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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 9, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 26, 2025 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 18 and 30. Claims 15-27 and 30-31 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 26, 2025. The examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections and the Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims.
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 15, the applicant argues “However, the Office Action asserts that Winegard discloses all of the limitations missing in Rudi and that it would be obvious to modify the reflector antenna system of Rudi with Winegard to include the missing limitations. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Winegard teaches a satellite dish antenna having parabolic-shaped support ribs that engage the sides of adjacent screen-mesh reflected petals along the entire longitudinal length of each petal. Therefore, Winegard does teach a dish 10 with ribs 30 between petals 20. However, instead of the claim 15 hole patterns in the first and second frame members and in the rib that align to allow a fastener to extend through these holes to interconnect the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels, Winegard teaches that the petals snap fit / lock into the ribs. The various rib structures of Winegard are designed such that the panel or petal is laid on the rib and then locked in. For example, Winegard in Fig. 7 teaches a 'split rib' 70 comprising an upper member 700 and a lower split rib 710. The edge 52 of petal 50 is laid in the groove 722, and the upper member 700 is overlaid to lock in the petal (using the locking lip 706 that snaps into the channel 714). Similarly in Fig. 3, an upper locking rib member 200 and a lower locking rib member 210 snap together locking in the panels or petals. There is no need for fasteners or aligning through-hole patterns for connecting petals to the ribs in Winegard. Indeed, that is the reason for the Winegard design, to facilitate fast construction of the dish without fasteners. Thus, where Rudi has no need for the ribs having the features recited in claim 15, there would be no motivation to add the ribs as recited in Winegard (which still fail to recite the features of claim 15) to Rudi, and in particular there would be no motivation to look to fastener-less ribs of Winegard to combine with Rudi that uses fasteners to couple adjacent petals directly to each other. Stated another way, there is no motivation to combine a fastener-based dish of directly coupled petals with a fastener-less, snap to rib dish.”. This arguments is unpersuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Winegard provides motivation to combine for ease of installation in col. 9 lines 1-5 and col. 10, lines 25-39.
The applicant further argues “Clearly, neither Rudi nor Winegard, alone or in combination, disclose through holes in all three recited objects: a first frame member of a first radial antenna panel, a second frame member of a second radial antenna panel, and a rib (interconnecting the first and second radial antenna panels). Also, neither Rudi nor Winegard disclose the missing elements of the first and second interconnect brackets. At most Rudi discloses frame members on only part of the left and right sides of the dish segment. Rudi does not disclose the first interconnect bracket and second interconnect bracket that create a perimeter frame. More specifically the first interconnect bracket is recited to connect the first ends of the two frame members and the second interconnect bracket is recited to connect the second ends of the two frame members. And Winegard fails to disclose all these missing elements. Winegard does not disclose any frame members or interconnect brackets. Thus, Rudi and Winegard, alone or in combination, fail to disclose each and every element of claim 15” This argument is unpersuasive. Winegard teaches (Fig. 9-11 and 15) a first frame member of a first radial antenna panel (711 of left radial antenna panel in Fig. 9-10), a second frame member of a second radial antenna panel (711 of right radial antenna panel in Fig. 9-10), and a rib (703), a first interconnect bracket (1500 in Fig. 15), and a second interconnect bracket (60 in Fig. 11).
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 15-16 and 20-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudi (US PGPUB 2005/0168852 A1) in view of Winegard et al. (US Patent No. 4766443 A), hereinafter known as Winegard.
Regarding claim 15, Rudi teaches (Fig. 1-4) A reflector antenna system (Fig. 1) comprising: a hub (hub of 100) at an axial center of a reflector antenna (100); a plurality of radial antenna panels (102), each of the plurality of radial antenna panels comprising: a first frame member (210) having a first end and a second end; a second frame member (210) having a first end and a second end; and a reflector skin (402, 406), wherein: the first frame member (210), the second frame member (210) collectively form a perimeter frame (100), for a radial antenna panel (102), wherein the reflector skin (402, 406) is coupled to the perimeter frame (100), and wherein each of the first frame member (210) and the second frame member (210) comprises a first through-hole pattern (through-hole patterns for 304, 306) comprising a plurality of through-holes along a radial length; but does not specifically teach a first interconnect bracket configured to connect the first end of the first frame member to the first end of the second frame member; a second interconnect bracket configured to connect the second end of the first frame member to the second end of the second frame member; wherein: the first frame member, the second frame member, the first interconnect bracket, and the second interconnect bracket collectively form a perimeter frame, and a plurality of ribs, wherein each rib of the plurality of ribs: is coupled to and radially extends from the hub, interconnects an adjacent pair of radial antenna panels of the plurality of radial antenna panels, and comprises a second through-hole pattern along a radial length, wherein the second through-hole pattern aligns with the first through-hole pattern of the first frame member of a first radial antenna panel of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels and the first through-hole pattern of the second frame member of a second radial antenna panel of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels, such that a rib of the plurality of ribs interconnects the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels via fastening hardware extending through the first through-hole pattern of the first frame member of the first radial antenna panel and the second frame member of the second radial antenna panel and the second through-hole pattern of the rib.
However, Winegard teaches (Fig. 1, 7, 9-11, 15-16) a first interconnect bracket (1500) configured to connect the first end of the first frame member to the first end of the second frame member; a second interconnect bracket (60) configured to connect the second end of the first frame member to the second end of the second frame member; wherein: the first frame member (711), the second frame member (711), the first interconnect bracket (1500), and the second interconnect bracket (60) collectively form a perimeter frame (10), and a plurality of ribs (703), wherein each rib of the plurality of ribs (703): is coupled to and radially extends from the hub (40), interconnects an adjacent pair of radial antenna panels of the plurality of radial antenna panels (20), and comprises a second through-hole pattern (900) along a radial length, wherein the second through-hole pattern (900) aligns with the first through-hole pattern of the first frame member of a first radial antenna panel (900) of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels and the first through-hole pattern of the second frame member of a second radial antenna panel (900) of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels, such that a rib of the plurality of ribs (703) interconnects the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels via fastening hardware (910) extending through the first through-hole pattern of the first frame member of the first radial antenna panel (900) and the second frame member of the second radial antenna panel (900) and the second through-hole pattern of the rib (900).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reflector antenna system of Rudi with Winegard to include “a first interconnect bracket configured to connect the first end of the first frame member to the first end of the second frame member; a second interconnect bracket configured to connect the second end of the first frame member to the second end of the second frame member; wherein: the first frame member, the second frame member, the first interconnect bracket, and the second interconnect bracket collectively form a perimeter frame, and a plurality of ribs, wherein each rib of the plurality of ribs: is coupled to and radially extends from the hub, interconnects an adjacent pair of radial antenna panels of the plurality of radial antenna panels, and comprises a second through-hole pattern along a radial length, wherein the second through-hole pattern aligns with the first through-hole pattern of the first frame member of a first radial antenna panel of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels and the first through-hole pattern of the second frame member of a second radial antenna panel of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels, such that a rib of the plurality of ribs interconnects the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels via fastening hardware extending through the first through-hole pattern of the first frame member of the first radial antenna panel and the second frame member of the second radial antenna panel and the second through-hole pattern of the rib,” as taught by Winegard, for the purpose of withstanding environmental load and ease of installation (see also col. 9 lines 1-5 and col. 10, lines 25-39).
Regarding claim 16, Rudi does not specifically teach wherein each of the plurality of frame members is arranged as a C-channel cross-section support rod.
However, Winegard teaches (Fig. 7) wherein each of the plurality of frame members is arranged as a C-channel cross-section support rod (upper portion of 700).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reflector antenna system of Fairey with Winegard to include “wherein each of the plurality of frame members is arranged as a C-channel cross-section support rod,” as taught by Winegard, for the purpose of ease of installation (see also col. 1, lines 15-17 and col. 10, lines 25-39).
