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
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olfert et al (US 2020/0044326 A1), hereinafter Olfert. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Olfert (Figures 2A, 2B, 5A, 5B and 10, para [0038]) teaches a travelling wave antenna (TWA) structure comprising:
a feed layer 202 comprising a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell of the feed layer being formed of an antenna structure (para [0026] and [0086]);
a metal layer 504/508 disposed over the feed layer, the metal layer comprising a plurality of unit cells aligned with the plurality of unit cells of the feed layer (para [0026] and [0044]); each unit cell of the metal layer 504/508 having a pattern of metal segments (para [0049] and [0050]); wherein a size and geometry of the metal segments controlling, at least in part, an impedance of the metal layer (para [0043]); and
a spacer layer 502/506 disposed between the metal layer 504/508 and the feed layer 202 (para [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Olfert (para [0044]) teaches that the spacer layer 502/506 is selected from foam or plastic.
Regarding claim 9, Olfert (Figures 2A, 3B, 5A, 5B and 10, para [0038]) teaches a travelling wave antenna (TWA) structure comprising:
a feed layer 202 comprising a plurality of unit cells, each unit cell being formed of an antenna structure (para [[26] and [0086]);
a plurality of stacked metal layers 504/508 disposed over the feed layer 202, each of the plurality of stacked metal layers comprising unit cells aligned with the unit cells of the feed layer and aligned with unit cells of adjacent metal layers (para [0026] and [0044]); each unit cell of each metal layer having a pattern of metal segments (para [0049]); wherein a size and geometry of the metal segments of each unit cell of each metal layer controlling, at least in part, an impedance of the unit cell and the metal layer (para [0043] and [0049]); and
a plurality of spacer layers 502/506 disposed between a bottom metal layer and the feed layer and disposed between each metal layer (para [0044]).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 9, Olfert (para [0044]) teaches that each of the plurality of spacer layers 502/506 is selected from foam or plastic.
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olfert.
Regarding claim 17, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 9, wherein the plurality of transmission layers includes a top layer 508 and the bottom layer 504.
Olfert does not explicitly mention that a spacing between the bottom layer and the feed layer is less than a spacing between the bottom layer and the top layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a spacing between the bottom layer and the feed layer to be less than a spacing between the bottom layer and the top layer, doing so would provide desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claim 18, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 17, wherein the plurality of spacer layers includes a first spacer layer (upper dielectric 502) disposed between the feed layer 502 and the bottom layer 504, and a second spacer layer (lower dielectric 506) disposed between the bottom layer 504 and the top layer 508 (Figures 2A and 2B).
Olfert does not explicitly mention that the second spacer layer having a greater thickness than the first spacer layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second spacer layer to have a greater thickness than the first spacer layer, doing so would provide desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claim 19, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 9, except explicitly mention that the plurality of metal layers being non-linearly spaced apart from one another to provide an approximate impedance match between the feed layer and free space.
It would have been an obvious matter of design to configure the plurality of metal layers to be non-linearly spaced apart from one another to provide an approximate impedance match between the feed layer and free space, doing so would provide desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Claims 2-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olfert in view of Murphy (US 2015/0200445 A1). (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein the size and geometry of the metal segments of each unit cell of each metal layer controls an impedance associated with the metal layer (para [0030]).
Olfert does not explicitly mention that increasing the size of the metal segments of each unit cell causes a decrease in impedance; and wherein a decreasing size of the metal segments of each unit cell causes an increase in impedance.
Murphy (Abstract, Figure 1 and para [0043]) teaches antenna design and describing that by changing the characteristics of metal segments of each unit cell would affect the impedance of the metal segments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Olfert by increasing or decreasing the size of the metal segments of each unit cell, as taught by Murphy, doing so would effectively achieve desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein a gap between metal segments of adjacent unit cells controls an impedance associated with the metal layer (para [0030]).
Olfert does not explicitly mention that increasing the gap between metal segments of adjacent unit cells causes an increase in impedance; and wherein a decreasing the gap between metal segments of adjacent unit cells causes a decrease in impedance.
Murphy (abstract, Figure 1 and [para [0043]) teaches an antenna design and describing that by changing characteristics of the metal segments of adjacent unit cells would affect the impedance of the associated metal segments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Olfert by increasing or decreasing the gap between metal segments of adjacent unit cells, as taught by Murphy, doing so would effectively achieve desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, as applied to claims 3 and 11, respectively, Murphy (abstract, Figure 1 and para [0043]) teaches that a length of the gap is selected to be approximately one half or less of a wavelength of a maximum frequency of the bandwidth ratio of the TWA to effectively provide desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein a thickness of the spacer layer controls an impedance value of the metal layer (para [0030]).
Olfert does not explicitly mention that increasing the thickness of the spacer layer causes a decrease in impedance of the metal layer; and wherein decreasing the thickness of the spacer layer causes an increase in impedance of the metal layer.
Murphy (abstract, Figure 1 and para [0043]) teaches an antenna design and describing that by changing the characteristics of the metal would affect the impedance of the associated metal layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Olfert by arbitrary increasing or decreasing the thickness of the spacer layer, as taught by Murphy, doing so would effectively achieve desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, wherein a width of metal segments of adjacent unit cells controls an impedance associated with the metal layer (para [0030]).
Olfert does not explicitly teach that increasing the width of metal segments of adjacent unit cells causes a decrease in impedance; and wherein a decreasing the width of metal segments of adjacent unit cells causes an increase in impedance.
Murphy (abstract, Figure 1 and para [0043]) teaches antenna design and describing that by changing the characteristics of a metal layer would effectively affecting an impedance associated with the metal layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Olfert by arbitrary increasing or decreasing the width of metal segments of adjacent unit cells, as taught by Murphy, doing so would effectively achieve desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olfert in view of Wu et al (US 6,317,094), hereinafter Wu. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 9, respectively, except explicitly mention that the antenna structures of the feed layer include at least one of a tapered antenna, a connected dipole antenna, and a connected slot antenna.
Wu (abstract, col 12 lines 37-42) teaches an antenna structure comprising a feed layer including at least one of a tapered antenna, a connected dipole antenna, and a connected slot antenna.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed layer of Olfert’s antenna structure to include at least one of a tapered antenna, a connected dipole antenna, and a connected slot antenna, as taught by Wu, doing so would provide desired impedance matching for optimum antenna performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olfert in view of Lalezari (US 2012/0188137 A1). (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 20, Olfert teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 9, except explicitly mention that an overall length and width of the plurality of stacked metal layers is based on an overall power requirement of the TWA.
Lalezari (abstract, para [0008]) teaches an antenna with stacked elements to maximize power requirements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Olfert with an overall length and width of the plurality of stacked metal layers is based on an overall power requirement of the TWA, as taught by Lalezari, doing so would provide wider bandwidth as well as increasing the range of the antenna.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Riley et al (KR 20180121549A) discloses a travelling wave antenna having a metal layer, a feed layer and a plurality of unit cells.
Mehdipour et al (US 2018/0076521 A1) discloses a travelling wave antenna having a metal layer and a feed layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights