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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 5-6 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 5 recites the limitation “less than or equal to the spacing between antenna elements” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what spacing between antenna elements is being refereed to here. Claim 1 previously recited a spacing between adjacent antenna elements but this spacing seems to be between antenna elements in general as such it would be unclear as to whether this includes spacing between adjacent elements or spacing between non-adjacent elements. For the purposes of examination, the examiner as best understood, will interpret the limitation to mean “less than or equal to the spacing between antenna adjacent elements” to bring the claim more in line with what is taught in the specifications and drawings.
Claim 5 and 6 recite the limitation “the antenna element” which renders the claims indefinite. Claim 1 previously recites multiple antenna elements but never claimed a singular antenna element as such it is unclear whether this element is supposed to be a new antenna element different from the M group or if it supposed to be one of the antennas of the M group. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claims to mean “an antenna element of the Mn antenna elements”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shapoury et al. discloses an antenna array (Multi-mode phased array antenna as seen in figure 1 and 3 of Shapoury et al.), comprising:
N subarrays, wherein the nth subarray comprises Mn antenna elements, N is an integer greater than 1, a value of n is an integer ranging from 1 to N, Mn is a positive integer, and a quantity of antenna elements in at least one of the N subarrays is greater than 1 (A plurality of radiating elements 102 can be arranged in a row in the first Y-direction and multiple rows can each serve as a sub-array wherein said sub-arrays are arranged in a second X-direction and there are more than 1 Sub-arrays; Paragraph 27-45 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.);
when Mn is greater than 1, the Mn antenna elements are arranged in a first direction, a spacing between adjacent antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements is less than or equal to 1/2λ, and λ is an operating wavelength of the antenna array (Each row of radiating elements in the first Y-direction comprise more than 1 element wherein said spacing d between elements may be a half wavelength or even a quarter wavelength; Paragraph 29 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.); and
the N subarrays are arranged in a second direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction; or N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, and N2 subarrays are arranged in a third direction, wherein N1 and N2 are both positive integers, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the second direction is perpendicular to the third direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the third direction (N sub-arrays in the form of antenna element rows are arranged in the second X-direction which is perpendicular to the first Y-direction and the antenna array can be designed to be a 3-D array; Paragraph 27 and figure 3 of Shapoury et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
685
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein the first direction is a beam direction of the subarray (Radiating elements 102 can be designed to be an isotropic radiator with beam direction in the X-Y plane which would mean beam radiation in the first Y-direction and radiation can also have sidelobes in the Y-direction in different embodiments; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 5a of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein at least one spacing between adjacent antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements is less than or equal to 1/4λ (Each row of radiating elements in the first Y-direction comprise more than 1 element wherein said spacing d between elements may be a half wavelength or even a quarter wavelength; Paragraph 29 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein each antenna element is connected to an amplitude adjustment unit and a phase adjustment unit, the amplitude adjustment unit is configured to adjust an amplitude of an excitation signal of the corresponding antenna element based on a weight, and the phase adjustment unit is configured to adjust a phase of an excitation signal of the corresponding antenna element based on a weight (Each of the radiating elements 102 is connected to a phase shifter 120 and an attenuator 122, that can be configured to adjust the phase and the amplitude based on a weights ω with specific weight examples for the phase and amplitude given in table A; Paragraph 2, 27 and 47-74 as well as figure 1-3 and Table A of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein beamforming used between subarrays comprises at least one of the following: digital beamforming and analog beamforming (Antenna array 100 utilizes phase shifters 120 and Amplitude shifters 122 to control the beam to enable beamforming wherein weights can be applied by components thus at least constituting analog beamforming; Paragraph of 47-74 of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Shapoury et al. discloses an active antenna unit (Multi-mode phased array antenna which would be an active antenna unit as seen in figure 1 and 3 of Shapoury et al.), comprising an antenna array, wherein the antenna array, comprising:
N subarrays, wherein the nth subarray comprises Mn antenna elements, N is an integer greater than 1, a value of n is an integer ranging from 1 to N, Mn is a positive integer, and a quantity of antenna elements in at least one of the N subarrays is greater than 1 (A plurality of radiating elements 102 can be arranged in a row in the first Y-direction and multiple rows can each serve as a sub-array wherein said sub-arrays are arranged in a second X-direction and there are more than 1 Sub-arrays; Paragraph 27-45 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.);
when Mn is greater than 1, the Mn antenna elements are arranged in a first direction, a spacing between adjacent antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements is less than or equal to 1/2λ, and λ is an operating wavelength of the antenna array (Each row of radiating elements in the first Y-direction comprise more than 1 element wherein said spacing d between elements may be a half wavelength or even a quarter wavelength; Paragraph 29 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.); and
the N subarrays are arranged in a second direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction; or N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, and N2 subarrays are arranged in a third direction, wherein N1 and N2 are both positive integers, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the second direction is perpendicular to the third direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the third direction (N sub-arrays in the form of antenna element rows are arranged in the second X-direction which is perpendicular to the first Y-direction and the antenna array can be designed to be a 3-D array; Paragraph 27 and figure 3 of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein the first direction is a beam direction of the subarray (Radiating elements 102 can be designed to be an isotropic radiator with beam direction in the X-Y plane which would mean beam radiation in the first Y-direction and radiation can also have sidelobes in the Y-direction in different embodiments; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 5a of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein at least one spacing between adjacent antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements is less than or equal to 1/4λ (Each row of radiating elements in the first Y-direction comprise more than 1 element wherein said spacing d between elements may be a half wavelength or even a quarter wavelength; Paragraph 29 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.).
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) 2, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1) in view of Kasturi et al. (US 20220416438 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Shapoury et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 .
However, Kasturi et al. does disclose wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 (Antenna array like access point 100 include radiating elements 100 arranged in rows in a first Y-direction wherein the rows form sub-arrays wherein the sub-arrays of the front side 104 are arranged in a second X-direction and sub-arrays of a back 104 are arranged in a third -Z-direction wherein said direction are perpendicular to each other; Paragraph 22-28 and figure 1 of Kasturi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 as taught by Kasturi et al. to provide the desired coverage (Paragraph 24 of Kasturi et al.) and since the array of Shapoury et al. may be designed to be a three-dimensional array (Paragraph 27 of Shapoury et al.).
PNG
media_image3.png
659
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Shapoury et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 .
However, Kasturi et al. does disclose wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 (Antenna array like access point 100 include radiating elements 100 arranged in rows in a first Y-direction wherein the rows form sub-arrays wherein the sub-arrays of the front side 104 are arranged in a second X-direction and sub-arrays of a back 104 are arranged in a third -Z-direction wherein said direction are perpendicular to each other; Paragraph 22-28 and figure 1 of Kasturi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 as taught by Kasturi et al. to provide the desired coverage (Paragraph 24 of Kasturi et al.) and since the array of Shapoury et al. may be designed to be a three-dimensional array (Paragraph 27 of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Shapoury et al. discloses an communication apparatus, comprising an antenna array and a processing circuit, wherein the antenna array comprises (Multi-mode phased array antenna with a controller 104 that serves as a processing unit that is in signal communication with the radiating elements 102, phase shifters 120, and attenuators 122 to calculate weights and implement them to control the output of the radiating elements; Paragraph 27-28, 41-12, and 64-68 as well as figure 1 and 3 of Shapoury et al.):
N subarrays, wherein the nth subarray comprises Mn antenna elements, N is an integer greater than 1, a value of n is an integer ranging from 1 to N, Mn is a positive integer, and a quantity of antenna elements in at least one of the N subarrays is greater than 1 (A plurality of radiating elements 102 can be arranged in a row in the first Y-direction and multiple rows can each serve as a sub-array wherein said sub-arrays are arranged in a second X-direction and there are more than 1 Sub-arrays; Paragraph 27-45 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.);
when Mn is greater than 1, the Mn antenna elements are arranged in a first direction, a spacing between adjacent antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements is less than or equal to 1/2λ, and λ is an operating wavelength of the antenna array (Each row of radiating elements in the first Y-direction comprise more than 1 element wherein said spacing d between elements may be a half wavelength or even a quarter wavelength; Paragraph 29 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.); and
the N subarrays are arranged in a second direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction; or N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, and N2 subarrays are arranged in a third direction, wherein N1 and N2 are both positive integers, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the second direction is perpendicular to the third direction, and the first direction is perpendicular to the third direction (N sub-arrays in the form of antenna element rows are arranged in the second X-direction which is perpendicular to the first Y-direction and the antenna array can be designed to be a 3-D array; Paragraph 27 and figure 3 of Shapoury et al.).
Shapoury et al. fails to explicitly disclose a baseband processing circuit.
However, Kasturi et al. does disclose a baseband processing circuit (Antenna array 100/300 comprise a beam forming circuit 312 which may utilize a processor to perform beamforming wherein said beamforming circuit is designed for digital beamforming and thus said processor would be a baseband processor like DSP, FPGS, ACIS, or any other type of processor as needed; Paragraph 15,48-52, and 107 of Kasturi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have a baseband processing circuit as taught by Kasturi et al. to implement beamforming and handle data (Paragraph 52 and 107 of Kasturi et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Shapoury et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 .
However, Kasturi et al. does disclose wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 (Antenna array like access point 100 include radiating elements 100 arranged in rows in a first Y-direction wherein the rows form sub-arrays wherein the sub-arrays of the front side 104 are arranged in a second X-direction and sub-arrays of a back 104 are arranged in a third -Z-direction wherein said direction are perpendicular to each other; Paragraph 22-28 and figure 1 of Kasturi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the N1 subarrays are arranged in the second direction, the N2 subarrays are arranged in the third direction, and N=N1*N2 as taught by Kasturi et al. to provide the desired coverage (Paragraph 24 of Kasturi et al.) and since the array of Shapoury et al. may be designed to be a three-dimensional array (Paragraph 27 of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein the first direction is a beam direction of the subarray (Radiating elements 102 can be designed to be an isotropic radiator with beam direction in the X-Y plane which would mean beam radiation in the first Y-direction and radiation can also have sidelobes in the Y-direction in different embodiments; Paragraph 33-40 and figure 5a of Shapoury et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Shapoury et al. further discloses wherein at least one spacing between adjacent antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements is less than or equal to 1/4λ (Each row of radiating elements in the first Y-direction comprise more than 1 element wherein said spacing d between elements may be a half wavelength or even a quarter wavelength; Paragraph 29 and figure 1-3 of Shapoury et al.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1) in view of Ilvonen et al. (WO 2021121611 A1).
Regarding Claim 5 as best understood, Shapoury et al. fails to disclose wherein the antenna element comprises a monopole antenna, a first end of the monopole antenna is a feed end, a horizontal stub is disposed at a second end of the monopole antenna, and a size of the second end in a direction perpendicular to the monopole antenna is less than or equal to the spacing between antenna elements.
However, Ilvonen et a. does disclose wherein the antenna element comprises a monopole antenna, a first end of the monopole antenna is a feed end, a horizontal stub is disposed at a second end of the monopole antenna, and a size of the second end in a direction perpendicular to the monopole antenna is less than or equal to the spacing between antenna elements (Antenna array 10 comprises monopole antenna 100 wherein a first end 111 is a feed point and the second end of the antenna 112 is a horizontal stub component where a size of the second end 112 is smaller than the spacing between adjacent monopole elements like 120; Paragraph 35-48 and figure 2 of Ilvonen et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the antenna element comprises a monopole antenna, a first end of the monopole antenna is a feed end, a horizontal stub is disposed at a second end of the monopole antenna, and a size of the second end in a direction perpendicular to the monopole antenna is less than or equal to the spacing between antenna elements as taught by Ilvonen et al. to form capacitively loaded antenna elements (Paragraph 47 of Ilvonen et al.) and since the type of antenna affects the radiation characteristics.
PNG
media_image4.png
400
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1) in view of Amadjikpe et al. (US 20170353338 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 as best understood, Shapoury et al. fails to disclose wherein the antenna element comprises any one of the following: a differentially excited dipole antenna, a dipole antenna with a differential microstrip feed structure, and a dual-polarized antenna.
However, Amadjikpe et al. does disclose wherein the antenna element comprises any one of the following: a differentially excited dipole antenna, a dipole antenna with a differential microstrip feed structure, and a dual-polarized antenna (Phased array 200 comprises antenna radiating elements 120 that are connected to phase shifters and amplifiers to control phase/amplitude wherein said antenna elements are dual-polarized antenna elements that can have vertical or horizontal polarizations; Paragraph 35-52 and figure 2-5 of Amadjikpe et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have the antenna element comprises any one of the following: a differentially excited dipole antenna, a dipole antenna with a differential microstrip feed structure, and a dual-polarized antenna as taught by Amadjikpe et al. to RF signals to have multiple polarizations so signals can be either in phase or out of phase as needed (Paragraph 35-40 of Amadjikpe et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
690
623
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20040009793 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Although, Shapoury et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the antenna array further comprises a weight generation unit, and the weight generation unit is configured to generate the weight. Shapoury et al. does suggest wherein the antenna array further comprises a weight generation unit, and the weight generation unit is configured to generate the weight (The antenna array 100 utilizes phase/amplitude shifting through phase shifters and attenuators wherein said shifting is based on assigned weights ω which would have to be generated by some component; Paragraph 2, 27 and 47-74 of Shapoury et al.).
However, Yamaguchi et al. does disclose wherein the antenna array further comprises a weight generation unit, and the weight generation unit is configured to generate the weight. Shapoury et al. does suggest wherein the antenna array further comprises a weight generation unit, and the weight generation unit is configured to generate the weight (Antenna array comprise multiple antenna elements A1-4 wherein a supergain weight generator circuit 10 generates a super weight based on phase and amplitude to provide a super directional gain for the antenna which would result in a sueprdirectional beam; Abstract and paragraph 44-53 as well as figure 1 of Yamaguchi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the antenna array further comprises a weight generation unit, and the weight generation unit is configured to generate the weight as taught by Yamaguchi et al. to provide a super gain which would result in a super directional beam as well as obtain optimal SNR for the antenna (Abstract and Paragraph 44-53 of Yamaguchi et al.).
PNG
media_image6.png
362
702
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Although, Shapoury et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the weight comprises a superdirective weight, and the antenna array is configured to use the superdirective weight to generate a superdirective beam (The antenna array 100 utilizes phase/amplitude shifting through phase shifters and attenuators wherein said shifting is based on assigned weights ω which would have to be generated by some component; Paragraph 2, 27 and 47-74 of Shapoury et al.).
However, Yamaguchi et al. does disclose wherein the weight comprises a superdirective weight, and the antenna array is configured to use the superdirective weight to generate a superdirective beam (Antenna array comprise multiple antenna elements A1-4 wherein a supergain weight generator circuit 10 generates a super weight based on phase and amplitude to provide a super directional gain for the antenna which would result in a sueprdirectional beam; Abstract and paragraph 44-53 as well as figure 1 of Yamaguchi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the weight comprises a superdirective weight, and the antenna array is configured to use the superdirective weight to generate a superdirective beam as taught by Yamaguchi et al. to provide a super gain which would result in a super directional beam as well as obtain optimal SNR for the antenna (Abstract and Paragraph 44-53 of Yamaguchi et al.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1) in view of Miehle et al. (US 20200168990 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Shapoury et al. fails to disclose wherein at least two of the Mn antenna elements correspond to different impedance matching circuits.
However, Miehle et al. does disclose wherein at least two of the Mn antenna elements correspond to different impedance matching circuits (Antenna array 200 with antenna elements 210 and beamforming circuitry/Phase shifters 202/204 also comprise impedance matching circuits 212 wherein each impedance matching circuit is connected to a different antenna element thus providing different circuits; Paragraph 43-58 and figure 8 of Miehle et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein at least two of the Mn antenna elements correspond to different impedance matching circuits as taught by Miehle et al. to adjust the antenna impedance to a desired load impedance (Paragraph 44 of Miehle et al.).
PNG
media_image7.png
514
581
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapoury et al. (US 20180358696 A1) in view of Haskell et al. (US 20060208944 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Shapoury et al. fails to disclose wherein the amplitude adjustment unit comprises an unequal power divider, and each of the Mn antenna elements corresponds to one unequal power divider, or a plurality of antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements correspond to one unequal power divider.
However, Haskell et al. does disclose wherein the amplitude adjustment unit comprises an unequal power divider, and each of the Mn antenna elements corresponds to one unequal power divider, or a plurality of antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements correspond to one unequal power divider (Phased array antenna system 40 comprises antenna elements 62 connected to phase shifters 64 and amplitude shifters comprising power splitters like 44 and 52/54 wherein element like 62-1 and 62-n may be connected to an individual splitter wherein said power splitters may be unequal power splitters to provide different amplitudes; Paragraph 75-90 and figure 2-3 of Haskell et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Shapoury et al. to have wherein the amplitude adjustment unit comprises an unequal power divider, and each of the Mn antenna elements corresponds to one unequal power divider, or a plurality of antenna elements in the Mn antenna elements correspond to one unequal power divider as taught by Haskell et al. to provide different amplitudes to the antenna elements (Paragraph 76 and 86 of Haskell et al.).
PNG
media_image8.png
527
772
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Additional Comments Regarding the Claim Rejections
Examiner’s note – Regarding claims 7-9, the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20190393948 A1 (ZHAO; Peiyao et al.) further discloses an array with multiple sub-arrays with radiating elements in a first direction and sub-arrays arranged in a second perpendicular direction wherein said elements are connected to a phase shifter and amplitude shifting elements.
ZHAO; Peiyao et al. (Hannan; Peter W.) further discloses an array comprising multiple monopole elements wherein said monopole elements comprise horizontal stub portions.
CN 103022698 A (YANG, Xian-chao et al.) further discloses an amplitude shifting unit for an antenna array wherein said amplitude shifting unit comprises unequal power dividers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Dameon E Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights