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 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 3 and 12 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.
Claims 3 and 12 respectively reciting “the other terminal” are indefinite for lacking antecedent basis. For examination purposes, “the other terminal” will be interpreted as --another terminal--, respectively.
There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable antenna structure.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Bisiules” (US 20160248170).
Claim 1: Bisiules discloses an antenna structure, comprising:
a first (low) frequency band antenna 10 (Fig. 7) operated at a first frequency band; and
a second (high) frequency band antenna 50 operated at a second frequency band, and comprising:
a feeding portion 20 (Fig. 1b);
a balun 22; and
at least one antenna unit 12 (Fig. 1a) connected to the balun (via 18);
wherein the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band (see Fig. 7 and ¶ 17).
Bisiules fails to expressly teach the balun connected to the feeding portion.
However, Bisiules teaches in ¶ 22, “The hook balun 22 is connected to an array feed network of an antenna. The array feed network may comprise a conventional corporate feed network. ... The hook balun 22 then couples the RF signals from the feed network to a feed circuits 20 on the microstrip support PCB 18.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the Bisiules balun connected to the feeding portion, in order to improve squint performance (Bisiules: abstract).
Claim 2: Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a choke element connected between the feeding portion and the balun (¶ 20: “Optionally, the low band dipole arms 12 include RF chokes that are resonant at high band frequencies to minimize scattering of high band elements.”).
Claim 3: As best understood, Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein a (top) terminal of the balun is connected to the feeding portion, and the other (bottom) terminal of the balun is connected to a grounding portion (see Fig. 1b).
Claim 4: Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein a length of the balun is L, a wavelength of the second frequency band antenna operated at the second frequency band is λ, and the following condition is satisfied:
L = (2N-1)λ/4;
wherein N is a positive integer (see ¶ 3).
Claim 5: Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one antenna unit is a dipole antenna (see Fig. 7).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisiules (cited above) in view of “Wu” (US 20240258684).
Claim 10: Bisiules discloses an antenna structure comprising:
a first antenna array 10 (Fig. 7) operated at a first (low) frequency band; and
a second antenna array 50 operated at a second (high) frequency band, and comprising:
a feeding portion 20 (Fig. 1b);
a feed network connected to the feeding portion (¶ 22);
a plurality of antenna units 12 (Fig. 1a) connected to the power divider; and
a balun 22 (Fig. 1b) connected between the feed network and one of the antenna units (¶ 22);
wherein the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band (see Fig. 7 and ¶ 17).
Bisiules fails to expressly teach the feed network being a power divider.
However, Bisiules teaches in ¶ 22, “The hook balun 22 is connected to an array feed network of an antenna. The array feed network may comprise a conventional corporate feed network.”
A skilled artisan would appreciate that a corporate feed network essentially functions as a power divider.
Nevertheless, Wu discloses a power divider 274 (Fig. 5C) connected to the feeding portion 124 (¶ 124).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the Bisiules feed network as a power divider, in order to improve squint performance (Bisiules: abstract).
Claim 11: Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 10, further comprising:
a choke element connected between the power divider and the balun (¶ 20: “Optionally, the low band dipole arms 12 include RF chokes that are resonant at high band frequencies to minimize scattering of high band elements.”).
Claim 12: As best understood, Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 10, wherein a (top) terminal of the balun is connected to the feeding portion, and the other (bottom) terminal of the balun is connected to a grounding portion (see Fig. 1b).
Claim 13: Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 10, wherein a length of the balun is L, a wavelength of the second antenna array operated at the second frequency band is λ, and the following condition is satisfied (see ¶ 3):
L= (2N-1)λ/4;
wherein N is a positive integer.
Claim 14: Bisiules teaches the antenna structure of claim 10, wherein each of the antenna units is a dipole antenna (see Fig. 7).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisiules and Wu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of “Hu” (US 20190273315).
Claim 18: Bisiules is silent regarding wherein the power divider is a 1 to 3 T-junction power divider or combiner.
Hu discloses power divider 26a-26d (Fig. 2) and teaches in ¶ 78, “According to some aspects of these embodiments of the invention, the power combiners 26a-26d and 26a′-26b′ may be configured as Wilkinson power dividers, T-junction power dividers, branch line couplers and 3 dB couplers, for example. In some embodiments of the invention, asymmetric (i.e., non-3 dB) power dividing couplers may be used.”
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 the Bisiules antenna structure such that the power divider is a 1 to 3 T-junction power divider or combiner, thereby using a desired feeding arrangement to facilitate high and low band operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 15-17 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harel (US 11735829)
Junttila (US 11894892)
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