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 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.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0077995 (“Artemenko” or “A”) in view of US 2007/0001918 (“Ebling” or “E”) and US 2017/0040705 (“Matitsine” or “M”).
2: A teaches a communication terminal (that associated with the device of fig 1), comprising: a lens set comprising a lens (1) and a feed element (the 4s); a transmit and receive circuit (2) coupled to the feed of each lens set (as shown).
However, A fails to teach an array of lens sets tiled to fill an array aperture of the communication terminal and fails to teach a support on which the array of lens sets and transmit and receive circuit are positioned, and fails to teach a transmit and receive circuit configured to control the feed to transmit and receive satellite communication signals, wherein the transmit and receive circuit is further configured to simultaneously process the transmit and receive satellite communication signals of different lens sets of the array of lens sets, and fails to teach that the system would include a support on which the array of lens sets and transmit and receive circuit are positioned.
Nevertheless, M teaches an array of lens sets (e.g., fig 7). In addition, E teaches that fed lens elements may be tiled on a support (fig 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide an array of A’s lens antennas positioned on a support together with the associated transmit and receive circuits. The motivation would have been to provide for a narrower beam by providing a phased array of A’s lens antennas.
Once this modification is made, it would be the case that the transmit/receive circuit would necessarily process transmit and receive signals of the different lens set simultaneously. This is how a phased array operates.
In addition, once this modification is made, the system would include a support on which the array of lens sets and transmit and receive circuit are positioned.
However, A fails to teach that its system is a satellite communication terminal. Nevertheless, A teaches that its antenna operates at frequencies that are common for satellite communications. Thus, it would have been obvious to employ A’s system as a satellite communication terminal. The motivation would have been to take advantage of A’s beam steering to allow for satellite tracking.
3: The modified device discussed in regard to claim 2 would be such that the support is substantially circular (a support like that of fig 7 of E would be used).
4: A teaches that each lens set of the array of lens sets comprises a plurality of feed elements (each has a set of the 4, as shown in figs 2 and 3).
5: A fails to teach a cover attached to the support.
However, radome covers were old and well-known.
Thus, it would have been obvious to cover A’s modified system with a radome in order to protect the system from outside elements.
6: A fails to teach that at least some of the lens sets of the array of lens sets contact each other.
However, M teaches arrays of lens sets that contact each other (figs 2, 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide that at least some of the lens sets of the array of lens sets contact each other.
The motivation would have been to reduce the area required for the array.
7: A fails to teach that the transmit and receive circuit comprises a transmit digital signal processor and a receive digital signal processor.
However, digital signal processors for transmitting and receiving were old and well-known.
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide that the transmit and receive circuit comprises a transmit digital signal processor and a receive digital signal processor.
The motivation would have been to allow for the use of ubiquitous, well-understood beam-forming technology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRAHAM P SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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.
/GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights