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 Amendment
The amendments filed on January 7th 2026 have been entered. Claims 1,11-19 and 21- 30 are currently pending. Applicants’ amendments to claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 10th 2025.
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) 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20100030644 A) in view of Greve et al. (US 11784401 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee et al. further discloses a hemispheric antenna defining a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (Orthogonal Crossed dipole antenna structured define a horizontal distance H and vertical distance V as shown in amended figure 5 of Lee et al.), the hemispheric antenna comprising:
a radome top (Dipole antenna structure can comprise a radome 300 wherein the plurality of wires are disposed at least partially within wherein said wires are configured to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves; Paragraph 3-13 and figure 1 of Lee et al.); and
a plurality of antenna wires configured to receive or transmit electromagnetic waves (Dipole antenna structure comprises 2 antenna radiators 430 and 430a that extend from the coaxial cables 410 and 410a wherein they are monopole antenna in the form of wires form the inner conductor of the cable and it can further include 2 more wires 740/740a; Paragraph 3-10 and 23-26 as seen in amended figure 5 and 7 of Lee et al.), wherein:
each of the plurality of antenna wires define at least three straight portions , the at least three straight portions comprising a first straight portion, a second straight portion, and a third straight portion (Each of the wires comprise a first portion, low labeled S1, extending from the cable, a second straight portion, low labeled S2, separated by a curved portion defined angle A1, and a third straight portion, now labeled S3, separated from the second by an curved portion defined by angle A2 wherein more bent portions and thus straight components may be added; Paragraph 3-10, and 23-26 as well as amended figure 5 of Lee et al.),
each of the plurality of antenna wires define a plurality of curved portions that connect adjacent straight portions (Each of the straight portions S1, S2, and S3 are separated from each by a first curved portion defined by angle A1 and a second curved portion defined by angle A2 wherein the radiators may have more bent portions and thus more curved portions; Paragraph 3-10, 23-26 and amended figure 5 of Lee et al.),
a first angle is defined between the first straight portion and the second straight portion of the at least three straight portions (First angle A1 is defined between the first straight portion S1 and second straight portion S2; Paragraph 3-10, 23-26 and amended figure 5 of Lee et al.), and
a second angle is defined between the second straight portion and a third straight portion of the at least three straight portions, the second straight portion being adjacent to the first straight portion and the third straight portion (Second angle A2 is defined between the second straight portion S2 and third straight portion S3 and can be can be anywhere between 0-90 degrees, furthermore the second straight portion S2 is adjacent to the first and third straight portions; Paragraph 3-10, 23-26 and amended figure 5 of Lee et al.).
Although, Lee et al. fails to disclose the first straight portion is coplanar with the second straight portion such that they lie on a plane, the third straight portion is noncoplanar with the first straight portion and the second straight portion such that the third straight portion is angled at an angle that is greater than zero degrees and less than 180 degrees relative to the plane and fails to explicitly a second angle that differs from the first angle. Lee et al. does suggest the second angle and first angle can differ (First angle a1 and second angle a2 can be changed from anywhere from 0 to 90 degrees; Paragraph 22-24 of Lee et al.).
However, Greve et al. does disclose the first straight portion is coplanar with the second straight portion such that they lie on a plane, the third straight portion is noncoplanar with the first straight portion and the second straight portion such that the third straight portion is angled at an angle that is greater than zero degrees and less than 180 degrees relative to the plane (Antenna can comprise driven elements 102 which may be conductive copper wires that comprise central portions 102b and top portions 102a which can be straight or angled and figure 2c discloses a configuration with a first tip portion now labeled p1 and a second central portion now labeled p2 are coplanar when viewed from the top wherein a third central portion now labeled p3 extends upwards (angled upward slope) from the second portion at an angle between 0-90 degrees such that is no longer coplanar with the other two portions when viewed from the top; Paragraph 10-20 and figure 2a-2d of Greve et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Lee et al. to have the second angle that differs from the first angle since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The motivation stems from the fact that the a1 and a2 can both be varied from anywhere between 0 to 90 degrees and that adjusting these angles affects the antenna beam shape and pattern wherein having 2 different angles from the 0 to 90 degree range would still provide a reasonable expectation of success (Paragraph 19 and 23-26 of Lee et al.). It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Lee et al. to have the first straight portion be coplanar with the second straight portion such that they lie on a plane, the third straight portion is noncoplanar with the first straight portion and the second straight portion such that the third straight portion is angled at an angle that is greater than zero degrees and less than 180 degrees relative to the plane as taught by Greve et al. since the antenna length and form factors affects the performance of the antenna (Paragraph 10 of Greve et al.) and since the antenna of Lee et al. can be configured for more bent portions with a variety of bent angles (Paragraph 26 of Lee et al.).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
470
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, Lee et al. further discloses wherein: each of the at least three straight portions define a proximal end and a distal end, and at least one of the at least three straight portions slopes downward from the proximal end to the distal end relative to the horizontal direction (Each of the straight portions S1, S2, S3 of wire 430 comprise a proximal and distal end wherein S2 and S3 both have a downward slope from a proximal end to a distal end as seen in amended figure 5 of Lee et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 12-19, 21-23, and 25-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “ each of the at least three straight portions define a proximal end and a distal end, the second straight portion slopes upward from the proximal end to the distal end relative to the horizontal direction, and the third straight portion slopes downward from the proximal end to the distal end relative to the horizontal direction” as recited in claim 1 and 25.
