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
Claims 1, 8, 9, 17, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “polarisation” should be “polarization”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 2, 8, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyer (US 2016/0072196 A1). (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Boyer (Figures 3 and 5) teaches a dual polarity antenna comprising:
a dual polarity radiator 13, comprising a first radiator 3 having a first polarity and a second radiator 1/2 having a second polarity orthogonal to the first polarity (para [0032]);
an ancillary radiator monopole 3 of antenna 14 (Figure 5); and
a feeding network 5 and 6 (para [0030]) for feeding a radio-frequency (RF) signal to both the first radiator and the ancillary radiator, driving the first radiator to radiate a wave having a first polarization (vertical polarization of monopole 3 of antenna 13, causing radiation of a spurious wave having a polarization orthogonal to the first polarization, and driving the ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the spurious wave at least partly (para [0037] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Boyer (para [0032]) teaches that the feeding network comprises one or more delay elements.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Boyer (Figure 5, para [0037] and [0043]) teaches that the ancillary radiator is a first ancillary radiator, the feeding network is a first feeding network, and the dual polarity antenna further comprises: a second ancillary radiator and a second feeding network, wherein the RF signal is a first RF signal, the spurious wave is a first spurious wave, the second feeding network is configured for feeding a second RF signal to both the second radiator and to the second ancillary radiator, driving the second radiator to radiate a wave having a second polarization, causing generation of a second spurious wave having a polarization orthogonal to the second polarization, and driving the second ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the second spurious wave at least partly.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reason as claims 1 and 8.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al, hereinafter Luo, (“Enhancing cross-polarisation discrimination or axial ratio beamwidth of diagonally dual or circularly polarized based station antennas by using vertical parasitic elements”, 18 July 2017, XP006062411.) (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Luo (Figure 8a) teaches a dual polarity antenna comprising:
a dual polarity radiator (crossed dipole), comprising a first radiator having a first polarity and a second radiator having a second polarity orthogonal to the first polarity;
an ancillary radiator (parasitic monopole); and
a feeding network (feed lines on dipole substrate) for feeding a radio-frequency (RF) signal to both the first radiator and the ancillary radiator, driving the first radiator to radiate a wave having a first polarisation, causing radiation of a spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the first polarisation (page 1191), and driving the ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the spurious wave at least partly (page 1192).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Luo (Figure 13) teaches that the feeding network comprises one or more delay elements.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, Luo (Figure 8a) teaches that the ancillary radiator comprises two or more monopole antennas (monopoles #1 and #2).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 4, Luo (Figure 8a) teaches that the two or more monopole antennas are placed symmetrically with respect to the dual polarity radiator.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Luo (Figure 1) teaches that the ancillary radiator (monopole #1 and #2) is a first ancillary radiator, the feeding network is a first feeding network, and the dual polarity antenna further comprises: a second ancillary radiator (monopole #3 and #4) and a second feeding network, wherein the RF signal is a first RF signal, the spurious wave is a first spurious wave, the second feeding network is configured for feeding a second RF signal to both the second radiator and to the second ancillary radiator, driving the second radiator to radiate a wave having a second polarisation, causing generation of a second spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the second polarisation, and driving the second ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the second spurious wave at least partly.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reason as claims 1 and 8.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al, hereinafter Lee, (“Compact Broadband Dual-Polarized Antenna for Indoor MIMO Wireless Communication Systems, 1 February 2016, XP011597740). (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Lee (Figure 1) teaches a dual polarity antenna comprising:
a dual polarity radiator, comprising a first radiator (MIMO antenna 1) having a first polarity and a second radiator (MIMO antenna 2) having a second polarity orthogonal to the first polarity;
an ancillary radiator (parasitic crossed-dipole); and
a feeding network (feeds 1 and 2) for feeding a radio-frequency (RF) signal to both the first radiator and the ancillary radiator, driving the first radiator to radiate a wave having a first polarisation, causing radiation of a spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the first polarization (page 768, second column), and driving the ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the spurious wave at least partly (page 769, first column).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Lee (Figure 1) teaches that the ancillary radiator comprises two or more dipole antennas (parasitic crossed-dipole radiators).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 5, Lee (Figure 1) teaches that the two or more dipole antennas (parasitic crossed-dipole radiators) are placed symmetrically with respect to the dual polarity radiator.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 9-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Boyer teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 18, respectively, except explicitly mention that the feeding network is configured so that the RF signal has a lower amplitude at the ancillary radiator than at the first radiator. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the feeding network so that the RF signal has a lower amplitude at the ancillary radiator than at the first radiator, doing so would partly cancel the spurious wave.
Regarding claim 9, Boyer (Figures 3 and 5) teaches a dual polarity antenna comprises:
a dual polarity radiator 13, comprising a first radiator 3 having a first polarity and a second radiator 1/2 having a second polarity orthogonal to the first polarity (para [0032]);
an ancillary radiator monopole 3 of antenna 14 (Figure 5); and
a feeding network 5 and 6 (para [0030]) for feeding a radio-frequency (RF) signal to both the first radiator and the ancillary radiator, driving the first radiator to radiate a wave having a first polarization (vertical polarization of monopole 3 of antenna 13, causing radiation of a spurious wave having a polarization orthogonal to the first polarization, and driving the ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the spurious wave at least partly (para [0037] and [0043]).
Boyer does not explicitly teach that dual polarity antenna being configured as an array.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the dual polarity antenna of Boyer as an array in order to enhance performance by increasing gain as well as improving signal strength and communication reliability.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the plurality of dual polarity antennas forms a massive multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) antenna array to enable faster and more flexible communication coverage.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 9, Boyer (para [0032]) teaches that the feeding network comprises one or more delay elements.
Regarding claim 12, Boyer teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 9, except explicitly mention that the feeding network is configured so that the RF signal has a lower amplitude at the ancillary radiator than at the first radiator. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the feeding network so that the RF signal has a lower amplitude at the ancillary radiator than at the first radiator, doing so would partly cancel the spurious wave.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 9, Boyer (Figure 5, para [0037] and [0043]) teaches that the ancillary radiator is a first ancillary radiator, the feeding network is a first feeding network, and the dual polarity antenna further comprises: a second ancillary radiator and a second feeding network, wherein the RF signal is a first RF signal, the spurious wave is a first spurious wave, the second feeding network is configured for feeding a second RF signal to both the second radiator and to the second ancillary radiator, driving the second radiator to radiate a wave having a second polarisation, causing generation of a second spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the second polarization, and driving the second ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the second spurious wave at least partly.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo.
Regarding claim 1, Luo (Figure 8a) teaches a dual polarity antenna comprising:
a dual polarity radiator (crossed dipole), comprising a first radiator having a first polarity and a second radiator having a second polarity orthogonal to the first polarity;
an ancillary radiator (parasitic monopole); and
a feeding network (feed lines on dipole substrate) for feeding a radio-frequency (RF) signal to both the first radiator and the ancillary radiator, driving the first radiator to radiate a wave having a first polarisation, causing radiation of a spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the first polarisation (page 1191), and driving the ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the spurious wave at least partly (page 1192).
Luo does not explicitly teach that dual polarity antenna being configured as an array.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the dual polarity antenna of Luo as an array in order to enhance performance by increasing gain as well as improving signal strength and communication reliability.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Luo (Figure 13) teaches that the feeding network comprises one or more delay elements.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 9, Luo (Figure 8a) teaches that the ancillary radiator comprises two or more monopole antennas (monopoles #1 and #2).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 13, Luo (Figure 8a) teaches that the two or more monopole antennas are placed symmetrically with respect to the dual polarity radiator.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 9, Luo (Figure 1) teaches that the ancillary radiator (monopole #1 and #2) is a first ancillary radiator, the feeding network is a first feeding network, and the dual polarity antenna further comprises: a second ancillary radiator (monopole #3 and #4) and a second feeding network, wherein the RF signal is a first RF signal, the spurious wave is a first spurious wave, the second feeding network is configured for feeding a second RF signal to both the second radiator and to the second ancillary radiator, driving the second radiator to radiate a wave having a second polarisation, causing generation of a second spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the second polarisation, and driving the second ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the second spurious wave at least partly.
Claims 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Lee (Figure 1) teaches a dual polarity antenna comprising:
a dual polarity radiator, comprising a first radiator (MIMO antenna 1) having a first polarity and a second radiator (MIMO antenna 2) having a second polarity orthogonal to the first polarity;
an ancillary radiator (parasitic crossed-dipole); and
a feeding network (feeds 1 and 2) for feeding a radio-frequency (RF) signal to both the first radiator and the ancillary radiator, driving the first radiator to radiate a wave having a first polarisation, causing radiation of a spurious wave having a polarisation orthogonal to the first polarization (page 768, second column), and driving the ancillary radiator to radiate a wave that cancels the spurious wave at least partly (page 769, first column).
Lee does not explicitly teach that dual polarity antenna being configured as an array.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the dual polarity antenna of Lee as an array in order to enhance performance by increasing gain as well as improving signal strength and communication reliability.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 9, Lee (Figure 1) teaches that the ancillary radiator comprises two or more dipole antennas (parasitic crossed-dipole radiators).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 14, Lee (Figure 1) teaches that the two or more dipole antennas (parasitic crossed-dipole radiators) are placed symmetrically with respect to the dual polarity radiator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Boyer (GB 2512111A) discloses an orthogonally polarized omnidirectional antenna.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845