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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Preamble of the claim reciting “antenna comprising” should read --an antenna comprising--. 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.
Claims 1-13 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 reciting “wherein the amplifier array is configured to irradiate, or to be irradiated by, the transmitarray” is indefinite, since it’s unclear how the amplifier array “is configured to irradiate, or to be irradiated by, the transmit array” absent any feed structure or source. In other words, it’s not understood how the claimed antenna performs such functionality.
The spec. discloses, e.g., in ¶ [0068] and ¶ [0072] of the printed publication:
[0068] Further, unlike transmitarray antennas which generally comprise one or a plurality of primary sources adapted to generating a beam of generally conical shape irradiating all or part of the transmitarray, each primary source comprising, for example, a horn antenna, reconfigurable antenna 100 uses as a source the amplifier array 101 irradiating transmitarray 105. This advantageously enables antenna 100 to have a thickness smaller than that which would be exhibited by an antenna with a comparable transmitarray. This further provides the advantage, as compared with a transmitarray antenna, of facilitating the forming of systems for amplifying the transmitted or received radio frequency signal.
…
[0072] In the illustrated example, primary source 451 is connected to circuit 109. The primary source comprises, for example, a horn antenna irradiating the first surface of array 401. As an example, the central axis of each primary source is substantially orthogonal to the mean plane of array 401.
Hence, it appears that a source 109, connected to a horn antenna 451, as depicted in Fig. 4 of the invention, are what allow irradiation.
As such, for examination purposes, the indefinite clause will be interpreted as --wherein the amplifier array is coupled to a horn antenna to irradiate, or to be irradiated by, the transmitarray--.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim 3 reciting “wherein each first elementary cell comprises a first antenna element located in front of the transmitarray” is indefinite, since this claim appears to contradict with Fig. 1 of the invention, depicting a first antenna element 103b located in front of the amplifier array 101. For examination purposes, the limitation “transmitarray” in this claim will be interpreted as --amplifier array--.
Claim 5 reciting “a first amplifier, preferably a power amplifier, intended to amplify a signal transmitted by the antenna; a second amplifier, preferably a low-noise amplifier, intended to amplify a signal received by the antenna” are indefinite, since scope of the two instances of “preferably” cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, these clauses will be interpreted as --a first power amplifier to amplify a signal transmitted by the antenna; a second low-noise amplifier to amplify a signal received by the antenna--.
Claim 9 reciting “a second antenna element” is indefinite, since “a first antenna element” has NOT been defined. For examination purposes, this claim will be read to depend from claim 3, which recites “a first antenna element”.
Claim 11 reciting “fewer first elementary cells than second elementary cells, preferably four times fewer first elementary cells than second elementary cells” is indefinite, since (a) it’s NOT understood whether “second elementary cells” is related (or in addition) to “a plurality of second elementary cells” recited in claim 1, and (b) scope of “preferably” cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, this claim will be interpreted as --four times fewer first elementary cells than the second elementary cells--.
Claim 12 reciting “wherein each second elementary cell comprises third and fourth antenna elements coupled by a phase-shift circuit” is indefinite, since it’s unclear how “third and fourth antenna elements” are present absent recitation of “first and second antenna elements”. For examination purposes, this claim will be interpreted as --wherein each second elementary cell comprises two oppositely arranged antenna elements coupled by a phase-shift circuit--, thereby clearly reading on Fig. 2 of the invention.
There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable antenna.
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 1-4, 7, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Crouch” (US 7538735)
Claim 1: As best understood, Crouch discloses antenna comprising:
an amplifier array (16+22+24…26) (Fig. 3) comprising a plurality of first elementary cells 16 (Fig. 1); and
a transmitarray 32 (Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of second elementary cells 17,
wherein the amplifier array is configured to irradiate (see “input signal” to “output signal” in Fig. 3), or to be irradiated by, the transmitarray, the amplifier array being separated from the transmitarray by a distance (see Figs. 2-3).
Crouch fails to expressly teach the distance being equal, to within 20%, to a central transmission and/or reception wavelength of the antenna.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Crouch teaches “the receive and transmit antenna arrays can be of different shapes and configurations. In addition, note that the radiated beam can be steered without need for phase shifters and without moving the transmit array. All that is necessary is to move the feed so that it properly illuminates the receive side of the transmit array and points in the desired direction. The non-normal incidence of the incident electromagnetic wave on the receive array will induce currents at the receive ports that cause the transmit array to radiate in the same direction that the feed is pointing.” (Col. 10, ll. 49-58).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design Crouch’s antenna such that the distance is equal, to within 20%, to a central transmission and/or reception wavelength of the antenna, in order to properly illuminate the receive side of the transmit array and point radiated beam in the desired direction.
Claim 2: Crouch fails to expressly teach wherein the distance separating the amplifier array from the transmitarray is equal, to within 10%, to the central transmission and/or reception wavelength of the antenna.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Crouch teaches “the receive and transmit antenna arrays can be of different shapes and configurations. In addition, note that the radiated beam can be steered without need for phase shifters and without moving the transmit array. All that is necessary is to move the feed so that it properly illuminates the receive side of the transmit array and points in the desired direction. The non-normal incidence of the incident electromagnetic wave on the receive array will induce currents at the receive ports that cause the transmit array to radiate in the same direction that the feed is pointing.” (Col. 10, ll. 49-58).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design Crouch’s antenna such that the distance separating the amplifier array from the transmitarray is equal, to within 10%, to the central transmission and/or reception wavelength of the antenna, in order to properly illuminate the receive side of the transmit array and point radiated beam in the desired direction.
Claims 3-4: As best understood, Crouch teaches the antenna according to claim 1, wherein each first elementary cell comprises a first antenna element 16 located in front of the transmitarray (Figs. 1-2);
wherein each first elementary cell further comprises at least one amplifier 24-26 (Fig. 2) connected to the first antenna element 16.
Claims 7 and 10: Crouch teaches the antenna according to claim 1, further comprising at least one source 12 (Fig. 1) configured to irradiate, or to be irradiated by, the amplifier array (see Figs. 1-3);
wherein said at least one source is a single horn antenna (see Fig. 1).
Claim 11: Crouch fails to expressly teach fewer first elementary cells than second elementary cells, preferably four times fewer first elementary cells than second elementary cells.
However, it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Nevertheless, Crouch teaches “the receive and transmit antenna arrays can be of different shapes and configurations.” (Col. 10, ll. 49-50)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Crouch’s invention to include four times fewer first elementary cells than second elementary cells, in order to obtain an active transmit array with multiple parallel receive/transmit paths (col. 3, ll. 54-56).
Claim 13: Crouch teaches the antenna according to claim 1, wherein the amplifier array is devoid of phase-shift circuits (see Figs. 2-3 and col. 10, ll. 50-52).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch (cited above) in view of “Volkel” (US 11385326).
Claim 6: Crouch fails to expressly teach wherein each first elementary cell is connected to a radio frequency signal transceiver circuit.
Volkel discloses each first elementary cell 208 (Fig. 2) is connected to a radio frequency signal transceiver circuit 232.
Volkel teaches “In operation, the transceiver 232 generates a transmission signal 250 for transmission, and the antenna elements 208 radiate the transmission signal 250 to a target 212 within a surrounding environment.” (Col. 4, ll. 64-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design Crouch’s antenna such that each first elementary cell is connected to a radio frequency signal transceiver circuit, in order to generate a transmission signal and effectively radiate the transmission signal to a target.
Claim 8: Crouch fails to expressly teach wherein said at least one source is connected to a radio frequency signal transceiver circuit.
However, a skilled artisan would appreciate that a RF signal transceiver circuit, connected to Crouch’s signal source 12 would be deemed obvious, absent which “supplying energy in the millimeter-wave range” using the signal source 12 (col. 4, first para.), would be inoperable.
Nevertheless, Volkel discloses at least one source 130 (Fig. 1) is connected to a radio frequency signal transceiver circuit 102.
Volkel teaches “In operation, the transceiver 232 generates a transmission signal 250 for transmission, and the antenna elements 208 radiate the transmission signal 250 to a target 212 within a surrounding environment.” (Col. 4, ll. 64-67).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design Crouch’s antenna such that said at least one source is connected to a radio frequency signal transceiver circuit, in order to generate a transmission signal for transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Behdad (US 10090603)
Scarborough (US 10553947)
Achour (US 20180351250)
Lynch (US 7242518)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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 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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845