Lee et al., Greve et al. are cited as teaching some of the elements of the claimed invention including an a plurality of antenna wires, multiple straight antenna wire portions, multiple curved antenna wire portions, a radome, an angle between the wire portions, a coplanar first and second portion, and a third noncoplanar portion.
However, 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.
Claims 12-19, 21-23, and 26-30 depend from claim 25 and as such are allowable for the reasons given above.
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.”
Response to Arguments
“First, Applicant request clarification regarding the citation of paragraphs 10-20 of Greve. Because Greve is a patent, there are no paragraph numbers and instead there are column and line numbers.
Second, Applicant contends that the Office Action's reliance on Fig. 2C of Greve for the rejection is improper. Specifically, Applicant emphasizes that Fig. 2C of Greves can only be relied on if it "clearly show[s] the structure which is claimed." MPEP §2125(I) (citing In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)). The bend between segments P2 and P3 (circled in the annotation below) does not clearly show that P3 is on a different plane than P1 and P2.
Further, Applicant contends that the text of Greve indicates that each of the segments of the respective element (e.g., element 102 or 103) are all coplanar with each other. Specifically, the Summary of Greves references a "compound bend system such as commonly referred to as a 'z-bend'." A "z-bend" denotes bends in the same plane. The patent does not redefine "z-bend" to mean out-of-plane bending, nor does it describe bend axes that differ among creases (which would be necessary to compel non-coplanarity). As such, because Fig. 2C does not clearly show the claimed structure and the text of Greve indicates that each of the segments are coplanar with each other, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 11 be withdrawn.”
Applicant's arguments filed on November 19th 2025 in regards to claims 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Greve fail to “the first straight portion is coplanar with the second straight portion such that they lie on a plane, the third straight portion is noncoplanar with the first straight portion and the second straight portion such that the third straight portion is angled at an angle that is greater than zero degrees and less than 180 degrees relative to the plane”.
Regarding applicants arguments in response to figure 2c of Greve. The examiner notes that the claim requires a first portion and second portion that are coplanar in one plane and a third portion is non-coplanar in that same plane. As noted by the examiner in the rejection well looking at p1 and p2 from a top view (this top view being the plane chosen to meet claim requirements and we can call it an x-y plane) we can see that p1 and p2 would be coplanar from this viewpoint. However P3, as seen in figure 2c, extends upward and to the left from p2 and as such when viewed from the top would be extending partially out of the page (in a z direction if the top view plane is taken as x-y) which would cause it to be non-coplanar from portions p1 and p2. As such Greve does meet the claim requirement since we have a first and second portion p1/p2 that are coplanar and a third portion p3 that is non-coplanar in a plane defined as a top-down view of the wire portion. Finally, Greve also discloses the claim concept in general when noting that the wires can come multiple central potions like 102b that can be horizontal and/or vertical thus extending in the same direction therein being coplanar, and the wire can comprise end portions 102a that can be angled such that they move away from the central portions and would be non-coplanar. A further example of this can be seen in figure 2d of Greve that shows a portion with two straight parts and a bent angled portion. The relevant paragraphs noted were paragraphs 10-20 and the corresponding columns would be columns 4-5.
Furthermore, regarding applicants arguments of the term “Z-bend” as used in Greve. The examiner notes that Greve does not disclose actually directions or any official cartesian coordinate axes, and the term Z-bend is used to describe a compound bend system which would comprise straight components and angled components. An applicant is allowed to define words in their own meaning even if its contrary to an ordinary meaning since an applicant may acts as his or her own lexicographer. However, even if one were to try and give the Z-bend meaning, the Z axis is generally defined as the out of page axis that is non-coplanar with the X-Y axis. Based on this and the description/examples of the antenna wires comprising straight/angled portions, the compound bend system known as the “Z-bend” would most likely be referring to straight portions along the same direction and then an angled portion extending outward at an angle away from the straight portions providing a Z based bend.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 10916837 B2(Greve; Charles A.) discloses an antenna comprising multiple antenna wires disposed within a radome wherein the wires have a curve radius.
US 20120081259 A1(Regala; Florenio Pinili) discloses an antenna device with four antenna wires comprising multiple straight portions.
WO 2007094122 A1 (NAKANO HISAMATSU et al.) discloses an antenna comprising four antenna wires with three straight portions wherein one of two of these straight portions are coplanar and a third portion is noncoplanar.
US 10263320 B2 (Kourti; Asimina et al.) discloses a wire antenna comprising multiple curves with a given bend radius.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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 E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845