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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1-23-2025 and 7-24-2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the vehicle of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 21 is 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.
As per claim 21, the phrase “configured for mounting to a vehicle” makes the claim indefinite as the claim is a result but provides no information as to what the configuration is.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franzini, et. al., U.S. Patent Number 10,854,993, published December 1, 2020 in view of Howe, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0305693, published September 30, 2021.
As per claim 1, Franzini discloses a phased array antenna comprising: a base plate; and a plurality of radiating elements, wherein a first radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements comprises: a signal ear projecting outwardly from the first curved surface; and a ground ear projecting outwardly and spaced in at least a circumferential direction of the first surface of the base plate from the signal ear, wherein a first surface of the signal ear facing a first surface of the ground ear is parallel to the first surface of the ground ear (Franzini, Fig. 2A, Fig. 5 and Col. 17, lines 1-5).
Franzini fails to disclose the base being curved.
Howe teaches a curved base for phase array antenna elements (¶51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a curved base as Franzini discloses various configurations for the base (Col. 9, lines 1-67) and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As per claim 2, Franzini as modified by Howe discloses the phased array antenna of claim 1, wherein a second surface of the signal ear is configured to capacitively couple with a first surface of a ground ear of a second radiating element, wherein the second surface of the signal ear faces away from the first surface of the signal ear and is not parallel to the first surface of the signal ear (Franzini, Col. 7, lines 41-47).
As per claims 3-6, Franzini as modified by Howe discloses the various arrangement of the ears, posts and bases (Franzini, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to use various configurations as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As per claim 7, Franzini as modified by Howe further discloses the unit cell of claim 1, wherein the base plate forms at least a portion of a hollow cylinder (Howe, Fig. 5D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form a cylinder as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As per claim 8, Franzini as modified by Howe further discloses the unit cell of claim 1, wherein the signal ear comprises a first post projecting outwardly from the first curved surface, wherein the first post is electrically isolated from the base plate (Franzini, Col. 7, lines 21-40 where the word “pillar” is in place of “post”).
As per claims 9-15 and 22, Franzini as modified by Howe further disclose various configurations of base, ears and feed lines (Franzini, Fig. 3-8 showing various configurations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the antenna element positions limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 16, Franzini as modified by Howe further discloses the phased array antenna of claim 1, further comprising a third radiating element, wherein the third radiating element projects outwardly from the first curved surface of the base plate, wherein the third radiating element is positioned orthogonally to the first radiating element (Franzini, Col. 7, lines 7-20 and Howe, ¶51).
As per claim 17, Franzini as modified by Howe further discloses the phased array antenna of claim 13, wherein the third radiating element comprises a signal ear and a ground ear, and wherein a plane associated with first surface of the signal ear of the third radiating element intersects a center of curvature of the first curved surface, wherein the first surface of the signal ear of the third radiating element is positioned on a post of the signal ear of the third radiating element facing a surface on a post of the ground ear of the third radiating element (Franzini, Col. 7, lines 7-20 and Howe, ¶51).
As per claims 18-20, Franzini as modified by Howe further discloses the antenna of claim 1 providing various cylinder and sphere shapes (Howe, Fig. 5D and Fig. 9).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use various curved shapes, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Franzini and Howe.
As per claim 21, Franzini as modified by Howe further discloses the phased array antenna of claim 1, wherein the phased array antenna is configured for mounting to a vehicle (Howe, ¶41).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use in a car in order to gain the benefit of have radar capability in a vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights