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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of January 8, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to claims 2 and 22-25 are considered and the respective amendments to the claims are accepted. There are no further objections to the claims.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 6-15, 21, and 22 are considered and the respective amendments to the claims are accepted. The 112 rejections of these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of claims 1-15 and 21-25 are considered. The amendments to claims 1 and 6 overcome the rejections made and these rejections are withdrawn. Subsequently, the 103 rejections of the claims depending on the respective base claims are withdrawn, as well.
Regarding claim 1 (p. 8, section i.), the applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation added by the amendment wherein “an outer most edge of the mechanical coupler is aligned with, extends parallel to and extends along a center line of the directional adapter, and the mechanical coupler extends from the center line of the directional adapter in the first direction towards the electromagnetic reflector such that a center axis of the mechanical coupler extends parallel to and offset from the center line of the directional adapter in the first direction.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Giaimo et al. (US 20050026655 A1, hereinafter Giaimo) discloses (Figs. 7A-B) all of the elements of the above limitation as presented in the 103 rejection of claim 1 below.
In addition, the amendment adds new matter to claim 1, thus, resulting in 112(a) rejection of the claim, as well.
Regarding claim 6 and its amendments (p. 9, section ii.), the examiner finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive. Claim 6 and its dependent claims are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (lines 12-15) recites “a center line of the directional adapter”. This feature is not defined in the Disclosure, not it is illustrated in the Drawings of the current invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 23-25 are 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 (lines 12-15) recites “a center line of the directional adapter”. It is not clear how the center line of the directional adapter is being defined. The disclosure does not recite a center line of the directional adapter. Although Fig. 4B shows a center (440) of the adapter structure (see [0029], lines 1-2), since Fig. 4B represents a cross-sectional view of the adapter structure it is not clear whether the center (440) is located on the support member (408) or on the left outer most edge of the coupler (402). Further, despite a center of the adapter being defined, it is not sufficient for the definition of a center line of the adapter structure without specifying its orientation.
Claims 3-5 and 23-25 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaimo, III et al. (20050026655A1, hereinafter Giaimo) in view of Alsliety (US 20030160730 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Giaimo discloses (Figs. 7A-B; [0041], lines 1-14) an antenna system, comprising:
an omni-directional antenna element (56; regarding the omni-directional antenna element, see [0028], lines 1-6 – the wireless local area network (LAN) router (base station) 42 is an example of the devices the directional adapter of Giaimo is used with);
a directional adapter (90) having a mechanical coupler (54) and an electromagnetic reflector (50) that are both coupled to a support member (92), the directional adapter (90) detachably coupled to the omni-directional antenna element (56) via the mechanical coupler (54; see par. [0041] lines 4-5 “includes a clip 54 for attaching the accessory to antenna 56”), and the electromagnetic reflector (50) being offset from the omni-directional antenna element (56) in a first direction (regarding the first direction, see annotated Fig. 7A (1) in Giaimo below);
a plurality of directors (96) that extend out from a same single side of the support member (92; see annotated Fig. 7A (1) in Giaimo below – as depicted in the figure, the directors (96) extend out from the same side of the support member (92) in a XY-plane along the longitudinal axis of the support member (92)), and are offset by different amounts from the mechanical coupler (54) in a second direction opposed from the first direction (regarding the offset and the second direction, see annotated Fig. 7A (1) in Giaimo below), wherein a first one of the plurality of directors is farther from the coupler than a second one of the plurality of directors (regarding the first one of the plurality of directors and
PNG
media_image1.png
566
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second one of the plurality of directors, see annotated Fig. 7A (1) in Giaimo below);
wherein an outer most edge of the mechanical coupler (54) is aligned with, extends parallel to and extends along a center line of the directional adapter (90), and the mechanical coupler extends from the center line of the directional adapter in the first direction towards the electromagnetic reflector such that a center axis of the mechanical coupler extends parallel to and offset from the center line of the directional adapter in the first direction (regarding the outer most edge of the mechanical coupler, the center line of the directional adapter, the center axis of the mechanical coupler, and the first direction, see annotated Fig. 7A (2) in Giaimo below).
PNG
media_image2.png
504
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Giamo does not disclose a plurality of directors that are equal in size.
Alsliety (Fig. 2; [0010]) teaches an antenna (14) comprising a plurality of directors (26) that are equal in size.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giaimo’s antenna system so that the directors in the antenna system are equal in size as taught by Alsliety. This modification would provide an antenna system that is highly directional and is small in physical size (see Alsliety, [0015], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Giaimo teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
Giaimo (Fig. 7A) further teaches the directional adapter (90) has a structural element (92) disposed between the reflector (50) and the omni-directional antenna element (56).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Giaimo teaches the antenna system of claim 3.
Giaimo ([0041], lines 7-8) further teaches the structural element (92) is generally electromagnetically nonconductive.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Giaimo as applied to claim 1 in view of Zigler et al. (US 20040217908 A1, hereinafter Zigler).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Giaimo teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Giaimo does not teach the limitation wherein the directional adapter is detachably coupled indirectly to the omni-directional antenna element.
Zigler teaches (Fig. 9; [0037], lines 10-21) directional adapter (901, 902, 903, 907) is detachably coupled indirectly to the omni-directional antenna element (905).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giaimo’s antenna system so that the directional adapter is detachably coupled indirectly to the omni-directional antenna element as taught by Zigler. This modification would have provided a directional adapter, which can change its orientation in relation to the omni-directional antenna element and, as a result, can change the direction of the maximum gain of the antenna pattern (see Zigler, [0037], lines 14-27).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Giaimo as applied to claim 1 in view of Berkowitz et al. (US 4028709 A, hereinafter Berkowitz).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, the modified Giaimo teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Giaimo does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna system further comprises another director that slidingly engages a track formed in the support member.
Berkowitz (Figs. 2, 3; col. 3, lines 7-9) teaches an antenna system (10) comprising a director (18) that slidingly engages a track (56) formed in a support member (12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giaimo’s antenna system to add another director that slidingly engages a track formed in the support member as taught by Berkowitz. This modification would provide the antenna system with a director that is slidably adjustable for independent spacing from the omni-directional antenna element (see Berkowitz, Abstract).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Giaimo as applied to claim 1 in view of Powers et al. (US 5061944 A, hereinafter Powers).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, the modified Giaimo teaches the antenna system of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Giaimo does not teach the limitation wherein a frequency of the antenna system is tunable by changing a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of directors.
Powers (Figs. 2-3, 7; col. 7, lines 12-19 and 47-58; col. 8, lines 1-10) teaches a frequency of the antenna system is tunable (see col. 7, lines 47-58; col. 8, lines 1-10) by changing a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of directors (46-49 – Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giaimo so that a frequency of the antenna system is
tunable by changing a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of directors as taught by Powers. This modification would provide an antenna system which is characterized by high directivity over a relatively wide band of contiguous frequencies (see Powers, col. 2, lines 21-27).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Giaimo as applied to claim 1 in view of Olsen et al. (US 20070279308 A1, hereinafter Olsen).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, the modified Giaimo teaches the antenna adapter system of claim 1 as
addressed above.
The modified Giaimo does not teach the limitation wherein a protrusion or detent is provided on an internal surface of the mechanical coupler that is configured to use suction to adhere to the omnidirectional antenna element.
Olsen (Fig. 1) teaches a protrusion or detent is provided on an internal surface of a mechanical coupler (suction devices 10, 20; a protrusion or detent on the internal surface of a suction device is inherent) that is configured to use suction to adhere to a mounting surface (110).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Giaimo’s antenna system so that a protrusion or detent is provided on an internal surface of the mechanical coupler that is configured to use suction to adhere to the omni-directional antenna element as taught by Olsen. This modification would provide the antenna system with a directional adapter that may be temporarily removed from the omni-directional antenna element and subsequently restored or relocated to another mounting surface. (see Olsen, Abstract, lines 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 and 21-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In response to the amendments made, and upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that these claims are allowable.
Giaimo and Berkowitz teach some elements of the claimed invention including: an antenna adapter comprising a mechanical coupler attachable to an antenna and an electromagnetic reflector offset from the mechanical coupler in a first direction; and an electromagnetic reflector having a variable size.
However, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. Specifically, none of the cited references teaches or suggests: support members, wherein the support members extend between the mechanical coupler and respective sides of the electromagnetic reflector and have lengths that are variable; and wherein the electromagnetic reflector has a variable size that is increased by applying a force thereto as the lengths of the support members expand.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845