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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification recites the term “redome” throughout, and it is unclear if it is a minor oversight and that “radome” was intended, however, it will be treated as a radome for the purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 & 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 & 5 recite the term “redome”, and it is unclear if it is a minor oversight and that “radome” was intended. For the purposes of examination, it will be treated as a radome. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama et al. JP Patent Publication JP2009049608A (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 10, Maruyama et al. teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a first transmission antenna (X1 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0007) configured to transmit, using first polarization, a radio wave having a directivity in a first direction (Par. 0009-0012); and
a second transmission antenna (X2 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0007) configured to transmit, using second polarization, a radio wave having a directivity in a second direction different from the first direction (Par. 0009-0012), wherein
the first transmission antenna transmits a signal in the first polarization direction by means of a first feeding layout (“by changing the position of the energization point of the patch array antenna 2122 and the arrangement of the patch array antenna 2122, the antenna elements 11 to 14 can be configured such that the polarization direction is different for each of the longitudinal directions of the different directivity ranged” Par. 0013), and
the second transmission antenna transmits a signal in the second polarization direction by means of a second feeding layout (“by changing the position of the energization point of the patch array antenna 2122 and the arrangement of the patch array antenna 2122, the antenna elements 11 to 14 can be configured such that the polarization direction is different for each of the longitudinal directions of the different directivity ranged” Par. 0013).
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 1-3, 6-9, 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. JP Patent Publication JP2009049608A (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Maruyama et al. teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a first reception antenna (X1 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0007) having a directivity in a first direction (Par. 0009-0012); and
a second reception antenna (X2 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0007) having a directivity in a second direction different from the first direction (Par. 0009-0012).
Maruyama et al. is silent on wherein as a polarization direction of a radio wave received by the first reception antenna becomes closer to a first polarization direction, a gain of reception by the first reception antenna becomes greater, and as a polarization direction of a radio wave received by the second reception antenna becomes closer to a second polarization direction different from the first polarization direction, a gain of reception by the second reception antenna becomes greater.
However, Maruyama et al. teaches adjusting the polarization direction to obtain the optimum performance (Par. 0009, 0011-0013).
In this particular case, configuring the polarization directions of the radio waves of the first and second antennas to maximize the gain is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Maruyama et al. to obtain the best performance.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the polarization directions of the radio waves of the first and second antennas so that a gain of reception by the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna become greater based on the teachings of Maruyama et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the best antenna performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the gain of reception by the first reception antenna is maximized when the radio wave received by the first reception antenna is polarized in the first polarization direction (Fig. 2 as modified above), and the gain of reception by the second reception antenna is maximized when the radio wave received by the second reception antenna is polarized in the second polarization direction (Fig. 2 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 3, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the first reception antenna is power-fed from a feeding point on a substrate, and the second reception antenna is power-fed from the feeding point (power feed / control switch 15, 25 Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0009, 0011, 0015).
Regarding Claim 6, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein at least one of polarization in the first polarization direction or polarization in the second polarization direction is any of linear polarization, elliptical polarization, and circular polarization (Fig. 4 Par. 0006, 0010).
Regarding Claim 7, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna include patch antennas (patch array antenna Fig. 2 Par. 0013), the patch antenna of the first reception antenna is power-fed in a horizontal direction (Fig. 2), and the patch antenna of the second reception antenna is power-fed in a vertical direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the first direction of the directivity of the first reception antenna is a substantially horizontal direction (Fig. 2), and the second direction of the directivity of the second reception antenna is a direction that contains a vertically down direction component with respect to a horizontal direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna receive signals having a same frequency (implicit from MIMO Par. 0007).
Regarding Claim 11, Maruyama et al. teaches a transmitting-and-receiving system (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a transmitter including transmission antennas (X1 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0007); and
a receiver including reception antennas (X2 Figs. 1-3 Par. 0007),
the transmitter including
a first transmission antenna configured to transmit (Figs. 1-3), using first polarization, a radio wave having a directivity in a first direction (Par. 0009-0012), and
a second transmission antenna configured to transmit, using second polarization (Figs. 1-3), a radio wave having a directivity in a second direction different from the first direction (Par. 0009-0012),
the receiver including
a first reception antenna having a directivity in the first direction (Figs. 1-3 Par. 0009-0012), and
a second reception antenna having a directivity in the second direction (Figs. 1-3 Par. 0009-0012).
Maruyama et al. is silent on wherein as a polarization direction of a radio wave received by the first reception antenna becomes closer to a first polarization direction, a gain of reception by the first reception antenna becomes greater, and as a polarization direction of a radio wave received by the second reception antenna becomes closer to a second polarization direction different from the first polarization direction, a gain of reception by the second reception antenna becomes greater.
However, Maruyama et al. teaches adjusting the polarization direction to obtain the optimum performance (Par. 0009, 0011-0013).
In this particular case, configuring the polarization directions of the radio waves of the first and second antennas to maximize the gain is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Maruyama et al. to obtain the best performance.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the polarization directions of the radio waves of the first and second antennas so that a gain of reception by the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna become greater based on the teachings of Maruyama et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the best antenna performance.
Regarding Claim 12, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna are capable of receiving the radio waves simultaneously (implicit from simultaneously feeding and MIMO Par. 0006, 0007).
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. JP Patent Publication JP2009049608A (cited by applicant) and Matsuzawa et al. US Patent 9,110,162 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 4, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Maruyama et al. is silent on further comprising: a radome covering the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna, wherein the radome has a shape that reduces radio wave passing loss in the first direction and the second direction.
However, Matsuzawa et al. teaches a radome (1 Fig. 1 Col. 4 L. 14) covering the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna (21a, 21b Fig. 1 Col. 4 L. 16), wherein the radome has a shape that reduces radio wave passing loss in the first direction and the second direction (Col. 4 L. 14-44).
In this particular case, providing antennas with a radome that reduces radio wave passing loss in the first direction and the second direction is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Matsuzawa et al. to provide the antennas with a protective cover without distorting the antenna directivity (Col. 1 L 34- Col. 2 L 62).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first and second reception antennas of Maruyama et al. with a radome has a shape that reduces radio wave passing loss in the first direction and the second direction based on the teachings of Matsuzawa et al. as a result effect in order to provide the antennas with a protective cover without distorting the antenna directivity.
Regarding Claim 5, Maruyama et al. as modified teaches wherein the radome has a shape satisfying that a distance from at least one of the first reception antenna or the second reception antenna to the radome is λ/2 and that a thickness of the radome is λ/2·(εr)^(-0.5), where λ denotes a wavelength of a reception signal received by the at least one of the first reception antenna and the second reception antenna, ε denotes a dielectric constant of the radome, and εr denotes a relative dielectric constant (ε/ε0) that is a ratio of the dielectric constant ε in a medium in which an electromagnetic wave exists to a dielectric constant ε0 in a vacuum (Matsuzawa et al. Col. 4 L. 29-44 as modified above).
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights