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 .
Preliminary Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 10/09/2025. Claims 1-24 have been cancelled. Claims 25-44 have been amended. Currently, claims 25-44 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/03/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 25-27, 35-37, 39, 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boryssenko et al. (US 20150162665 A1) in view of Frazita et al. (US 20020167449 A1).
Consider claim 25, Boryssenko discloses an assembly (read as array 200 formed from multiple antennas 100, figures 1a-1c and 2, par [0017]-[0018]) comprising:
an array comprising a plurality of radiating elements (read as array 200 containing multiple antennas 100, each having dipole with a radiating arm that transmits and receives electromagnetic energy, figure 2, par [0005] and [0018]);
wherein the plurality of radiating elements comprises a first radiating element, and wherein the first radiating element comprises (read as one antenna 100 within array 200 as the first radiating element; within that one antenna 100, arms 2 and 8 cooperate to provide a dipole, figures 1a-1c and 2, par [0017]-[0018]):
a first signal ear comprising a first signal arm, wherein the first signal ear is configured to receive or transmit electromagnetic energy (read as within antenna 100, a first differential-fed, shorted, look-like, three-branch metal part shown in figure 1b as arm 2 with horizontal leg 3; its first branch carries RF signals to its second radiating branch, which forms a radiating arm and transmits or receives electromagnetic energy; the complete fed metal part corresponds to the first signal ear, and the second radiating branch corresponds to the first single arm, figure 1b, par [0005] and [0017]); and
a second signal ear comprising a second signal arm, wherein the second signal ear is configured to receive or transmit electromagnetic energy (read as within antenna 100, a separate second differential-fed, shorted, look-like, three-branch metal part shown in figure 1b as arm 8 with horizontal leg 5; its first branch carries RF signals to its second radiating branch, which forms a radiating arm and transmits or receives electromagnetic energy; the complete fed metal part corresponds to the second signal ear, and the second radiating branch corresponds to the second single arm, figure 1b, par [0005] and [0017]); and
wherein the array is steered (read as scan capable array whose elements are driven to 45-degree, 60-degree or 75-degree scan angles in the e plane, the h plane or both planes, figures 4-6, par [0004] and [0019]).
However, Boryssenko discloses the claimed invention above with the array being steered but does not specifically disclose wherein the array is electronically steered to adjust a phase or amplitude between two or more of the plurality of radiating elements.
Nonetheless, Frazita discloses electronically phase steering of dipole antenna elements, comprising a phrase array of radiating antenna elements, including dipole antenna elements, in which electronic devices control the relative phase shift between antenna elements; varying the relative phases of the respective excitation signals steers the antenna beam, par [0055] and [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Frazita into the teachings of Boryssenko, to configure Boryssenko’s scanning dipole array using Frazita’s electronic control of relative phase between dipole antenna elements, in order to rapidly shift the antenna beam from one position in space to another (see par [0060] of Frazita).
Consider claim 26, as applied to claim 25 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the array is a phased (read as electronic devices control the relative phase shift between antenna elements, see claim 1 above with par [0055] and [0060] of Frazita) dual-polarized antenna array (read as array 700 of dual-polarized differentially-fed shorted dipoles, including a first dipole formed by arms 32 and 34 for polarization 1 and a second dipole formed by arms 40 and 42 for orthogonal polarization 2, figures 7a-7c, par [0020] of Boryssenko).
Consider claim 27, as applied to claim 25 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the plurality of radiating elements of the array further comprises a second radiating element, and wherein each of the first radiating element and the second radiating element comprises two or more ears (read as array 200 containing multiple antennas 100, from which a first antenna 100 and a second antenna 100 are selected as the first and second radiating element; each antenna 100 comprises a dipole formed by two separated symmetrical loop-like, three-branch metal parts; the two distinct look-like parts correspond to two or more ears of each selected radiating element, figures 1a-1c and 2, par [0005] and [0017]-[0018]).
Consider claim 35, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein each of the first radiating element and the second radiating element is electronically (read as electronically phase steering of dipole antenna elements, see claim 1 above with par [0055] and [0060] of Frazita) steered to point in different directions (read as repeating array whose radiating elements operate under selected 45-degree, 60-degre and 75-degree scan conditions; two selected radiating elements in that repeated array thus participate in pointing the array beam in different selectable scan directions, figures 4-6, par [0019]) but does not specifically disclose steered to point in different directions without adjusting a position of the assembly as a whole.
Nonetheless, Frazita discloses electronically controlling the relative shift between antenna elements and varying the relative phase s of their excitation signals to shift the antenna beam from one spatial direction to another; the beam direction change is produced electronically through the element excitation rather than by reposition the antenna assembly, figures 26-27, par [0055], [0057], [0060] and [0092].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Frazita into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to configure Boryssenko’s multiple angle scanning dipole array by using Frazita’s electronic relative phase control, in order to shift the beam rapidly among the scan directions without needing to reposition the antenna assembly (see par [0055] and [0060] of Frazita).
Consider claim 36, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the first radiating element is electronically (read as electronically phase steering of dipole antenna elements, see claim 1 above with par [0055] and [0060] of Frazita) steered such that a beam of the electromagnetic energy received or transmitted by the first radiating element is pointed off-orthogonal to the assembly rather than orthogonal to the assembly; and wherein the second radiating element is electronically (read as electronically phase steering of dipole antenna elements, see claim 1 above with par [0055] and [0060] of Frazita) steered such that a beam of the electromagnetic energy received or transmitted by the second radiating element is pointed off- orthogonal to the assembly rather than orthogonal to the assembly (read as radiating elements operating under 45-degree, 60-degree and 70-degree array scan conditions; each nonzero scan angle is away from the direction orthogonal to the array plane, so two selected elements participating in one of those scan state contribute to an off-orthogonal (non-perpendicular) beam while receiving or transmitting electromagnetic energy, figures 4-6, par [0004] and [0019]).
Consider claim 37, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the first radiating element comprises a first polarization; wherein the second radiating element comprises a second polarization; wherein the first radiating element is pointed at an orthogonal orientation relative to the second radiating element such that first polarization is orthogonal to the second polarization (read as first dipole element formed by arms 32 and 34 and fed in polarization 1, and a physically crossed second dipole element formed by arms 40 and 42 and fed in polarization 2; the polarization 2 is orthogonal to polarization 1 and links each polarization to the physical orientation of its dipole arms, figures 7a-7c, par [0020]).
Consider claim 39, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the first radiating element is spaced apart from the second radiating element at a distance of 0.5 λ (lambda) at a top frequency of operation for the assembly (read as periodic array 200 with one corresponding 100 in each repeated unit cell; for adjacent cells, the unit cell length is the repeat pitch between corresponding adjacent antennas, and that pitch is approximately half of a wavelength (i.e. 0.5 λ) at the upper end of the operating range; thus disclosing 0.5 λ spacing at the top operating frequency, figure 2, claim 6 and par [0018]).
Consider claim 40, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the first radiating element is spaced apart from the second radiating element at a distance from about 0.5 λ at a top frequency of operation for the assembly(read as periodic array 200 with one corresponding 100 in each repeated unit cell; for adjacent cells, the unit cell length is the repeat pitch between corresponding adjacent antennas, and that pitch is approximately half of a wavelength (i.e. 0.5 λ) at the upper end of the operating range; thus disclosing 0.5 λ spacing at the top operating frequency, figure 2, claim 6 and par [0018]) but does not specifically disclose the distance from about 0.5 λ to about 1.0 λ.
Nonetheless, Frazita discloses adjacent array elements spaced at 0.59 λ at the high/upper end of the frequency band, figure 23 and par [0056] and [0085].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Frazita into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to configure Boryssenko’s periodic dipole array using Frazita’s 0.59 λ upper band element spacing, in order to support substantial scan angles while keeping the nearest grating lobe outside real space (see par [0056] and [0085] of Frazita).
Consider claim 44, as applied to claim 25 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses the claimed invention above with wherein the assembly is a phrased array (read as electronically phase steering of dipole antenna elements, see claim 1 above with par [0055] and [0060] of Frazita) but does not specifically disclose the phased array comprising one of a passive phased array, an active electronically scanned array, a hybrid beam forming phased array, or a digital beam forming array.
Nonetheless, Frazita further discloses passive space-fed planar phased array antenna, par [0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Frazita into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to configure the steered dipole array using Frazita’s passive space-fed phase array antenna design, in order to reduce RF path dissipation and improve antenna efficiency (see par [0056] and [0060] of Frazita).
Claims 33, 34, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boryssenko et al. (US 20150162665 A1) in view of Frazita et al. (US 20020167449 A1), and in further view of Hollenbeck et al. (US 20190190111 A1).
Consider claim 33, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose a plurality of waveguide combiners; and a chassis; wherein each of the first radiating element, the second radiating element, the plurality of waveguide combiners, and the chassis is manufactured by metal additive manufacturing techniques as a single metal element.
Nonetheless, Hollenbeck discloses an integrated metal antenna array structure comprising integrated antenna array 300 containing multiple radiating elements 305 and 310, waveguide combiners 360a-360d connected to waveguides and integrated circuit card chassis 335; the combiners and their waveguide connections correspond to waveguide combiners; the structure of array 300 are integrally formed as one individual metal element using additive manufacturing, including powder-bed fusion or selective laser melting, figures 3A-3B, par [0075] and [0078]-[0080].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hollenbeck into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to form Boryssenko’s dipole array radiating elements together with Hollenbeck’s waveguide combiner and chassis structures using Hollenbeck’s single-piece metal additive manufacturing design, in order to eliminate the interfaces and seams of a multi-piece assembly and reduce associated part count (see par [0004]-[0005] of Boryssenko, par [0078]-[0080] of Hollenbeck).
Consider claim 34, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the first radiating element is one of a first plurality of radiating elements in a first row; wherein the second radiating element is one of a second plurality of radiating elements in a second row (read as four-by-four two dimensional array 200 of repeated antennas 100; figure 2 places those antennas in multiple linear rows; a first selected antenna 100 is one of the radiating elements in first row, and a second selected antenna 100 is one of the radiating elements in separate second row, figure 2, par [0018]) but does not specifically disclose wherein electromagnetic energy received or transmitted by each of the first plurality of radiating elements in the first row is combined to a single first point; and wherein electromagnetic energy received or transmitted by each of the second plurality of radiating elements in the second row is combined to a single second point.
Nonetheless, Hollenbeck discloses four repeated one-by-four linear radiating groups 300a-300d, each having its own combiner and output ports; labeling/treating each linear radiating group column as a row, linear group 300a would be selected as first row, and linear group 300b as second row; for one selected polarization path, the electromagnetic energy received by all four radiating elements horns of each selected row is provided to that row’s single output, producing a single first point for first row and a separate single second point for the second row; the single flow is reversible for transmission or reception, figures 2A-2B and 3A-3B, par [0069]-[0075] and [0080]-[0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hollenbeck into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to form Boryssenko’s array with first and second rows using Hollenbeck’s respective linear group combiner topology, in order to provide one combined signal point for each row and simplify row-level single routing (see par [0069]-[0071] and [0080] of Hollenbeck).
Consider claim 41, as applied to claim 25 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein the first radiating element is one of a first plurality of radiating elements; and wherein the second radiating element is one of a second plurality of radiating elements (read as array 800 with a first combination of dipoles oriented like arms 50 and 52 and fed in polarization 1, and a second repeated combination of orthogonally oriented dipoles formed like arms 54 and 56 and fed in polarization 2; a selected member of the first combination is the first radiating element, and a selected member of the second combination is the second radiating element, figures 8a-8c, par [0021]) but does not specifically disclose wherein the first radiating element is in electromagnetic communication with a first waveguide transition device, and wherein the second radiating element is in electromagnetic communication with a second waveguide transition device.
Nonetheless, Hollenbeck discloses four separate reduced heigh waveguides 230a-230d, each serving as the transition element for its respective radiating element horn 215a-215d; selecting waveguide 230a and horn 215a provides a first electromagnetic radiator transition path, while selecting waveguide 230b and horn 215b provides a separate second path; each path operate for transmission or reception, figures 2A-2B, par [0073]-[0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hollenbeck into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to form Boryssenko’s first and second dipole feeds using Hollenbeck’s respective waveguide transition paths, in order to route electromagnetic energy correctly and independently between each selected radiating element and its corresponding feed network (see par [0073]-[0074]).
Consider claim 42, as applied to claim 41 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita and Hollenbeck, discloses wherein the first radiating element is a nearest-neighbor to the second radiating element within the array; and wherein the first plurality of radiating elements is orthogonal to the second plurality of radiating elements (read as array 800 having a first plurality of dipoles oriented like arms 50 and 52 and an orthogonal second plurality oriented like arms 54 and 56; figures 8a-8c shows one first orientation dipole and one second orientation dipole as offset orthogonal elements within the same dual polarized unit cell; selecting these same cell and spatially adjacent elements correspond to nearest-neighbor pair, while the two repeated orientation combinations are orthogonal, figures 8a-8c, par [0021]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boryssenko et al. (US 20150162665 A1) in view of Frazita et al. (US 20020167449 A1), and in further view of Crouch (US 20120025928 A1).
Consider claim 38, as applied to claim 27 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses wherein each of the first radiating element and the second radiating element comprises a plurality of signal ears, and wherein each of the plurality of signal ears is in communication with a feed (read as each selected dipole radiator comprises two separately feed look-like metal parts, which corresponds to the plurality of signal ears; each part begins at its own feed point, and the differential feed transforms a pair of 50 ohm single-ended feeds below the ground plane, figures 1a-1c, figures [0005]-[0006] and [0017]) but does not specifically disclose wherein each signal ears is in communication with a coaxial waveguide of a waveguide transition device.
Nonetheless, Crouch discloses coaxial-to-waveguide transition device having any required number N of separate dual conductor coaxial input and output ports; each port includes an inner conductor and an outer conductor and transfers electromagnetic energy through the matching plate into the common waveguide; each dual conductor coaxial transmission line path corresponds to a coaxial waveguide of transmission device, figures 1a-1c, par [0022]-[0023], [0030] and [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Crouch into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to configure Boryssenko’s separately fed single ear structure by connecting each ear feed to respective dual conductor coaxial port of Crouch, in order to transfer the separate ear signals through a common waveguide interface while limiting reflected power (see par [0022]-[0024], [0032] and [0036] of Crouch).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boryssenko et al. (US 20150162665 A1) in view of Frazita et al. (US 20020167449 A1), and in further view of Hollenbeck et al. (US 20200194860 A1) (hereinafter Hollenbeck ‘860).
Consider claim 43, as applied to claim 25 above, Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, discloses the claimed invention above but does not specifically disclose wherein the assembly is constructed as a single piece of metal by metal additive manufacturing such that the assembly is built in a positive z-axis direction relative to a build plate.
Nonetheless, Hollenbeck ‘860 discloses single part positive z printing process, comprising metal additive manufacturing of an integrated structure as a single part formed from successive metal layers; the first layer is deposited on a metal build plate, and the structure grows from that plate in the positive z-axis direction, par [0039] and [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hollenbeck ‘860 into the teachings of Boryssenko, as modified by Frazita, to configure Boryssenko’s metal antenna assembly using Hollenbeck ‘860’s single part positive z printing process, in order to build the metal antenna assembly RF structure from supported successive layers and reduce unsupported overhangs (see par [0038] and [0042] of Hollenbeck ‘860).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-32 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights