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 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(s) 1-5, 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofer et al. (5,191,351).
Claim 1, Hofer discloses a method of manufacture of a mobile communicator to communicate from an aircraft to one or more satellites or base stations (Figs. 3a-3b, 5a-5b, and 6 and see col. 2, line 65- col. 3, line 20), the method comprising:
obtaining information defining a desired shape and size of an antenna array to comprise one or more antenna elements, the desired shape and size of the antenna array being defined based on dimensions of a radome structure to receive the antenna array (see Figs. 5a-5b, 6 and col. 8, lines 27-68,… Selecting a specific configuration for the antenna structure, and in particular the specific leading edge profile, is a design choice that depends on the leading edge geometry and its operating environment (such as in the leading, edge of an aircraft wing)….),
the radome structure including a radome shell (122 of 120, Fig. 6 and col. 11, lines 24-34, …the radome shell 120…) having a non-flat geometry relative to a substrate (116, Fig. 6 and see col. 12, lines 1-6,… antenna substrate may be fabricated from a conventional semi-rigid dielectric material such as fiberglass…) to receive the radome structure, and
the desired shape and size of the antenna array being defined to minimize a gap between the antenna array and the radome shell via the antenna array being contoured according to the non-flat radome shell, such that the antenna array exhibits the non-flat geometry relative to the substrate (see Figs. 5a-5b, 6, and col. 8, lines 27-68,… Selecting a specific configuration for the antenna structure, and in particular the specific leading edge profile, is a design choice that depends on the leading edge geometry and its operating environment….); and
forming the antenna array comprising the one or more antenna elements formed according to the desired shape and size (see col. 11, lines 16-23,… The leading edge geometry of the radome is dictated by aerodynamic and structural considerations, which in turn determine the leading edge geometry for the integral folded antenna structure, as illustrated in FIG. 6…).
Claim 2, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate is one of a fuselage, wing, or vertical stabilizer of an aircraft (see, col. 8, lines 27-68,… Selecting a specific configuration for the antenna structure, and in particular the specific leading edge profile, is a design choice that depends on the leading edge geometry and its operating environment (such as in the leading, edge of an aircraft wing)….).
Claim 3, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the antenna array comprises configuring the antenna array to operate in one or more frequency bands including at least one of a L1 band, an L2 band, a Ku band, a Ka band, or a V band (see Figs. 4a-4i and see col. 8, lines 4-14,…antenna gain for minimum and maximum polarization response over the frequency range 2-18 GHz…).
Claim 4, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the antenna array comprises configuring the antenna array to operate in one or more frequency bands including at least one of (i) 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz or (ii) 1,980-1,995 MHz and 2,170-2,185 MHz (see Fig. 4i and see col. 8, lines 4-14,…antenna gain for minimum and maximum polarization response over the frequency range 2-18 GHz…).
Claim 5, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the formed antenna array is configured to operate as an electronically steered antenna (see col. 2, lines 32-34,… a broadband symmetrical antenna structure for Direction Finding and most other applications…).
Claim 9, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising installing the antenna array to the radome structure by placing the antenna array (antenna 112, Fig. 6) between first (114, Fig. 6) and second structural layers (layer 116 or any layer of absorber 118, Fig. 6) of the radome structure.
Claim 11, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising installing the antenna array to the radome structure by placing the antenna array proximate to the radome shell (see Fig. 6, the radome structure 120 is very close closed to the antenna array 112).
Claim 12, Hofer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising filling the gap between the antenna array and the radome shell with a dielectric filler material (114, Fig. 16 is a dielectric filler material; see col. 11, line 35-41,…an antenna substrate 114…. And see col. 12, lines 1-3,… antenna substrate may be fabricated from a conventional semi-rigid dielectric material such as fiberglass…).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer et al. (5,191,351).
Hofer discloses the gap (thickness of dielectric filler 114) between each respective point of the antenna array (antenna 112, Fig. 6) and closest respective points of the radome shell (structure 122, Fig. 6). Therefore, Hofer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the gap is defined by a distance of no greater than 1.4 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the gap is defined by a distance of no greater than 1.4 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sclafani (US 2018/0331424) in view of Hirata et al. (5,392,053).
