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 § 103
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 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 1-10, 12-16 & 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishnan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0127688 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches an antenna (Figs. 8, 9, 14A, 14B) comprising:
a radome (802 Fig. 8 Par. 0101) having walls forming a chamber (804 Fig. 8 Par. 0101), the radome having a top, a bottom, a front, a rear, a first side, and a second side (Fig. 8); and
an antenna assembly received in the chamber (840, 850, 852, 854 Fig. 8 Par. 0105, 0106), the antenna assembly including a multiband antenna element (Par. 0105) and a reflector spaced from the antenna element and facing the antenna element (chamber walls forming reflector Fig. 8 Par. 0101, 0105);
the multiband antenna element including a high band antenna including high band radiating arms (840 Fig. 8 Par. 0105 5 GHz);
the multiband antenna element including a low band antenna including low band radiating arms (850/852 Fig. 8 Par. 0105 2.4 GHz);
the reflector including a main reflector panel (rear panel of 804 Fig. 8), a front reflector wing forward of the main reflector panel (top panel of 804 Fig. 8), a rear reflector wing rearward of the main reflector panel (bottom panel of 804 Fig. 8), main sidewalls on opposite sides of the main reflector panel (sidewalls of 804 Fig. 8).
Gopalakrishnan et al. does not explicitly teach front sidewalls on opposite sides of the front reflector wing, rear sidewalls on opposite sides of the rear reflector wing, a forward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the front reflector wing, and a rearward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the rear reflector wing.
However, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches the radiation pattern with high gain in different directions, and “The number of metal surfaces may impact the gain in the first direction. As few as one metal surface can be used to reflect the electromagnetic energy. However, if more than three metal surfaces, the gain in the first direction can be increased” (Par. 0105).
In this particular case, a person having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that increasing the surfaces of the reflector increases the gain in the respective direction.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the reflector with front sidewalls on opposite sides of the front reflector wing, rear sidewalls on opposite sides of the rear reflector wing, a forward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the front reflector wing, and a rearward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the rear reflector wing based on the teachings of Gopalakrishnan et al. as a result effect in order to increase the gain in multiple directions.
Regarding Claim 2, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the front reflector wing is angled non-coplanar with the main reflector panel (Fig. 8), the rear reflector wing being angled non-coplanar with the main reflector panel (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the front reflector wing is connected to the main reflector panel at a bend (Fig. 8), the front reflector wing being bent upward at an oblique angle relative to the main reflector panel (Fig. 8), the rear reflector wing being connected to the main reflector panel at a bend, the rear reflector wing being bent upward at an oblique angle relative to the main reflector panel (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the main sidewalls have different heights compared to the front sidewalls and the rear sidewalls (Fig. 8 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 5, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the forward inner wall and the rearward inner wall have different heights (implied from different dimensions Par. 0125 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 6, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the front reflector wing includes a forward recess aligned with the forward inner wall, the rear reflector wing including a rearward recess aligned with the rearward inner wall (implied from recess Fig. 14B Par. 0119, 0126, 0128).
Regarding Claim 7, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the forward inner wall is parallel to the rearward inner wall, the main sidewalls being oriented perpendicular to the forward and rearward inner walls (Fig. 8 as modified above for the radiation direction).
Regarding Claim 8, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches further comprising a secondary reflector (backwall of 806 opposite to 804 Fig. 8) spaced from the multiband antenna element (Fig. 8), the secondary reflector including a central panel aligned with the high band radiating arms and the low band radiating arms (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the reflector is positioned between the secondary reflector and the multiband antenna element (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the secondary reflector includes a main panel and a wing panel extending from the main panel at an oblique angle (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the high band radiating arms are aligned with the main reflector panel (Fig. 8), the low band radiating arms being aligned with the main reflector panel (Fig. 8), the front reflector wing, and the rear reflector wing (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the high band antenna is a dipole antenna, the low band antenna being a dipole antenna (Par. 0103, 0104).
Regarding Claim 14, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the antenna assembly includes an antenna printed circuit board (820 Par. 0106, 0107), the high band radiating arms formed on one or more layers of the antenna printed circuit board (Fig. 8 Par. 0106, 0107), the low band radiating arms formed on one or more layers of the antenna printed circuit board (Fig. 8 Par. 0106, 0107).
Regarding Claim 15, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the antenna assembly includes a balun coupling radiating element (908 Fig. 9 Par. 0110).
Regarding Claim 16, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Gopalakrishnan et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the antenna assembly includes lump components.
However, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches “The RF circuitry 1783 may include radio front-end circuitry, antenna switching circuitry (e.g., 424 of FIG. 4), impedance matching circuitry, or the like” (Par. 0135).
In this particular case, a person having ordinary skill in the art recognizes the inclusion of lump components to perform antenna tuning.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the antenna assembly to include lump components based on the teachings of Gopalakrishnan et al. as a result effect in order to improve antenna performance by providing tuning.
Regarding Claim 19, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Gopalakrishnan et al. is silent on wherein the antenna assembly has a wide azimuth beamwidth wider than 90° and an elevation beamwidth wider than 60°.
However, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches “The directional antennas 422 may be eight sector directional antennas for 5 GHz with two antennas at orthogonal polarizations (horizontal/vertical) in each sector. These can be setup with 45 degree 3 dB beam width with 11 dB antenna gain” Par. 0075.
In this particular case, configuring antennas with a particular beamwidth is common and well known in the art as evident by Gopalakrishnan et al. based on the required radiation direction and antenna gain.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the antenna assembly to have a wide azimuth beamwidth wider than 90° and an elevation beamwidth wider than 60° based on the teachings of Gopalakrishnan et al. as a result effect based on the required radiation direction and antenna gain.
Regarding Claim 20, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the high band antenna is operable at a frequency range of between 5.15 and 7.125 GHz and the low band antenna is operable at a frequency range of between 2.4 and 2.5 GHz (2.4GHz band and 5GHz band for Wi-Fi® Par. 0106).
Regarding Claim 21, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the reflector has a variable spacing to the multiband antenna element from front-to-rear (Figs. 8, 9, 14A).
Regarding Claim 22, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the front reflector wing and the rear reflector wing are closer to the multiband antenna element and the main reflector panel (Figs. 8, 9, 14A).
Regarding Claim 23, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches an antenna assembly (Figs. 8, 9, 14A, 14B) comprising:
a multiband antenna element (840, 850, 852, 854 Fig. 8 Par. 0105, 0106) including a high band antenna including high band radiating arms (840 Fig. 8 Par. 0105 5 GHz) and a low band antenna including low band radiating arms (850/852 Fig. 8 Par. 0105 2.4 GHz); and
a reflector (chamber walls of 804 forming reflector Fig. 8 Par. 0101, 0105) spaced from the multiband antenna element and facing the antenna element (Fig. 8), the reflector including a main reflector panel (rear panel of 804 Fig. 8), a front reflector wing forward of the main reflector panel (top panel of 804 Fig. 8), a rear reflector wing rearward of the main reflector panel (bottom panel of 804 Fig. 8), main sidewalls on opposite sides of the main reflector panel (sidewalls of 804 Fig. 8).
Gopalakrishnan et al. does not explicitly teach front sidewalls on opposite sides of the front reflector wing, rear sidewalls on opposite sides of the rear reflector wing, a forward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the front reflector wing, and a rearward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the rear reflector wing.
However, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches the radiation pattern with high gain in different directions, and “The number of metal surfaces may impact the gain in the first direction. As few as one metal surface can be used to reflect the electromagnetic energy. However, if more than three metal surfaces, the gain in the first direction can be increased” (Par. 0105).
In this particular case, a person having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that increasing the surfaces of the reflector increases the gain in the respective direction.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the reflector with front sidewalls on opposite sides of the front reflector wing, rear sidewalls on opposite sides of the rear reflector wing, a forward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the front reflector wing, and a rearward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the rear reflector wing based on the teachings of Gopalakrishnan et al. as a result effect in order to increase the gain in multiple directions.
Regarding Claim 24, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches an antenna assembly (Figs. 8, 9, 14A, 14B) comprising:
a multiband antenna element (840, 850, 852, 854 Fig. 8 Par. 0105, 0106) including a high band antenna including high band radiating arms (840 Fig. 8 Par. 0105 5 GHz) and a low band antenna including low band radiating arms (850/852 Fig. 8 Par. 0105 2.4 GHz);
a reflector (chamber walls of 804 forming reflector Fig. 8 Par. 0101, 0105) spaced from the multiband antenna element and facing the antenna element (Fig. 8), the reflector including a main reflector panel (rear panel of 804 Fig. 8), a front reflector wing forward of the main reflector panel (top panel of 804 Fig. 8), a rear reflector wing rearward of the main reflector panel (bottom panel of 804 Fig. 8), main sidewalls on opposite sides of the main reflector panel (sidewalls of 804 Fig. 8); and
a secondary reflector (backwall of 806 opposite to 804 Fig. 8) spaced from the multiband antenna element (Fig. 8), the secondary reflector including a central panel aligned with the high band radiating arms and the low band radiating arms (Fig. 8).
Gopalakrishnan et al. does not explicitly teach front sidewalls on opposite sides of the front reflector wing, rear sidewalls on opposite sides of the rear reflector wing, a forward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the front reflector wing, and a rearward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the rear reflector wing.
However, Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches the radiation pattern with high gain in different directions, and “The number of metal surfaces may impact the gain in the first direction. As few as one metal surface can be used to reflect the electromagnetic energy. However, if more than three metal surfaces, the gain in the first direction can be increased” (Par. 0105).
In this particular case, a person having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that increasing the surfaces of the reflector increases the gain in the respective direction.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the reflector with front sidewalls on opposite sides of the front reflector wing, rear sidewalls on opposite sides of the rear reflector wing, a forward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the front reflector wing, and a rearward inner wall at the interface of the main reflector panel and the rear reflector wing based on the teachings of Gopalakrishnan et al. as a result effect in order to increase the gain in multiple directions.
Claims 17 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalakrishnan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0127688 (cited by applicant) and Jan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0256863 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 17, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches an antenna feed including an RF connector coupled to a feed of the antenna assembly (RF feeds Fig. 9 Par. 0110).
Gopalakrishnan et al. is silent on a coaxial cable.
However, Jan et al. teaches a coaxial cable (coaxial cable 127 Fig. 1C, 2A, 2B Par. 0044).
In this particular case, feeding through a coaxial cable is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Jan et al. due to being low cost and easy to implement.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the antenna feed of Gopalakrishnan et al. with a coaxial cable based on the teachings of Jan et al. as a result effect due to being low cost and easy to implement the feeding of the antenna assembly.
Regarding Claim 18, Gopalakrishnan et al. as modified teaches wherein the reflector includes a slot receiving the coaxial cable allowing the coaxial cable to pass through the reflector (Jan et al. Fig. 1C as modified above)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the secondary reflector is coupled to an interior surface of the bottom of the radome, the reflector being suspended in the chamber between the top and the bottom of the radome, the multiband antenna element located proximate to the top of the radome” as required by the claim.
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