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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Tachyon®”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figures 7 and 8, the bottom of the graph labels are cut off
In Figures 5-8, the text size is small and difficult to read
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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9, the inclusion of reference numbers in parentheses therein throughout the claims is improper and should be removed
In claims 1, 3, and 9, “the folded dipoles” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the two folded dipoles”
In claims 1 and 3, “the grounded short-circuit through holes” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the two grounded short-circuit through holes”
In claim 4, “the parasitic patches” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the two parasitic patches”
In claim 4, “the antenna” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the circularly polarized satellite antenna”
In claim 9, “the antenna” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the circularly polarized satellite antenna”
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 1-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on a magnetoelectric dipole” in line 1. The meaning of “based on” is unclear and is not defined by the claim which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the half-wavelength rectangular slit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previous limitation “a rectangular slit” or a new limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second dipole thereof” in lines 10 and 12. It is unclear what “thereof” is referencing which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “meanwhile” in line 4. The term has multiple definitions and is not defined by the claim which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the term as “simultaneously”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “to excite a magnetic dipole” in line 4. It is unclear which previous limitation is exciting a magnetic dipole which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the whole antenna array” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name Isola Tachyon. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “100 material” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 8-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN 116365224 A), hereinafter known as Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses (Fig. 1) A circularly polarized satellite antenna based on a magnetoelectric dipole (Fig. 1), comprising a layer of floor (3), a feed port (11), a microstrip feed wire (10), two grounded short-circuit through holes (7), a rectangular slit (9), two parasitic patches (6) and two folded dipoles (4); wherein the floor (3) is slotted with the half-wavelength rectangular slit (9, wavelength is not defined), the microstrip feed wire (10) orthogonal to the rectangular slit (9) is disposed under the rectangular slit (9), one end of the microstrip feed wire (10) is connected to the feed port (11), the two folded dipoles (4) are both in an L shape and are both disposed in a plane a quarter wavelength ([0042] of machine translation, wavelength is not defined) from an upper portion of the floor (3), a first dipole arm of one of the folded dipoles (4) is parallel to the microstrip feed wire (10), a second dipole arm thereof is disposed on one side of the rectangular slit (9), a first dipole arm of another of the folded dipoles (4) is parallel to the microstrip feed wire (10), a second dipole arm thereof is disposed on another side of the rectangular slit (9), each of the folded dipoles (4) is connected to the floor (3) through one of the grounded short-circuit through holes (7) respectively, the two grounded short-circuit through holes (7) are located on two sides of the rectangular slit (9) respectively, the two parasitic patches (6) are disposed in a plane where the two folded dipoles (4) are located, and the two parasitic patches (6) are located on L-shaped inner sides of the two folded dipoles (4) respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Huang further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the microstrip feed wire (10) is used to excite an operating mode of the rectangular slit (9).
Regarding claim 3, Huang further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the folded dipoles (4) are used to excite an electromagnetic wave parallel to a polarization direction of the rectangular slit (9) to constitute an electric dipole together with the grounded short-circuit through holes (7), and meanwhile to excite a magnetic dipole formed through the grounded short-circuit through holes (7) and the rectangular slit (9) together so as to form the magnetoelectric dipole.
Regarding claim 4, Huang further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the parasitic patches (6) are used to improve a circularly polarized radiation performance of the antenna ([0040] of machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Huang further discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a design frequency band of the circularly polarized satellite antenna is a Ka band ([0047] of machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Huang further discloses (Fig. 1-2) wherein the folded dipoles (4) are made of folded microstrip lines with a width of 1.9 mm (L1+Ld, [0043]).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Zhang et al. (CN 116093597 A), hereinafter known as Zhang.
Regarding claim 5, Huang does not specifically teach wherein the circularly polarized satellite antenna is used as an antenna array element, four antenna array elements are arranged in a form of 2*2 and constitute a subarray in a 90° rotating feed setting, and four subarrays are arranged in a form of 2*2 to constitute an antenna array.
However, Zhang teaches (Fig. 8) wherein the circularly polarized satellite antenna (11a) is used as an antenna array element (11a), four antenna array elements (11a, 12a, 13a, 14a) are arranged in a form of 2*2 and constitute a subarray in a 90° rotating feed setting (Fig. 8), and four subarrays (11a, 12a, 13a, 14a) are arranged in a form of 2*2 to constitute an antenna array (Fig 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the circularly polarized satellite antenna of Huang with Zhang to include “wherein the circularly polarized satellite antenna is used as an antenna array element, four antenna array elements are arranged in a form of 2*2 and constitute a subarray in a 90° rotating feed setting, and four subarrays are arranged in a form of 2*2 to constitute an antenna array,” as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of improving the main polarization component (see also [0027] of machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Huang does not specifically teach wherein the floor is used as a common floor for the whole antenna array and is used to enable a maximum radiation direction orientation to be perpendicular to a direction of the floor when the whole antenna array operates.
However, Zhang teaches (Fig. 8) wherein the floor is used as a common floor for the whole antenna array and is used to enable a maximum radiation direction orientation to be perpendicular to a direction of the floor when the whole antenna array operates (reflecting bottom, [0027]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the circularly polarized satellite antenna of Huang with Zhang to include “wherein the floor is used as a common floor for the whole antenna array and is used to enable a maximum radiation direction orientation to be perpendicular to a direction of the floor when the whole antenna array operates,” as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of reducing size, weight, and ease of manufacture (see also [0027] of machine translation).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Dave et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0258701 A1), hereinafter known as Dave.
Regarding claim 7, Huang does not specifically teach wherein the floor is made of a PCB substrate of an Isola Tachyon 100 material, and a metal material printed on the PCB substrate is copper.
However, Dave teaches a floor is made of a PCB substrate of an Isola Tachyon 100 material ([0072]), and a metal material printed on the PCB substrate is copper ([0073]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the circularly polarized satellite antenna of Huang with Dave to include “a floor is made of a PCB substrate of an Isola Tachyon 100 material, and a metal material printed on the PCB substrate is copper,” as taught by Dave, for the purpose of achieving desired dielectric values (see also [0072]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in materials. A change in materials is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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
/YONCHAN J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2845