Claim 1, Sclafini discloses a method of manufacture of a mobile communicator to communicate from an aircraft (radome 102 and antenna inside the radome, Fig. 1) to one or more satellites or base stations, the method comprising:
obtaining information defining a desired shape and size of an antenna array to comprise one or more antenna elements (antennas 402, 404, Figs. 4, 5) the desired shape and size of the antenna array being defined based on dimensions of a radome structure to receive the antenna array (see P[0025]… the size, shape and location of the radome 102 are configured relative to the size, shape and location of the aircraft 100 and/or the antennas of the aircraft 100 based on multiple engineering disciplines and/or design considerations…),
the radome structure including a radome shell (outer mold 304, Fig. 5) having a non-flat geometry relative to a substrate (bottom of the radome 102, Fig. 5 and see P[0034]… a fuselage of an aircraft (e.g., the fuselage 104 of the aircraft 100 of FIG. 1)…) to receive the radome structure, and the desired shape and size of the antenna array being defined to minimize a gap between the antenna array and the radome shell via the antenna array according to the non-flat radome shell; and forming the antenna array comprising the one or more antenna elements formed according to the desired shape and size (see P[0037]… the size and shape (e.g., the outer mold line 304) of the radome 102 are configured, based on the sizes, shapes and locations of the forward antenna 402, the aft antenna 404, and the structural attachment lugs 506 to reduce the footprint of the radome 102 while also satisfying skin thickness requirements, antenna-to-radome gap requirements…).
Thus, Sclafani discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose the antenna array being contoured according to the non-flat radome shell, such that the antenna array exhibits the non-flat geometry relative to the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Hirata discloses the antenna array (antenna 34, Fig. 1) being contoured according to the non-flat radome shell (shell 36, Fig. 1), such that the antenna array exhibits the non-flat geometry relative to the substrate (substrate 33 or 37, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to combine the teaching of the antenna array and the substrate contoured to the non-flat radome shell according to Hirata with the method of manufacture of a mobile communicator of Sclafani to form the claimed invention in order to minimize the total height of the antenna because since the overall configuration of the array antenna including the radome is curved so as to coincide with the surface configuration of the airplane body or the like.
Claim 2, Sclafini discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate is one of a fuselage (see P[0034]… The structural attachment lugs 506 may attach (e.g., directly or indirectly) one or more portions of the radome 102 to a fuselage of an aircraft (e.g., the fuselage 104 of the aircraft 100 of FIG. 1)…), wing, or vertical stabilizer of an aircraft.
Claim 6, Sclafani and Hirata disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the formed antenna array is configured to operate as a phased-array antenna (see Hirata: col. 5, lines 60-68,… a microstrip phased array antenna…).
Claim 7, Sclafani and Hirata disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the formed antenna array comprises: a first layer of conducting flexible textiles (see Figs. 1 and 6 of Hirata: antenna elements of the antenna includes a radiation patch 116); a second layer of non-conducting flexible textiles acting as a dielectric substrate (dielectric material 115), and a third layer of conducting flexible textiles acting as a ground plane (grounding plate 117).
Claim 8, Sclafani and Hirata disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the first layer further comprises one or more electrical components (power supply point 122 and 123, Fig. 6 of Hirata) providing an electrical feed to the one or more antenna elements.
Claim 12, Sclafani and Hirata disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising filling the gap (the space which included the honeycomb material 45 between the shell 36 and array antenna 34, see Fig. 1 of Hirata) between the antenna array (antenna 34, Fig. 1 of Hirata) and the radome shell (shell 36, Fig. 1 of Hirata) with a dielectric filler material (col. 3, lines 66-68,….honeycomb material 45, which is made of paper, has a dielectric constant of about 1 (corresponding to air)…).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13, and 15 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 ANH Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/ANH Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 8/21/26
Prosecution Insights