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
Applicant’s Amendment submitted 4/23/2026 have been received and entered.
Claims 1-15 remain pending.
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 4 recites the limitation "the ground plane element" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ground plane element" in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ground plane element" in claim 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination, the prior art rejections below follow as best understood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 3
Claim 11 depends from claim 1, and, as amended, recites the same limitations of “a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables, the cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material” as already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US PGPUB 2023/0136811 A1) hereinafter known as Alvarez in view of Griffee et al. (US Patent No. 3811127 A), hereinafter known as Griffee and further in view of Anderson (US PGPUB 20180090843 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez discloses (Fig. 1A-1B and 1E) An antenna apparatus, the antenna apparatus (100) comprising: a base plate (132); a ground element (106; [0072]) disposed above the base plate (132); and a patch antenna element (104) disposed above the base plate (132); one or more slots (116A-116D) being formed in corner regions of the ground element (106), wherein the one or more slots (116A-116D) being arranged to form an arrow shape (two arrow shapers by 116A-116D in the corner regions) in the corner regions.
Alvarez does not specifically teach a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables, the cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material.
However, Namba teaches (Fig. 1) a cross-over bracket (4) disposed on an underside of the ground element (2), the cross-over bracket (4) comprising one or more cable terminations (4b) for terminating ends of feed cables (5).
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Namba to include “a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables,” as taught by Namba, for the purpose of reducing noise (see also [0034]).
Anderson teaches a cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material(elements 210, Fig 2).
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez and Namba with Anderson to include “a cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material,” as dielectric materials are lightweight, and for the purpose of securing and supporting the antenna assembly(see also 0061, 0062).
Regarding claim 3, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the patch antenna (104) is configured as a planar element (104).
Regarding claim 5, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1B) wherein the ground plane (106) is configured as a planar element (106).
Regarding claim 8, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1B-1E) wherein a wall member (108) is disposed between the base plate e (132) and the ground element (106).
Regarding claim 9, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1D) wherein the wall member (108) includes one or more elongated openings (126) between sections of the wall member (108).
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1D) wherein corner regions of the wall member (108) defining openings (126, 128) between sections of the wall member.
Regarding claim 12, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the patch antenna element (104) is suspended above the ground element (106) with standoffs (112A-112D).
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the ground element (106) is supported above the base plate (132) by standoffs (112A-112D).
Regarding claim 14, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 5) wherein the standoffs (508) comprise metal standoffs (510; [0105]).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez further discloses (Fig. 1A) wherein the standoffs (112A-112D) comprise dielectric standoffs ([0059]).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Griffee.
Regarding claim 2, Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein the patch antenna element has a conical shape configured as a faceted cone with a folded rim.
However, Griffee teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the patch antenna element (30, 32, 34, 36) has a conical shape configured as a faceted cone with a folded rim (bottom folded rim of 30, 32, 34, 36).
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Griffee to include “wherein the patch antenna element has a conical shape configured as a faceted cone with a folded rim,” as taught by Griffee, for the purpose of improving bandwidth (see also col. 1, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood,, Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein the ground plane element is configured as faceted cone elements.
However, Griffee teaches (Fig. 3-4) wherein the ground plane element is configured as faceted cone elements (40)
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez with Griffee to include “wherein the ground plane element is configured as faceted cone elements,” as taught by Griffee, for the purpose of improving bandwidth (see also col. 1, lines 13-16)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Griffee in view of Anderson and further in view of Kubwimana et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0250430 A1), hereinafter known as Kubwimana.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Alvarez, as modified, further teaches wherein the ground plane element (102) includes a top face sheet (106), a bottom face sheet (108) but does not specifically teach and a foam layer disposed there between.
However, Kubwimana teaches (Fig. 1D) a foam layer (120) disposed there between.
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez, Griffee et al and Anderson with Kubwimana to include “a foam layer disposed there between,” as taught by Kubwimana, for the purpose of improving bandwidth (see also [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Alvarez does not specifically teach wherein a capacitive metallic strip is disposed across a slot on the top face sheet of the ground plane element.
However, Kubwimana teaches (Fig. 1C) wherein a capacitive metallic strip (108) is disposed across a slot (124) on the top face sheet of the ground plane element (112).
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez. Griffee et al and Anderson with Kubwimana to include “wherein a capacitive metallic strip is disposed across a slot on the top face sheet of the ground plane element,” as taught by Kubwimana, for the purpose of feeding the antenna element (see also [0047]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Griffee in view of Anderson and further in view of Namba (US PGPUB 2021/0119337 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez does not specifically teach further comprising a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables, the cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material.
However, Namba teaches (Fig. 1) a cross-over bracket (4) disposed on an underside of the ground plane element (2), the cross-over bracket (4) comprising one or more cable terminations (4b) for terminating ends of feed cables (5).
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez and Griffee with Namba to include “a cross-over bracket disposed on an underside of the ground plane element, the cross-over bracket comprising one or more cable terminations for terminating ends of feed cables,” for the purpose of reducing noise (see also [0034]).
Anderson teaches a cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material(elements 210, Fig 2).
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 antenna apparatus of Alvarez Griffee and Namba with Anderson to include “a cross-over bracket being formed of a dielectric material,” as dielectric materials are lightweight, and for the purpose of securing and supporting the antenna assembly(see also 0061, 0062).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed in the PTO 892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
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 DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights