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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 directed towards newly added limitations to the amended claims have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the grounds of rejection presented herein.
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) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8928546 B1 (hereinafter “Eubanks”) in view of US 20200373676 A1 (hereinafter “Bermeo”).
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 (e.g., see Col. 3, Lns. 30-35; generating curve used for surface 13D has curvature that changes sign over its axial extent, revolved about the axis 10 to form 13D); 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 inner portion to the exterior surface of the dielectric component (e.g., as shown in FIG. 8 at 12E); a first electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface of the rotationally symmetric dielectric component (e.g., see 11 being disposed on 13 as shown in FIG. 8, see Col. 3, Lns. 55-60); and a second electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base (e.g., 12B being an electrical conductor).
However, Eubanks does not explicitly teach that the first electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface and the second electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base are formed by conductive paint, metal ion sputtering, electroless nickel plating, electroplating, or other metallic coating techniques applied to the dielectric component, rather than as separate solid conductive metal elements, such that the dielectric is composed of a single component comprising a first metallized layer and the base comprised of a second metallized layer.
However Bermeo teaches an omnidirectional dielectric antenna structure (e.g., see 100 in FIGS. 1-2) that may be additively manufactured from a non-metallic, dielectric material and then coated with a metallic material (e.g., Para. 40: “additive manufacturing of a non-metallic, dielectric materials, followed by coating the dielectric with a metallic material could be used…additive manufacturing techniques could result in a unitary, integral structure, which would require a minimum of assembly, and which could afford great flexibility in cone geometry,”), thereby teaching a dielectric component constructed of a radio frequency transparent material and an electrical conductor disposed on antenna-defining surfaces of the dielectric component by metallizing the dielectric rather than by using separate solid metal parts. Furthermore, the instant Specification further teaches that “the conductive surfaces may be attached by various means including metal stamping and adhesive, conductive paint, metal ion sputtering, electroless nickel plating, electroplating, and other means,” (e.g., see Para. 34) thereby evidencing that these were recognized alternative fabrication techniques available to a skilled artisan for realizing the same conductive surfaces on a dielectric structure.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the antenna of Eubanks such that the conductive regions corresponding to the electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface and the electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base are formed as metallic coatings on the dielectric component, as taught by Bermeo, including by conductive paint, metal ion sputtering, electroless nickel plating, or electroplating as evidenced by the instant Specification, instead of as separate solid conductive metal parts, because these were known alternative fabrication techniques for forming conductive antenna surfaces on dielectric supports and would have predictably reduced part count, simplified assembly and manufacturing, and provided the same intended conductive and radiating functionality with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is such that it teaches the dielectric composed of a single component having the first electrical conductor as a first metallized layer and the second electrical conductors as a second metallized layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200373676 A1 (hereinafter “Bermeo”).
Claim 1 and 11: Bermeo teaches an omni-directional low distortion broadband antenna (e.g., see antenna in FIGS. 1-2 and 4, see broadband in FIG. 3) and a method of manufacturing thereof, comprising: a rotationally symmetric dielectric component (e.g., see Para. 40) comprising: a longitudinally extending exterior surface (e.g., see arrows pointed to by 110, 115 in FIGS. 1-2); an aperture (e.g., aperture within 110, see Para. 26) longitudinally extending through the dielectric component, said aperture defining an interior surface (e.g., an interior surface 115A defined by the interior aperture); a base comprising: a flat inner portion (e.g., see flat inner portion of 115A at bottom 105, see Para. 17, 23) extending radially outward, and a curved portion (e.g., see 115B) extending radially outward from the flat inner 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., 115 being an electrical conductor); and an electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base (e.g., 115 being an electrical conductor).
Bermeo does not explicitly teach that the first electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface and the second electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base are formed by conductive paint, metal ion sputtering, electroless nickel plating, electroplating, or other metallic coating techniques applied to the dielectric component, rather than as separate solid conductive metal elements, such that the dielectric is composed of a single component comprising a first metallized layer and the base comprised of a second metallized layer.
However Bermeo teaches the cones may be additively manufactured from a non-metallic, dielectric material and then coated with a metallic material (e.g., Para. 40: “additive manufacturing of a non-metallic, dielectric materials, followed by coating the dielectric with a metallic material could be used…additive manufacturing techniques could result in a unitary, integral structure, which would require a minimum of assembly, and which could afford great flexibility in cone geometry,”), thereby teaching a dielectric component constructed of a radio frequency transparent material and an electrical conductor disposed on antenna-defining surfaces of the dielectric component by metallizing the dielectric rather than by using separate solid metal parts. Furthermore, the instant Specification further teaches that “the conductive surfaces may be attached by various means including metal stamping and adhesive, conductive paint, metal ion sputtering, electroless nickel plating, electroplating, and other means,” (e.g., see Para. 34) thereby evidencing that these were recognized alternative fabrication techniques available to a skilled artisan for realizing the same conductive surfaces on a dielectric structure.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the antenna of Bermeo such that the conductive regions corresponding to the electrical conductor disposed on said interior surface and the electrical conductor disposed on said curved portion of said base are formed as metallic coatings on the dielectric component, as taught by Bermeo, including by conductive paint, metal ion sputtering, electroless nickel plating, or electroplating as evidenced by the instant Specification, instead of as separate solid conductive metal parts, because these were known alternative fabrication techniques for forming conductive antenna surfaces on dielectric supports and would have predictably reduced part count, simplified assembly and manufacturing, and provided the same intended conductive and radiating functionality with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is such that it teaches the dielectric composed of a single component having the first electrical conductor as a first metallized layer and the second electrical conductors as a second metallized layer.
Claim 2 and 12: Bermeo 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., FIG. 3 showing a very high instantaneous bandwidth ratio including at least a 2:1 ratio) 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 Bermeo 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 Bermeo (e.g., see discussion regarding transitions reducing impedance in Para. 23-24) 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 such a wideband as shown in FIG. 3, 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 transitions portions, 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 Bermeo alone and in light of common UWB antenna design practice, to expect that the Bermeo antenna, which operates instantaneously across such a wideband (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 transition 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: Bermeo 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 FIG. 3).
Claim 4 and 14: Bermeo 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 FIG. 3), each having a 2:1 instantaneous bandwidth 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 Bermeo 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 transition surfaces of Bermeo (e.g., see Para. 23-24, 31-32) 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 wideband, 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 transition surfaces 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 Bermeo alone and in light of common UWB antenna design practice, to expect that the Bermeo antenna, which operates instantaneously across the wideband (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: Bermeo 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 wide frequency range simultaneously, see FIG. 3, including many wireless signals at different frequencies).
Claim 6 and 16: Bermeo 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 Bermeo’s broadband omni teaching; the same-band multiplexing choice is a predictable system-level variation.
Claim 7 and 17: Bermeo 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 front end as taught by Bermeo, 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: Bermeo 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, 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 Bermeo 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: Bermeo 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, 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 Bermeo 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
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights