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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species L in the reply filed on 7/27/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 5/14/25 and 6/16/26 are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 14, “the adjustment mechanism configured” should read –the adjustment mechanism is configured–;
In claim 19, line 1, “The sub-reflector assembly” should read –The antenna assembly–;
In claim 20, line 1, “The sub-reflector assembly” should read –The antenna assembly–.
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the arm members" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liabson et al. (US Patent No. 3,383,692) in view of Tang et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2003/0234746).
Regarding claim 1, Liabson et al. teaches (Figs. 1-14) a sub-reflector assembly for an antenna, the sub-reflector assembly comprising: a support (Fig. 9, 68); a sub-reflector coupled to the support (12); a plurality of support members coupled to the support and configured to position the support and sub-reflector a distance in front of a main reflector of the antenna (members 28 are coupled to 68 to position it and 12 a distance from main reflector 10); and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the support and the sub-reflector, the adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a position of the sub-reflector relative to the main reflector to steer an antenna beam transmitted from the antenna (screws 82 and threaded sleeve 92 in Figs. 2 and 12-14 are coupled to support 68 and sub-reflector 12, and form an adjustment mechanism and are configured to adjust the position of the sub-reflector relative to the main body to steer the antenna beam, see Col 4 lines 36-48 and 68-72).
Liabson does not teach the support being explicitly a support plate.
Tang et al. teaches (Fig. 1) a sub-reflector assembly for an antenna, the sub-reflector assembly comprising: a support plate (46); a sub-reflector coupled to the support plate (22); a plurality of support members coupled to the support plate and configured to position the support plate and sub-reflector a distance in front of a main reflector of the antenna (support members 44 coupled to 46 through 40 and are configured to position 22 and 46 a distance in front of main reflector 24).
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 sub-reflector assembly of Liabson such that the support is a support plate, employing the teachings of Tang.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of making the support of the sub-reflector rigid (Tang, ¶26 lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 2, Liabson teaches the sub-reflector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of support members extend outwardly from the main reflector of the antenna (support members 28 extend outwardly with respect to surface of main reflector 10; see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 18, Liabson et al. teaches (Figs. 1-14) an antenna assembly, the antenna assembly comprising: a point-to-point antenna (form of antenna reflector and sub-reflector assembly demonstrated in Fig. 9 constitutes a point-to-point antenna) comprising a main reflector (10); and a sub-reflector assembly (see Fig. 4), the sub-reflector assembly comprising: a support (Fig. 9, 68); a sub-reflector coupled to the support (12); a plurality of support members coupled to the support and extending outwardly from the main reflector of the antenna (support members 28 extend outwardly with respect to surface of main reflector 10; see Fig. 9), the plurality of support members configured to position the support and sub-reflector a distance in front of a main reflector of the antenna (members 28 are coupled to 68 to position it and 12 a distance from main reflector 10); and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the support and the sub-reflector, the adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a position of the sub-reflector relative to the main reflector to steer an antenna beam transmitted from the antenna (screws 82 and threaded sleeve 92 in Figs. 2 and 12-14 are coupled to support 68 and sub-reflector 12, and form an adjustment mechanism and are configured to adjust the position of the sub-reflector relative to the main body to steer the antenna beam, see Col 4 lines 36-48 and 68-72).
Liabson does not teach the support being explicitly a support plate.
Tang et al. teaches (Fig. 1) a sub-reflector assembly for an antenna, the sub-reflector assembly comprising: a support plate (46); a sub-reflector coupled to the support plate (22); a plurality of support members coupled to the support plate and configured to position the support plate and sub-reflector a distance in front of a main reflector of the antenna (support members 44 coupled to 46 through 40 and are configured to position 22 and 46 a distance in front of main reflector 24).
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 sub-reflector assembly of Liabson such that the support is a support plate, employing the teachings of Tang.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of making the support of the sub-reflector rigid (Tang, ¶26 lines 26-30).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liabson et al. (US Patent No. 3,383,692) in view of Tang et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2003/0234746) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomson et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0352022).
Regarding claim 3, Liabson teaches the sub-reflector assembly according to claim 1, wherein the assembly comprises support members (see Fig. 9).
Liabson does not teach wherein the assembly comprises three support members are equally spaced apart from each other.
Thomson et al. teaches (Fig .3) a sub-reflector assembly for an antenna, the sub-reflector assembly comprising: a sub-reflector (see sub-reflector of Fig. 3, ¶46); a plurality of support members configured to position the support plate and sub-reflector a distance in front of a main reflector of the antenna (see struts of Fig. 3, ¶46); wherein the assembly comprises three support members equally spaced apart from each other (see disposition of struts, Fig. 3).
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 sub-reflector assembly of Liabson such that the assembly comprises three support members equally spaced apart from each other, employing the teachings of Thomson.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of maintaining good alignment of the sub-reflector (Thomson, ¶58 lines 11-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 16-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the pertinent prior art, as a whole, when taken alone, or in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the elements and features of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant. In detail,
Regarding claim 10, the closest found prior art is Liabson et al., which teaches (Figs. 1-14) a sub-reflector assembly for an antenna, the sub-reflector assembly comprising: a support (Fig. 9, 68); a sub-reflector coupled to the support (12); a plurality of support members coupled to the support and configured to position the support and sub-reflector a distance in front of a main reflector of the antenna (members 28 are coupled to 68 to position it and 12 a distance from main reflector 10); and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the support and the sub-reflector, wherein the adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust a position of the sub-reflector relative to the main reflector to steer an antenna beam transmitted from the antenna (screws 82 and threaded sleeve 92 in Figs. 2 and 12-14 are coupled to support 68 and sub-reflector 12, and form an adjustment mechanism and are configured to adjust the position of the sub-reflector relative to the main body to steer the antenna beam, see Col 4 lines 36-48 and 68-72).
Laibson does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the adjustment mechanism comprising: a pair of drive motors, each drive motor having a gear shaft extending outwardly therefrom; a pair of arm members, each arm member coupled to a respective gear shaft and configured to rotate in response to rotation of the gear shaft; and a pair of levers, each lever coupled to a respective arm member via a mechanical linkage, the opposing end of each lever coupled to the sub-reflector, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14 and 16-17, being dependent upon claim 10 and not otherwise objected to, are similarly allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-8 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the assembly comprises a fourth support member extending between the support plate and the sub-reflector, the fourth support member configured to secure the sub-reflector to the support plate”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is included for its dependency upon claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “a pair of drive motors, each drive motor having a gear shaft extending outwardly therefrom; a pair of arm members, each arm member coupled to a respective gear shaft and configured to rotate in response to rotation of the gear shaft; and a pair of levers, each lever coupled to a respective arm member via a mechanical linkage, the opposing end of each lever coupled to the sub-reflector”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “where the adjustment mechanism comprises a plurality of springs configured to bias the sub-reflector toward the support plate” and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is included for its dependency upon claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises: a pair of drive motors, each drive motor having a gear shaft extending outwardly therefrom; a pair of arm members, each arm member coupled to a respective gear shaft and configured to rotate in response to rotation of the gear shaft; and a pair of levers, each lever coupled to a respective arm member via a mechanical linkage, the opposing end of each lever coupled to the sub-reflector”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “where the adjustment mechanism comprises a plurality of springs configured to bias the sub-reflector toward the support plate” and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Costa (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0046785), Onishi et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0181788), and Henderson et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0028274) each teach sub-reflector assemblies of various embodiments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM 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 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
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights