transmit signal to a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements, wherein each of the plurality of antenna elements comprises a resonance cavity and is coupled to one of the plurality of feeding waveguides at a rear wall, wherein, in each of plurality of antenna elements, a plurality of radio wave radiation holes are formed on a face of the resonance cavity opposite to a position where a feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity as taught by Adams et al. in the antenna of Howe et al. for the benefit of shifting the relative phases to control beam steering (Adams et al., ¶ 0004).
PNG
media_image2.png
927
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Howe et al. and/or Adams et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes comprises: a main radiation hole formed through a front face of the resonance cavity at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall where the feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity; and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes formed through the front face of the resonance cavity to surround the main radiation hole.
However, Yang et al. teaches wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 2 [801-806, 811-816, 901-906]) comprises: a main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801]) formed through a front face of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) where the feeding waveguide (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [4] annotated hereinbelow) is coupled to the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow); and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 2 [811-816, 901-906]) formed through the front face (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the resonance cavity (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) to surround the main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image1.png
1045
1195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes comprises: a main radiation hole formed through a front face of the resonance cavity at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall where the feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity; and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes formed through the front face of the resonance cavity to surround the main radiation hole as taught by Yang et al. in the antenna of Howe et al. and Adams et al. for the benefit of achieving effective axial radiation (Yang, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Howe et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the resonant cavity has a polygonal cross section.
However, Adams et al. teaches wherein the resonant cavity (fig. 1 [106]) has a polygonal cross section (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the resonant cavity has a polygonal cross section as taught by Adams et al. in the antenna of Howe et al. for the benefit of introducing boundaries to force electromagnetic waves to disperse asymmetrically.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Howe et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the resonant cavity has a square cross section.
However, Adams et al. teaches wherein the resonant cavity (fig. 1 [106]) has a square cross section (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the resonant cavity has a square cross section as taught by Adams et al. in the antenna of Howe et al. for the benefit of molding the energy into a specific beam shape.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210305693 by Wayne R. Howe et al. (hereinafter Howe et al.) in view of US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) in view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) and in further view of US 20240178560 by Bao Tran et al. (hereinafter Tran et al.).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Howe et al. teaches a hexagonal cross section (fig. 3C), and a shape of a honeycomb (fig. 3C).
Howe et al., Adams et al. and/or Yang et al. do not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes has a hexagonal cross section, and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb.
However, Tran et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 4A) has a hexagonal cross section (¶ 0548, hexagonal cross section), and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 4A) are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb (¶ 0548, honeycomb).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes has a hexagonal cross section, and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb as taught by Tran et al. in the antenna of Howe et al., Adams et al. and Yang et al. for the benefit of delivering high-gain main beams, and implement strong nulling for noise cancellation.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210305693 by Wayne R. Howe et al. (hereinafter Howe et al.) in view of US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) in view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) and in further view of US 20050057402 by Takeshi Ohno et al. (hereinafter Ohno et al.).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Howe et al., Adams et al. and/or Yang et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the main radiation hole is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes in at least one of a shape and a size.
However, Ohno et al. teaches wherein the main radiation hole (fig. 47 [227]) is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 47 [225a-225d]) in at least one of a shape and a size (fig. 47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the main radiation hole is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes in at least one of a shape and a size as taught by Ohno et al. in the antenna of Howe et al., Adams et al. and Yang et al. for the benefit of shaping the far-field radiation pattern, increasing side lobe levels and altering the beamwidth.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) in view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.).
Regarding claim 13, Adams et al. teaches A signal transmitter apparatus (fig. 1-3 [100]), comprising:
a signal generator (fig. 3 [302]) configured to generate a transmit signal (¶ 0028, 0037; fig. 10);
a phase shifter (fig. 2 [120]) configured to receive the transmit signal from the signal generator (fig. 3 [302]) and adjust a phase of the transmit signal (¶ 0027, 0037; fig. 10); and
at least one array antenna (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow) configured to radiate a phase-adjusted transmit signal from the phase shifter (fig. 2 [120]) as a wireless signal (¶ 0023, 0037; fig. 10),
wherein the at least one array antenna (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow) comprises:
a plurality of antenna elements (¶ 0019, lines 3-5) periodically arranged to form a two-dimensional planar array (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow); and
a plurality of feeding waveguides (¶ 0004, plurality of feed waveguides) each provided to supply the phase-adjusted transmit signal to a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements (¶ 0004),
wherein each of the plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow) comprises a resonance cavity (fig. 1 [106] annotated hereinbelow) and is coupled to one of the plurality of feeding waveguides (fig. 1 [112] annotated hereinbelow) at a rear wall (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow),
wherein, in each of plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow), a plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow) are formed on a face (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [106] annotated hereinbelow) opposite to a position where a feeding waveguide (fig. 1 [112] annotated hereinbelow) is coupled to the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [106] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image3.png
927
1162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes comprises: a main radiation hole formed through a front face of the resonance cavity at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall where the feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity; and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes formed through the front face of the resonance cavity to surround the main radiation hole.
However, Yang et al. teaches wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 2 [801-806, 811-816, 901-906]) comprises: a main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801]) formed through a front face of the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) where the feeding waveguide (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [4] annotated hereinbelow) is coupled to the resonance cavity (fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow); and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 2 [811-816, 901-906]) formed through the front face (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow) of the resonance cavity (¶ 0030; fig. 1 [2, 3] annotated hereinbelow) to surround the main radiation hole (fig. 2 [801] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image1.png
1045
1195
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the plurality of radio wave radiation holes comprises: a main radiation hole formed through a front face of the resonance cavity at a position opposite to a position at the rear wall where the feeding waveguide is coupled to the resonance cavity; and a plurality of auxiliary radiation holes formed through the front face of the resonance cavity to surround the main radiation hole as taught by Yang et al. in the antenna of Adams et al. for the benefit of achieving effective axial radiation (Yang, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Adams et al. teaches wherein the resonant cavity (fig. 1 [106]) has a polygonal cross section (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Adams et al. teaches wherein the resonant cavity (fig. 1 [106]) has a square cross section (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Adams et al. teaches wherein the plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1 [108]) are divided into two or more antenna element groups (fig. 1), and the phase-adjusted transmit signal of which phase is adjusted by a same amount is supplied for all antenna elements of each antenna element group (¶ 0023-0024, 0028; fig. 10 [1000, 1002, 1004, 1006]).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) in view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) and in further view of US 20240178560 by Bao Tran et al. (hereinafter Tran et al.).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Adams et al. teaches the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 1 [108]).
Adams et al. and/or Yang et al. do not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes has a hexagonal cross section, and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb.
However, Tran et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 4A) has a hexagonal cross section (¶ 0548, hexagonal cross section), and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes (fig. 4A) are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb (¶ 0548, honeycomb).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein each of the plurality of radio wave radiation holes has a hexagonal cross section, and the plurality of radio wave radiation holes are arranged in a shape of a honeycomb as taught by Tran et al. in the antenna of Adams et al. and Yang et al. for the benefit of delivering high-gain main beams, and implement strong nulling for noise cancellation.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) in view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) and in further view of US 20050057402 by Takeshi Ohno et al. (hereinafter Ohno et al.).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Adams et al. and/or Yang et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the main radiation hole is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes in at least one of a shape and a size.
However, Ohno et al. teaches wherein the main radiation hole (fig. 47 [227]) is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes (fig. 47 [225a-225d]) in at least one of a shape and a size (fig. 47; the square main radiation hole (227) is different from the plurality of auxiliary circular radiation holes (225a-225d)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the main radiation hole is different from the plurality of auxiliary radiation holes in at least one of a shape and a size as taught by Ohno et al. in the antenna of Adams et al. and Yang et al. for the benefit of shaping the far-field radiation pattern, increasing side lobe levels and altering the beamwidth.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210135372 by Alec Adams et al. (hereinafter Adams et al.) in view of CN 110148839 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Feng Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang et al.) and in further view of US 20200177029 by Yukihiro Homma et al. (hereinafter Homma et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Adams et al. teaches wherein the plurality of antenna elements (fig. 1 [108] annotated hereinbelow) are divided into two or more antenna element groups (fig. 1 annotated hereinbelow), and a supply of the phase-adjusted transmit signal for all antenna elements of each antenna element group (¶ 0023-0024, 0028; fig. 10 [1000, 1002, 1004, 1006]).
PNG
media_image4.png
927
1162
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Adams et al. and/or Yang et al. do not explicitly and a supply of the phase-adjusted transmit signal is controlled to turn on and off equally for all antenna elements of each antenna element group.
However, Homma et al. teaches and a supply of the phase-adjusted transmit signal (¶ 0044-0045, fig. 2 [24, 26]) is controlled to turn on and off (¶ 0117, on and off control of the transmission) equally for all antenna elements (fig. 1-2 [27]) of each antenna element group (fig. 1-2 [27]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and a supply of the phase-adjusted transmit signal is controlled to turn on and off equally for all antenna elements of each antenna element group as taught by Homma et al. in the antenna of Adams et al. and Yang et al. for the benefit of providing pulse modulation by dictating how and when the antenna radiates energy (Homma et al., ¶ 0117).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20260081635 by Eric Stephen Rees Bullock et al.
US-12316020 by Seung-Mo Park et al.
US-20230223701 by Chun-Cheng Chan et al.
US-20220344829 by David Xing et al.
US-11462837 by Toshihide Kuwabara et al.
US-20220278460 by Zeev Iluz et al.
US-20220224005 by So Hyeun Yun et al.
US-11329396 by Hyun Joo Park et al.
US-20220069455 by Qi Tang et al.
US-20200373966 by Kamal Saraband et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, 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
/JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights