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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed August 11, 2025. Claims 14-16 and 36-47 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tu (US 20180319495; of record in IDS), in view of Morser et al. (US 20180191439; hereinafter Morser, of record in IDS), Lavin et al. (US 20170302006; hereinafter Lavin, of record in IDS) are all drawn to UAV systems which are equipped with antenna arrays for long range communication and are therefore within the same field of endeavor and would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine.
Applicant argues that Tu, Morser, or Lavin teaches an antenna array positioned on a tethered aircraft where a fist antenna is fixedly attached to a gimbal and the second antenna is fixedly attached to the tether within a null of the first antenna. Without agreeing with applicant’s assertion, Examiner notes that the now updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection relies upon Fluhler (US 20220413113, of record in IDS; previously cited for dependent claims 36 and 46-47) to teach the aforementioned amended limitation therefore rendering applicant’s argument moot.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 20180319495; of record in IDS), in view of Morser et al. (US 20180191439; hereinafter Morser, of record in IDS), and further in view of Fluhler (US 20220413113, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 14,
Tu teaches
An antenna array for a tethered unmanned aerial vehicle, (Tu: Paragraph [0071]) comprising:
a gimbal fixedly attached to the unmanned aerial vehicle; (Tu: Paragraph [0071])
at least one first antenna fixedly attached to the gimbal. (Tu: Paragraph [0071])
…
Tu does not teach
…
a tether comprising at least one fiber optic cable, the cable communicatively connected to the antenna array;
at least one second antenna fixedly attached to the tether, positioned in a null of the at least one first antenna;
a ground-based receiver communicatively connected to the at least one fiber optic cable; and
a communication relay unit positioned in the unmanned aerial vehicle and communicatively connected to the at least one first and second antennas and the least one fiber optic cable configured to relay signals received from the at least one first and second antennas via the fiber optic cable to the ground-based receiver.
However in the same field of endeavor, Morser teaches
…
a tether comprising at least one fiber optic cable, (Morser: Paragraph [0011]-[0012]) the cable communicatively connected to the antenna array; (Morser: Paragraph [0011], [0013]; Both the tether and the payload containing the antenna are coupled to the UAV and the UAV is able to send/receive signals via the attached tether. The signals include signals to and from the antenna array meaning that they are communicatively connected.)
a ground-based receiver communicatively connected to the at least one fiber optic cable; (Morser: Paragraph [0011], [0013]) and
a communication relay unit positioned in the unmanned aerial vehicle (Morser: Paragraph [0013]) and communicatively connected to the at least one first and second antennas and the least one fiber optic cable configured to relay signals received from the at least one first and second antennas via the fiber optic cable to the ground-based receiver. (Morser: Paragraph [0011]-[0013])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tethered drone with a gimbaled antenna of Tu with the tether containing a fiber optic cable that allows communication between the UAV and a ground base of Morser for the benefit of a simple and cost-effective implementation [of RoF communications] enabled at the base stations and lower transmission losses and reduced sensitivity to noise and electromagnetic interference when compared to all-electrical signal transmission. (Morser: Paragraph [0004])
Tu, in view of Moser, does not teach
...
at least one second antenna fixedly attached to the tether, positioned in a null of the at least one first antenna;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Fluhler teaches
...
at least one second antenna fixedly attached to the tether, (Fluher: Paragraph [0026], “The conducting cable of tether (120) preferably also acts as an antenna for an RF signal that is propagated up to and down from the conductive tether. Additionally, conducting tether (120) may provide a conductive data communications channel between the base station (140) and control electronics in the UAS body (101) In an alternative embodiment, separate conductive cables may be integrated into tether (120), one as an antenna, one for power, and one for communications. For data communications, the tether (120) may additionally or alternatively comprise a fiberoptic cable.”; [0034], and [0043]; “The antenna(e) may be integrated into the tether or mounted to the drone, or both.”) positioned in a null of the at least one first antenna; (Fluher: Paragraph [0045]; “...for surveying targets ingressing on or near a PTL, (FIG. 5), a linear antenna (500) may be mounted on the UAS (100), affixed, for example, to one of its rotor struts (102) or under one of its motors/gearboxes (103), or on a separate strut between two adjacent motors/gearboxes (103), and placed so as to use the conducive cable within the tether (120) as a sparse backplane for the linear array. This provides a Cartioid-like shaped antenna gain pattern in azimuth (550, top view), with a null in the direction from the linear antenna (500) to the tether (120), and an enhanced gain lobe in the direction from the tether (120) to the linear antenna (500).”)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu and Morser with the antenna arrangement of Fluhler for the benefit of a system and method for searching, tracking and classifying objects of interest in a way to maintain tactical covertness and survivability. (Fluhler: Paragraph [0011])
Regarding Claim 36,
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14, wherein the at least one first antenna is in a coaxial arrangement. (Fluhler: Paragraph [0034]; If the antenna is made up of a conductive line present within the tether then the antenna is coaxial with the tether itself.)
The motivation to combine Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, is the same as stated for Claim 14 above.
Regarding Claim 43,
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14, wherein the gimbal is a two-axis gimbal. (Tu: Paragraph [0071], [0121])
Regarding Claim 44,
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14, wherein the at least one antenna is a directional antenna. (Tu: Paragraph [0071])
Regarding Claim 47,
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14, wherein the tether further comprises a transmitting and/or receiving antenna for long wave radio. (Fluhler: Paragraph [0035])
The motivation to combine Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, is the same as stated for Claim 14 above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, and further in view of Peitzer et al. (US 20210044005; hereinafter Peitzer, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 15,
Tu, in view of Morser, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,…
Tu, in view of Morser, does not teach
…wherein the at least one first antenna is centered on the gimbal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Peitzer teaches
…wherein the at least one first antenna is centered on the gimbal. (Peitzer: Paragraph [0038], FIG. 5(A-C))
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, with the antenna centered on a gimbal of Peitzer for the benefit of supporting both line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight communication with and control of UAVs. (Peitzer: Paragraph [0005])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20190173170; hereinafter Lee, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 16,
Tu, in view of Morser, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,…
Tu, in view of Morser, does not teach
...wherein the at least one first antenna is positioned along the circumference of the gimbal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches
...wherein the at least one first antenna is positioned along the circumference of the gimbal. (Lee: Paragraph [0094)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, with the antenna positioning of Lee for the benefit of maintaining a position of the antenna in accordance with a direction of a target satellite even though an external state is changed. (Lee: Paragraph [0031])
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, further in view of Gasnier et al. (US 20180183496; hereinafter Gasnier, of record in IDS), and even further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 37,
Tu, in view of Morser, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,…
Tu, in view of Morser, does not teach
wherein the at least one first antenna is oriented vertically and positioned along the circumference of the gimbal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Gasnier teaches
…wherein the at least one first antenna is oriented vertically… (Gasnier: Paragraph [0043])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu with the antenna orientation of Gasnier for the benefit of enhanced communication between the controller and the drone. (Gasnier: Paragraph [0010])
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Gasnier, does not teach
…and positioned along the circumference of the gimbal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches
…and positioned along the circumference of the gimbal. (Lee: Paragraph [0094)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array orientation of Tu, Morser, and Gasnier, with the antenna positioning of Lee for the benefit of maintaining a position of the antenna in accordance with a direction of a target satellite even though an external state is changed. (Lee: Paragraph [0031]).
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, and further in view of Tian (US 20190054997, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 38,
Tu teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,…
Tu does not teach
…wherein the at least one first antenna is a panel antenna.
However in the same field of endeavor, Tian teaches
…wherein the at least one first antenna is a panel antenna. (Tian: Paragraph [0043])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, with the panel antenna of Tian for the benefit of increasing the range of communication by an antenna of a UAV. (Tian: Paragraph [0004])
Regarding Claim 39,
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Tian, teaches
The antenna array of claim 38, wherein the panel antenna is mounted about the circumference of the gimbal. (Tian: Paragraph [0058]-[0059])
The motivation to combine Tu, Morser, and Tian, is the same as stated for Claim 38 above.
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, and further in view of Mistry et al. (US 20200189731; hereinafter Mistry, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 40,
Tu, in view of Morser, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,…
Tu, in view of Morser, does not teach
…further comprising at least one filter.
However in the same field of endeavor, Mistry teaches
…further comprises at least one filter. (Mistry: Paragraph [0245])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, with the filter of Mistry for the benefit of better equipping drones to be more capable in executing reconnaissance and observation tasks. (Mistry: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 41,
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Mistry, teaches
The antenna array of claim 40, wherein the at least one filter is selected from a low-pass filter, a high-pass filter, or a band-pass filter. (Mistry: Paragraph [0245])
The motivation to combine Tu, Morser, and Mistry, is the same as stated for Claim 40 above.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, and further in view of Lavin et al. (US 20170302006; hereinafter Lavin, of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 42,
Tu, in view of Morser, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,…
Tu, in view of Morser, does not teach
…wherein the first antenna is positioned at least partially inside the gimbal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lavin teaches
…wherein the first antenna is positioned at least partially inside the gimbal. (Lavin: Paragraph [0040]; Either of the disclosed antennas can be disposed within the structure they are coupled too. In this combination that would mean that they are able to be disposed within the gimbal.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna array of Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, with the positioning of the two antennas of Lavin for the benefit of finding an appropriate location to mount the antenna on the outside of the aerospace vehicle. (Lavin: Paragraph [0005])
Claim 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Fluhler, as applied to claims 14, 36, 43-44, and 47, above, further in view of Broberg et al. (US 20190283869; hereinafter Broberg, of record in IDS), and even further in view of Riedel (US 20180273171, of record in IDS)
Regarding Claim 45
Tu, in view of Morser, teaches
The antenna array of claim 14,...
Tu, in view of Morser, does not teach
...wherein the ground-based transmitter is communicatively connected to a second fiber optic cable; and
wherein the communication relay unit is configured to relay signals received from the ground based transmitter to the at least one first antenna or the at least one second antenna.
However in the same field of endeavor, Broberg teaches
...wherein the ground-based transmitter is communicatively connected to a second fiber optic cable; and (Broberg: Paragraph [0059]; The tether can include at least one fiber optic cable meaning that the tether can have more than one at a time.)
…
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tether drone antenna array Tu, Morser, and Fluhler, with the plurality of fiber optic cables of Broberg for the benefit of providing a physical connection to a ground station for the continuous transmission of power and data through a cable or “tether.” (Broberg: Paragraph [0003])
Tu, in view of Morser, and further in view of Broberg, does not teach
...
wherein the communication relay unit is configured to relay signals received from the ground based transmitter to the at least one first antenna or the at least one second antenna.
However in the same field of endeavor, Riedel teaches
…
wherein the communication relay unit is configured to relay signals received from the ground based transmitter to the at least one antenna. (Riedel: Paragraph [0095]-[0096])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tether drone antenna array with fiber optic cables of Tu, Morser, and Broberg, with the relay signals of Riedel for the benefit of permanently maintaining the desired flight position without requiring continuous or regular intervention by an operator. (Riedel: Paragraph [0008])
Regarding Claim 46
Tu, in view of Morser, further in view of Fluhler, further in view of Broberg, and further in view of Riedel, teaches
The antenna array of claim 45, further comprising a plurality of RF-over-fiber transceivers, (Morser: Paragraph [0011]; The system includes a pair of RF transceivers.) configured to convert optical signals received from the first fiber optic cable into radio frequency signals for the ground-based receiver, (Morser: Paragraph [0004]) and to convert radio frequency signals from the ground-based transmitter into optical signals for the second fiber optic cable. (Morser: Paragraph [0004]-[0005]; The RF system allows for bidirectional communication meaning that the signals may go from the base station to the UAV and vice versa.)
The motivation to combine Tu, Morser, Fluhler, Broberg, and Riedel, is the same as stated for Claim 45 above.
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663