Regarding claim 20, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 4) an adhesive (410) disposed between the reflector skin (402, 406) and each of the first frame member (right frame member) and the second frame member (left frame member), wherein the adhesive comprises at least one physical spacing element (410) to provide a standoff distance between a surface of each of the first frame member (right frame member) and the second frame member (left frame member) and a surface of the reflector skin (402) separated by the adhesive (410).
Regarding claim 21, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the first through-hole pattern of each of the first frame member (210) and the second frame member (210) comprises a precision through-hole (304, 306) and a plurality of through-hole slots (304, 306).
Regarding claim 22, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 1 and 3) wherein the precision through-hole (304 closest to center of 100) of each of the first frame member (210) and the second frame member (210) is located most proximal to the hub (center hub of 100) to radially align each of the adjacent pair of radial antenna panels (102), wherein the plurality of through-hole slots of the first frame member and the second frame member (304 through-holes) are configured to accommodate thermal expansion and contraction ([0010], [0029]).
Regarding claim 23, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 1, 3, and 6) wherein the plurality of through-hole slots (304 through-holes) are precision located along an axis transverse to a longitudinal length of each of the first frame member (210) and the second frame member (210) such that a portion of each of the first frame member (210) and the second frame member (210) along the axis is exposed when the first frame member (210) and the second frame member (210) are each coupled to a respective sidewall of a panel bonding tool (Fig. 6) during fabrication of a respective radial antenna panel of the plurality of radial antenna panels (102).
Regarding claim 24, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 3 and 6) wherein the second through-hole pattern (304 through-holes) of each of the plurality of ribs is arranged the same as an arrangement of fastening features of each of a plurality sidewalls (606) of a panel bonding tool (Fig. 6) to which the first frame member and the second frame member of a given one of the plurality of radial antenna panels (202, 204, 206) are coupled via the first through-hole pattern of each of the first frame member and the second frame member of the given one of the plurality of radial antenna panels to fabricate the given one of the plurality of radial antenna panels ([0040]).
Regarding claim 25, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 6) wherein the panel bonding tool comprises a plurality of parallel alignment pins (608) configured to align the reflector skin (204) onto an adhesive applied to the each of the first frame member and the second frame member during fabrication of the a respective one of the plurality of radial antenna panels ([0038]).
Regarding claim 26, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 6) wherein the panel bonding tool further comprises a plurality of clamps ([0040]) to provide pressure of the reflector skin onto the adhesive for curing the adhesive during the fabrication of the respective one of the plurality of radial antenna panels ([0040]).
Regarding claim 27, Rudi further teaches (Fig. 6) wherein the panel bonding tool further comprises a center panel gravity stop (610) configured to contact a posterior surface of the reflector skin (204) when the reflector skin (204) is adhered to the first frame member and the second frame member of the respective one of the plurality of radial antenna panels ([0040]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudi in view of Winegard as applied to claim 27 above, and in further view of Farnum (US Patent No. 4574457 A).
Regarding claim 31, Rudi does not specifically teach wherein a height of the center panel gravity stop is adjustable.
However, Farnum teaches (Fig. 2-3) wherein a height of the center panel gravity stop (31) is adjustable (col. 2, line 49).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reflector antenna system of Rudi with Farnum to include “wherein a height of the center panel gravity stop is adjustable,” as taught by Farnum, for the purpose of improving precision of manufacturing (see also col. 1, lines 40-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 and 30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. Added primarily for emphasis, the claim recitations “the first frame member and the second frame member form the perimeter frame along a respective first longitudinal side and second longitudinal side of each of the plurality of radial antenna panels, the first frame member is opposite the second frame member, the first frame member and the second frame member each extend along a longitudinal length of the radial antenna panel, the first frame member and the second frame member each comprise a plurality of kerf slits to facilitate bending, and the reflector skin exhibits a reflector profile based on a bending of the first frame member and the second frame member” in claim 17 are not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845