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 Objections
Claims 1-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 6-7): “the planar array” should be amended to “the first planar array”;
Claim 3 (line 1): “the PCB” should be amended to “the at least one PCB”;
Claim 11 (line 4): “having disposed thereon, a first planar array” should be amended to “having disposed thereon a first planar array”.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-20 are included in the objections because of their dependence on respective objected claims.
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 16-17 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.
Claim 16 recites: “The antenna of Claim 15, wherein the second antenna elements are disposed on a second PCB.” However, claim 15 recites: “a second planar array of second antenna elements disposed on the first PCB”. Therefore, due to claim 16 dependence on claim 15, it is not clear how the second antenna elements are disposed simultaneously on the first and the second PCB.
Claim 17 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 16 and is subsequently rejected, as well.
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 1-4, 8, 10, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 202585724 U, hereinafter Liu) in view of Rebeiz et al. (US 20050219126 A1, hereinafter Rebeiz).
Regarding claim 1, Liu (Figs. 1-3 and 8-9) discloses an omni-directional horizontally polarized antenna comprising:
a first reflector (4 – Figs. 1-3; [0036] in Liu-English translation discloses metal plate 4, which is inherently a reflector of electromagnetic waves) and an antenna base plate (9 – Figs. 1-3) separated from the first reflector;
disposed between the first reflector (4 – Figs. 1-3) and the antenna base plate (9 – Figs. 1-3):
a first planar array (7 – Fig. 8) of radially directed horizontally polarized antenna elements (70 – Fig. 8; the antenna elements 70 are horizontally polarized dipoles); and
a planar feed network (8 – Fig. 9) configured to feed the antenna elements of the planar array; and
a coaxial feed structure (second coaxial cable – see [0039] in Liu-English translation) configured to communicate electrical signals to or from the feed network.
Liu does not explicitly teach a second reflector separated from the first reflector.
Rebeiz (Figs. 11a, b) teaches a horizontally polarized antenna (10.1) comprising:
a first reflector (64 – bottom) and a second reflector (64 – top) separated from the first reflector;
disposed between the first and second reflectors:
a planar array of radially directed horizontally polarized antenna elements (16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by replacing the antenna base plate (9) with a second reflector as taught by Rebeiz. This modification would increase the antenna gain and reduce the antenna sidelobe level (see Rebeiz, [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
Liu (Figs. 8-9) further teaches the first planar array (7 – Fig. 8) and the planar feed network (8 – Fig. 9) are on parallel sides of at least one printed circuit board (6 – Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 2 as addressed above.
Liu (Figs. 1-3) further teaches the PCB (6) is supported by the first reflector (4; the PCB is supported by the first reflector by the virtue of the supporting columns 5 – see [0041] in Liu-English translation).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Liu ([0040] in Liu-English translation), by the virtue of the modification according to the teachings of Rebeiz, further teaches a center conductor (inherent) of the coaxial feed structure (the second coaxial cable) passes through an opening (inherent) in the second reflector (the antenna base plate 9, which is being replaced by a second reflector according to the modification per claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein at least one of the first and second reflectors exhibit curvature.
Rebeiz (Fig. 11b) teaches the first and second reflectors are angled. Further, the Specification of the current invention ([0043]) discloses: “FIG. 6 is an example embodiment with an angled top reflector 28 and an angled bottom reflector 30. The reflectors could also be curved to shape the radiation pattern as desired.” It is well known in the art that surfaces of an antenna reflector(s) can be curved (e.g., gain horn antennas, Vivaldi antennas) in order to provide the desired antenna matching and gain over a wide frequency range of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu so that at least one of the first and second reflectors exhibit curvature. This modification would provide the benefits for the antenna listed above.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
Liu (Fig. 8) further teaches the radially directed antenna elements (70) form a circle ([0038] in Liu-English translation discloses that the antenna elements 70 are symmetrically arrayed in circular form).
Regarding claim 11, Liu (Figs. 1-3 and 8-9) discloses an omni-directional horizontally polarized antenna comprising:
a first reflector (4 – Figs. 1-3; [0036] in Liu-English translation discloses metal plate 4, which is inherently a reflector of electromagnetic waves) and an antenna base plate (9 – Figs. 1-3) separated from the first reflector;
disposed between the first reflector (4 – Figs. 1-3) and the antenna base plate (9 – Figs. 1-3):
a first printed circuit board (PCB) (6) having disposed thereon, a first planar array (7 – Fig. 8) of horizontally polarized first antenna elements (70 – Fig. 8; the antenna elements 70 are horizontally polarized dipoles);
a first planar feed network (8 – Fig. 9) configured to feed the first antenna elements; and
a coaxial feed structure (second coaxial cable – see [0039] in Liu-English translation) configured to communicate electrical signals to or from the feed network.
Liu does not explicitly teach a second reflector separated from the first reflector.
Rebeiz (Figs. 11a, b) teaches a horizontally polarized antenna (10.1) comprising:
a first reflector (64 – bottom) and a second reflector (64 – top) separated from the first reflector;
disposed between the first and second reflectors:
a planar array of horizontally polarized antenna elements (16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by replacing the antenna base plate (9) with a second reflector as taught by Rebeiz. This modification would increase the antenna gain and reduce the antenna sidelobe level (see Rebeiz, [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
Liu (Figs. 8-9) further teaches the first planar array (7 – Fig. 8) and the first planar feed network (8 – Fig. 9) are on opposite sides of the first PCB (6).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 12 as addressed above.
Liu (Figs. 1-3) further teaches the first PCB (6) is supported by a structure (plurality of supporting columns 5) that supports the first reflector (4; see [0041] in Liu-English translation).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Liu ([0040] in Liu-English translation), by the virtue of the modification according to the teachings of Rebeiz, further teaches a center conductor (inherent) of the coaxial feed structure (the second coaxial cable) passes through an opening (inherent) in the second reflector (the antenna base plate 9, which is being replaced by a second reflector according to the modification per claim 1) to a feed point (inherent) of the first planar feed network (8 – Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
Liu (Fig. 8) further teaches the first antenna elements (70) are radially directed.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over thew modified Liu as applied to claim 1 in view of Hulderman (US 5583511 A).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach a second planar array of antenna elements parallel to the first planar array of antenna elements.
Hulderman (Fig. 3) teaches a second planar array of antenna elements (array of antenna elements 54) parallel to a first planar array of antenna elements (array of antenna elements 15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by adding a second planar array of antenna elements parallel to the first planar array of antenna elements as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide an antenna structure that integrate a transmit antenna and a receive antenna into a single aperture (see Hulderman, col. 4, lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 5 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach the limitation wherein the planar feed network is disposed between the first and second planar arrays of antenna elements.
Hulderman (Fig. 3) teaches a planar feed network (20) is disposed between the first and second planar arrays of antenna elements (array of antenna elements 16 and array of antenna elements 54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu so that the planar feed network is disposed between the first and second planar arrays of antenna elements as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide an antenna structure that integrate a transmit antenna and a receive antenna into a single aperture (see Hulderman, col. 4, lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach at least one dielectric lens disposed between the first and second reflectors.
Hulderman (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna (10) comprising a planar array of antenna elements (array of antenna elements 15) and a lens (18), which is disposed perpendicularly to the side of the planar array. The examiner notes, that the lens in Hulderman is positioned and oriented relative to the array of antenna elements in essentially the same way as the lens (26) in Fig. 5 of the Drawings of the current disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu so that at least one dielectric lens disposed between the first and second reflectors as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide means for projecting energy beams produced by the antenna – i.e., focusing the energy of the electromagnetic waves radiated by the antenna in a desired direction (see Hulderman, Abstract).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over thew modified Liu as applied to claim 11 in view of Hulderman (cited above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach a second PCB having disposed thereon the first planar feed network.
Hulderman (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna (10) comprising a planar array of antenna elements (array of antenna elements 15) and a second PCB (26) having disposed thereon a planar feed network (25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by adding a second PCB having disposed thereon the first planar feed network as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide a feed network that couples energy to the first antenna elements (see Hulderman, col. 2, lines 38-46).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach at least one dielectric lens disposed between the first and second reflectors.
Hulderman (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna (10) comprising a planar array of antenna elements (array of antenna elements 15) and a lens (18), which is disposed perpendicularly to the side of the planar array. The examiner notes, that the lens in Hulderman is positioned and oriented relative to the array of antenna elements in essentially the same way as the lens (26) in Fig. 5 of the Drawings of the current disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu so that at least one dielectric lens disposed between the first and second reflectors as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide means for projecting energy beams produced by the antenna – i.e., focusing the energy of the electromagnetic waves radiated by the antenna in a desired direction (see Hulderman, Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over thew modified Liu as applied to claim 1 in view of Gao et al. (US 9209526 B2, hereinafter Gao).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
Liu (Figs. 1-3 and 9) further teaches a spacer (5) disposed between the feed network (the feed network 8 in Fig. 9 is disposed on the PCB 6 in Figs. 1-3) and the first reflector (4 – Figs. 1-3).
Liu does not explicitly teach that the spacer is a dielectric spacer.
Gao (Fig. 2a) teaches a dielectric spacer (40; Gao, col. 4, lines 54-56, discloses the supporting pillar 40 is made of an insulation material) between a planar array of radially directed horizontally polarized antenna elements (30) and a mounting substrate (10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu so that the spacer in Liu is a dielectric spacer as taught by Gao. This modification would provide means for supporting the feed network at the desired distances from the first and second reflectors. In addition, due to the spacer being dielectric, unwanted interference (e.g., nulls in the radiation pattern) with the antenna elements would be eliminated.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over thew modified Liu as applied to claim 11 in view of Leng et al. (US 10873130 B2, hereinafter Leng).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach a second planar array of second antenna elements disposed on the first PCB and a second planar feed network configured to feed the second planar array of second antenna elements.
Leng (Figs. 1-2) teaches an antenna comprising a first (11) and a second (12) planar arrays of antenna elements (20) disposed on the same (first) PCB. Although Leng does not explicitly teach a second planar feed network configured to feed the second planar array of second antenna elements, it is well-known in the art that planar arrays of antenna elements are inherently fed by planar feed networks.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by adding a second planar array of second antenna elements disposed on the first PCB and a second planar feed network configured to feed the second planar array of second antenna elements as taught by Leng. This modification would provide an antenna having a beam radiated by the first array that covers the first half space and a beam radiated by the second array that covers the second half space (see Leng, col. 2, lines 61-67, and col. 3, lines 1-10).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over thew modified Liu as applied to claim 15 in view of Hulderman (cited above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 15 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach the second antenna elements are disposed on a second PCB.
Hulderman (Fig. 3) teaches second antenna elements (54) are disposed on a second PCB (53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu so that the second antenna elements are disposed on a second PCB as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide an antenna structure that integrate a transmit antenna and a receive antenna into a single aperture (see Hulderman, col. 4, lines 35-39).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Liu teaches the antenna of claim 16 as addressed above.
The modified Liu does not teach a third PCB, the third PCB having disposed thereon the first and second planar feed networks.
Hulderman (Figs. 1 and 3) teaches a third PCB (26 in Fig. 1 of the power distribution network 20), the third PCB having disposed thereon the first (26 in Fig. 1) and second planar feed networks (Hulderman, col. 4, lines 33-40, discloses in regards with Fig. 3 that the metal backplate 21 in the power distribution network 20 is removed; one skilled in the art would recognize that due to this modification the power distribution network is used to feed both the first antenna elements 15 and the second antenna elements 54, and, therefore, the power distribution network 20 includes a second planar feed network configured to feed the second planar array of second antenna elements 54).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by adding a third PCB, the third PCB having disposed thereon the first and second planar feed networks as taught by Hulderman. This modification would provide an antenna structure that integrate a transmit antenna and a receive antenna into a single aperture (see Hulderman, col. 4, lines 35-39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights