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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments of the double patenting rejection presented in the previous Office Action, Applicant argues the claims of the present application are distinct or different in that they describe an aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and concave surface. However the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11749896 define an aperture having a frusto-pseudo-sphere shape where a top opening of the aperture is greater than a bottom opening of the aperture which encompasses a concave and convex surface. It is noted that the embodiments of the claimed inventions in the U.S. Patent and pending application have significantly similar disclosures which are relied upon for construing obvious claim terminology. See MPEP § 804(B)(1):
Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). The court in Vogel recognized “that it is most difficult, if not meaningless, to try to say what is or is not an obvious variation of a claim,” but that one can judge whether or not the invention claimed in an application is an obvious variation of an embodiment disclosed in the patent which provides support for the patent claim. According to the court, one must first “determine how much of the patent disclosure pertains to the invention claimed in the patent” because only “[t]his portion of the specification supports the patent claims and may be considered.” The court pointed out that “this use of the disclosure is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 103, since only the disclosure of the invention claimed in the patent may be examined.”
The disclosure of the U.S. Patent is reasonably relied upon for said ‘concave and convex’ surfaces of the frusto-psuedo-sphere shape aperture, i.e., claim 1 of the U.S. Patent seems to be narrower in describing the aperture shape than the instant claimed invention.
Regarding the arguments of the Drawing Objections, Applicant annotated FIG. 1 of the Drawings and points to unlabeled parts of the Drawing in which it is unclear which surfaces are the dielectric and interior surface formed by an aperture, i.e., see annotated FIG. 1 and labels A, B, C. This surface seems to be a different surface from the ones shown and discussed in FIG. 2, i.e., as shown in FIGS. 2-5. The pointing of other surfaces for the interior surface defined by the aperture further creates confusion and unclarity in what is attempting to be claimed, thus an additional indefiniteness rejection below is presented based on this annotated drawing and the arguments presented based on failure to claim Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the argument that Eubanks does not teach an aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex surface and a concave surface, Applicant generically claims that 13D of Eubanks does not teach a concave surface but does not address the statement in the previous Office Action regarding how Eubanks is said to teach the concave surface. Specifically, “(e.g., see Col. 3, Lns. 30-35; generating curve used for surface 13D has curvature that changes sign over its axial extent, so part of the curve is convex when the second derivative > 0 and another part is concave when the second derivative < 0, when this mixed-curvature curve is revolved about the axis 10 to form 13D, the resulting surface of revolution likewise has regions that are convex and regions that are concave)”. Accordingly, the mathematical and physical reason the curve forms a concave and a convex surface is previously established and the Applicant has not addressed it or any reasons why it does not.
Regarding the argument that 12C is described literally in Eubanks as “a central opening 12C in and end surface 12D thereof”, the Examiner advises that patent references are relevant for what they teach besides their literal statement and Applicants are expected to read beyond the literal statement of elements in the reference, especially reasons how and why the element is rejected in the rejection. The Examiner previously stated “a flat inner portion (e.g., see flat portions at 12C in FIG. 2 and shown at bottom surface 120 in FIG. 8) [emphasis added] extending radially outward (e.g., extending radially out as shown, also see Col. 2, Lns. 37-38), and a curved portion (e.g., see 12B) extending radially outward from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8 at 12E) [emphasis added]”. Accordingly given these reasons, 12B and 12D meet the claimed limitation for the rejection.
Regarding the lack of any arguments or addressing the Scherz rejection of Claim 1 and 11 in the Previous Office Action, Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 now has an extra underlined dash between “flat” and “portion” in the claim limitation in line 9 of the claim: “a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat _ portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component”. The previous set of claims did not have this underlined dash between ‘flat’ and ‘portion’. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11749896 B1 (hereinafter “the Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Claim 1 and 11: The Patent discloses an omni-directional low distortion broadband antenna and its method of manufacturing (e.g., see Claims 1 and 11 of the Patent), comprising: a rotationally symmetric dielectric component (e.g., being a horn antenna with hyperboloid sheet shape surface and frusto-pseudo-sphere shape aperture) comprising: a longitudinally extending exterior surface (“a longitudinally extending exterior surface”); an aperture longitudinally extending through the dielectric component (“an aperture longitudinally extending from a top to a bottom of said dielectric component”), said aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface (“said aperture defining an interior surface having a frusto-psuedo-sphere shape); a base comprising: a flat inner portion extending radially outward, and a curved portion extending radially outward from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component; an electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface; and an electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base (“said base comprising: a flat inner portion extending outwardly from said bottom opening, and a curved portion having a parabolic shape curving upward toward said top of the dielectric component and extending outwardly from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component; an electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface; and an electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base.”).
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection cannot be held in abeyance, see 37 CFR 1.111(b), MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface” (claim 1 and 11) does not appear anywhere in the Specification nor is it described; it is further not apparent where the features lines on the interior surface defined by the aperture.
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 1-20 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 1 and 11 now recite “said aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface…an electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface”. However, as objected to in the drawings and specification, the aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface is not clearly described in the specification and shown in the drawings so as to make the claimed subject matter clear and apparent to a skilled artisan. For example, Paragraph 28 states the aperture defines an interior surface of the dielectric component 100 which is later shown as C3 in FIG. 3. C3, which is defined by the aperture, seems to have a convex surface but no concave surface. Rather the exterior surface C2 of the dielectric component seems to be a concave surface, which seems to not be defined by the aperture nor is an interior surface; rather C2 seems to be formed or defined by the exterior/extrinsic surface of the dielectric. It is further unclear which interior surface the electrical conductor is applied to since it is indefinite which is interior surface which comprises a convex and a concave surface. Furthermore, Applicant now alleges in the Arguments/Remarks (see below) that the interior surface is an entirely different surface than C3, for example. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find the limitation unclear and indefinite such that the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation could not be appropriately determined.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under this heading due to depending on a rejected claim.
Claim 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Evidence that claim 1 and 11 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed 02/04/2026. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant has stated “Figure 1 illustrates an interior surface comprising a convex surface and a concave surface. As illustrated in the annotated version of Figure 1 illustrated below, the interior surface from point A to point B represents a convex surface on the interior surface and the surface from point B to point C represents a concave surface”, see Pg. 2 of the Remarks (Pg. 7 of the Response). However, this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim because the interior surface is not the same surface as C3 or C2 shown in FIG. 2 (also shown below the labeled surface in annotated FIG. 1). For example, Paragraph 30 and 34-35 of the Specification states C3 is the interior surface. Accordingly, based on at least the arguments and disclosure, the Applicant has failed to claim the dielectric component comprising the different/multiple surfaces defining an interior surface by the aperture.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8928546 B1 (hereinafter “Eubanks”).
Claim 1 and 11: Eubanks teaches an omni-directional low distortion broadband antenna (e.g., see antenna in FIGS. 1, 8, see Col. 5, Lns. 26-35) and a method of manufacturing thereof, comprising: a rotationally symmetric dielectric component (e.g., see 13 in FIG. 1) comprising: a longitudinally extending exterior surface (e.g., see 13A); an aperture (e.g., see aperture formed within 13D) longitudinally extending through the dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface (e.g., see Col. 3, Lns. 30-35; generating curve used for surface 13D has curvature that changes sign over its axial extent, so part of the curve is convex when the second derivative > 0 and another part is concave when the second derivative < 0, when this mixed-curvature curve is revolved about the axis 10 to form 13D, the resulting surface of revolution likewise has regions that are convex and regions that are concave); a base (e.g., see 12) comprising: a flat inner portion (e.g., see flat portions at 12C in FIG. 2 and shown at bottom surface 120 in FIG. 8) extending radially outward (e.g., extending radially out as shown, also see Col. 2, Lns. 37-38), and a curved portion (e.g., see 12B) extending radially outward from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8 at 12E); an electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface (e.g., see 11 being disposed on 13 as shown in FIG. 8, see Col. 3, Lns. 55-60); and an electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base (e.g., 12B being an electrical conductor).
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)(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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210044325 A1 (hereinafter “Scherz”).
Claim 1 and 11: Scherz teaches an omni-directional low distortion broadband antenna (e.g., see antenna in FIGS. 1-4, see Para. 64) and a method of manufacturing thereof, comprising: a rotationally symmetric dielectric component (e.g., see 16 in FIG. 1, see Para. 60, 66) comprising: a longitudinally extending exterior surface (e.g., see arrows pointed to by 12 and 14 in FIG. 1); an aperture (e.g., see aperture within 28 extending down in FIGS. 1, 3, 4) longitudinally extending through the dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface comprising a convex and a concave surface (e.g., see interior surface of 28, see concave top and tapering into convex shape toward 29, see Para. 66); a base (e.g., see 24, 29) comprising: a flat inner portion (e.g., see flat portions at 20 in FIGS. 1, 3, 4 and/or 22 in FIG. 4) extending radially outward, and a curved portion (e.g., see between 22/24 and 29) extending radially outward from the flat portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1); an electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface (e.g., 28 being an electrical conductor); and an electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base (e.g., 29 being an electrical conductor).
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) 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks.
Claim 2 and 12: Eubanks teaches the antenna of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, wherein the antenna is capable of transmitting and receiving a wireless signal having a 2:1 instantaneous bandwidth (e.g., see Col. 5, Lns. 26-33, having instantaneous bandwidth of ~3.42) but, while highly likely, not explicitly with a fidelity exceeding 80%.
However a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that a non-swept, multi-octave, low-VSWR, low-dispersion omni antenna such as that of Eubanks would yield high normalized time-domain correlation of a standard UWB pulse, commonly above 0.8, because the two principal degraders of fidelity which are mismatch-induced ringing and frequency-dependent delay are expressly mitigated by the taught geometry and taper surfaces of Eubank (e.g., see “nearly distortionless UWB data transmissions,” “observably tracks phase changes of the transmit signal,” and improved performance over a planar UWB monopole, discussion in Col. 5, Lns. 4-39) aligning with achieving at least 0.8 fidelity given the reported band and matching. This is a predictable result of applying the taught impedance and dispersion controls across a ≥2:1 instantaneous band.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been to a skilled artisan familiar with UWB antenna design to have understood that an antenna which operates instantaneously across the 3.1–10.6 GHz UWB band, maintains a maximum measured VSWR of about 2.5 across that band, and is expressly designed to cause low-, mid-, and high-frequency components to arrive approximately simultaneously by tailored tapers and overlapping non-conformal surfaces (e.g., see Col. 4, Lns. 36-49), would produce time-domain pulse responses with normalized fidelity factors that meet or exceed commonly accepted UWB fidelity thresholds (on the order of 0.8) over at least a 2:1 instantaneous sub-band within that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Eubanks alone and in light of common UWB antenna design practice, to expect that the Eubanks antenna, which operates instantaneously across the 3.1–10.6 GHz UWB band (an instantaneous bandwidth greater than 2:1), maintains a maximum measured VSWR of about 2.5 across that band, indicating a relatively low level of reflection and ripple in S11, and employs exponential tapers and overlapping, non-conformal surfaces specifically to cause low-, mid-, and high-frequency components to arrive at approximately the same time, thereby correcting phase distortion and reducing dispersion, would provide a time-domain fidelity factor exceeding 80% over at least a 2:1 portion of its instantaneous band, and since the principal contributors to fidelity degradation including poor impedance match and frequency-dependent delay are expressly mitigated.
Claim 3 and 13: Eubanks teaches the antenna of claim 2 and the method of claim 12, respectively, wherein the antenna is capable of transmitting and receiving a wireless signal instantaneously, without sweeping across frequency (e.g., antenna for all frequencies of a frequency range simultaneously, see claim 1, abstract).
Claim 4 and 14: Eubanks teaches the antenna of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, wherein the antenna is capable of simultaneously transmitting or receiving a first wireless signal and a second wireless signal (e.g., antenna for all frequencies of a frequency range simultaneously, see claim 1, abstract), each having a 2:1 instantaneous bandwidth (e.g., see Col. 5, Lns. 26-33, having instantaneous bandwidth of ~3.42) but, while highly likely, not explicitly at a fidelity exceeding 80%.
However a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that a non-swept, multi-octave, low-VSWR, low-dispersion omni antenna such as that of Eubanks would yield high normalized time-domain correlation of a standard UWB pulse, commonly above 0.8, because the two principal degraders of fidelity which are mismatch-induced ringing and frequency-dependent delay are expressly mitigated by the taught geometry and taper surfaces of Eubank (e.g., see “nearly distortionless UWB data transmissions,” “observably tracks phase changes of the transmit signal,” and improved performance over a planar UWB monopole, discussion in Col. 5, Lns. 4-39) aligning with achieving at least 0.8 fidelity given the reported band and matching. This is a predictable result of applying the taught impedance and dispersion controls across a ≥2:1 instantaneous band.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been to a skilled artisan familiar with UWB antenna design to have understood that an antenna which operates instantaneously across the 3.1–10.6 GHz UWB band, maintains a maximum measured VSWR of about 2.5 across that band, and is expressly designed to cause low-, mid-, and high-frequency components to arrive approximately simultaneously by tailored tapers and overlapping non-conformal surfaces (e.g., see Col. 4, Lns. 36-49), would produce time-domain pulse responses with normalized fidelity factors that meet or exceed commonly accepted UWB fidelity thresholds (on the order of 0.8) over at least a 2:1 instantaneous sub-band within that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Eubanks alone and in light of common UWB antenna design practice, to expect that the Eubanks antenna, which operates instantaneously across the 3.1–10.6 GHz UWB band (an instantaneous bandwidth greater than 2:1), maintains a maximum measured VSWR of about 2.5 across that band, indicating a relatively low level of reflection and ripple in S11, and employs exponential tapers and overlapping, non-conformal surfaces specifically to cause low-, mid-, and high-frequency components to arrive at approximately the same time, thereby correcting phase distortion and reducing dispersion, would provide a time-domain fidelity factor exceeding 80% over at least a 2:1 portion of its instantaneous band, and since the principal contributors to fidelity degradation including poor impedance match and frequency-dependent delay are expressly mitigated.
Claim 5 and 15: Eubanks teaches the antenna of claim 4 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein a frequency band of the first wireless signal does not overlap with a frequency band of the second wireless signal (e.g., wherein the antenna uses all frequencies of the UWB frequency range simultaneously, see claim 1, 16, 18 abstract, including many wireless signals at different frequencies).
Claim 6 and 16: Eubanks does not explicitly teach the antenna of claim 4 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein the first wireless signal and the second wireless signal are transmitted or received in the same frequency band.
However the Examiner takes Official/Judicial Notice that configuring two signals in the same frequency band using orthogonalization such as time, code, or subcarrier is ‘old and well-known’ in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize a same frequency orthogonalization such as time, code, or subcarrier such as CDMA, OFDM or OFDMA, so as to utilize a first wireless signal and a second wireless signal are transmitted or received in the same frequency band in order to increase efficiency of the frequency band improving throughput. A skilled artisan would configure two signals in the same frequency band using orthogonalization (time/code/subcarrier) over a broadband omni antenna, as this is a well-established approach in modern systems when instantaneous bandwidth and stable patterns are available. The antenna requirements are already satisfied by Eubank’s broadband omni teaching; the same-band multiplexing choice is a predictable system-level variation.
Claim 7 and 17: Eubanks does not explicitly teach the antenna of claim 4 and the method of claim 14, respectively, wherein an encoding sequence for the first wireless signal is orthogonal to an encoding sequence for the second wireless signal.
However the Examiner takes Official/Judicial Notice that configuring two signals using orthogonalization such as time, code, or subcarrier having orthogonal encodings is ‘old and well-known’ in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize orthogonalization such as time, code, or subcarrier having orthogonal encodings such as CDMA, OFDM or OFDMA, so as to utilize wherein an encoding sequence for the first wireless signal is orthogonal to an encoding sequence for the second wireless signal in order to increase efficiency of the frequency band improving throughput while employing separate signals and minimizing interference. A skilled artisan, starting from an instantaneous multi‑octave omni front end as taught by Eubanks, would employ orthogonal encodings (e.g., orthogonal codes, orthogonal subcarriers) as a conventional communications technique to allow concurrent signals to coexist in the same band with low mutual interference. Orthogonal coding is a routine system‑level choice when the antenna already supports simultaneous wideband operation with adequate pattern stability and impedance bandwidth.
Claim 9 and 19: Eubanks does not explicitly teach the antenna of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, wherein a maximum height of the dielectric component is less than 0.2 wavelengths at a lowest frequency.
However Eubanks teaches the maximum height of the dielectric component is approximately one-half wavelengths at a lowest frequency (e.g., see Col. 4, Lns. 3-10). Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official/Judicial Notice that antennas has maximum height of less than 0.2 wavelengths at a lowest frequency are ‘old and well-known’ in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan reduce the height of the antenna of Eubanks of less than 0.2 wavelengths at a lowest frequency with the motivation of reducing the antenna size which is a well-known technique and concept in the antenna art and to reduce the height the antenna occupies for applications where space is limited such as a vehicle for use in space or a missile system.
Claim 10 and 20: Eubanks does not explicitly teach the antenna of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, wherein a maximum height of the dielectric component is less than 0.2 wavelengths at a lowest frequency.
However Eubanks teaches the maximum diameter of the dielectric component is less than one-half wavelengths at a lowest frequency (e.g., see Col. 4, Lns. 55). Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official/Judicial Notice that antennas having a diameter of less than 0.2 wavelengths at a lowest frequency are ‘old and well-known’ in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan reduce the diameter of the antenna of Eubanks of less than 0.2 wavelengths at a lowest frequency with the motivation of reducing the antenna size which is a well-known technique and concept in the antenna art and to reduce the diameter the antenna occupies for applications where space is limited such as a vehicle for use in space or a missile system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. 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.
/AMAL PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845