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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roper et al. (US 2019/0383619, hereafter Roper).
Regarding claim 1, Roper(‘619) discloses that An antenna { Fig.15 item 1502 (3D Rx antenna);} comprising:
a core {[0098] lines 7-9 (a loop antenna is improved by using a loop with a large number of turns and a ferrite core)};
a first loop antenna comprising a first conductive loop formed around the core;
a second loop antenna comprising a second conductive loop formed around the core at a first angle relative to the first conductive loop; and
a third loop antenna comprising a third conductive loop formed around the core at a second angle relative to the first conductive loop.
{ Fig.7 item 504 (3D Rx antenna); Fig.15 item 1502 (orthogonal ferrite rod antenna); [0097] lines 4-5 (3D Rx antenna 504 comprises three separate loop antennas 1502 mounted orthogonally); [0098] lines 7-9 (a loop antenna is improved by using a loop with a large number of turns and a ferrite core.)}
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) discloses that in the antenna,
the core comprises ferrite { Fig.15 item 1502 (3D Rx Antenna, orthogonal ferrite rod antenna); [0098] lines 7-9 (a loop antenna is improved by using a loop with a large number of turns and a ferrite core)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) discloses that in the antenna,
the first angle is substantially ninety degrees { Fig.7 item 504 (3D Rx antenna); Fig.15 item 1502 (orthogonal ferrite rod antenna); [0097] lines 4-5 (3D Rx antenna 504 comprises three separate loop antennas 1502 mounted orthogonally)}.
Regarding claim 12, Roper(‘619) discloses that A device {[0005] line 2-3 (positioning system, receiver } comprising:
an antenna comprising:
a core;
a first loop antenna comprising a first conductive loop formed around the core;
a second loop antenna comprising a second conductive loop formed around the core at a first angle relative to the first conductive loop; and
a third loop antenna comprising a third conductive loop formed around the core at a second angle relative to the first conductive loop; and
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
an electronics unit coupled to the antenna { Fig.15 items 1524, 1508 couple to items 1506, 1504; [0099] lines 3-8 (The signal from each antenna 1502 has low amplitude ( of the order of uV ) and is amplified by one of three differential amplifiers 1504 , preferably located in the same housing 1506 as the antennas 1502 to prevent unwanted noise being induced on the antenna output signal); [0106] lines 7-9 (receiver hardware may be implemented on a single circuit card assembly and enclosed in a housing 1524)}, wherein the electronics unit comprises:
a receiver configured to receive a first signal from the first loop antenna, a second signal from the second loop antenna, and a third signal from the third loop antenna {Fig.15 items 1524, 1508 (ADC) couple to items 1506, 1504, 1502 with 3 signals from item 1502; [0098] lines 7-9 (a loop antenna, improved by using a loop with a large number of turns and a ferrite core .), 14-15 (the ferrite antennas 1502); [0099] lines 5-6 (three differential amplifiers 1504, housing 1506, antennas 1502); [0106] lines 7-9 (receiver hardware may be implemented on a single circuit card assembly and enclosed in a housing 1524)}; and
a software-defined radio component configured to process signals associated with the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal { Fig.15 items 1510 (Digital Signal Processor), 1512 (NVM), 1514 (RAM); [0102] lines 2-4 (a digital signal processor 1510 , a non - volatile memory ( NVM ) 1512, a random – access memory ( RAM ) 1514); [0124] lines 1-5 (embodiments , formed computing devices having at least one processor configured to execute software instructions stored on a computer readable tangible , non - transitory medium)}.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, Roper(‘619) discloses that A device {[0005] line 2-3 (positioning system, receiver } comprising:
a housing {Fig.15 items 1506, 1524; [0099] line 6 (housing 1506); [0106] line 9 (housing 1524)};
an antenna contained within the housing {Fig.15 item 1502 in item 1506; [0098] lines 14-15 (the ferrite antennas 1502)}, wherein the antenna comprises:
a core;
a first loop antenna comprising a first conductive loop formed around the core;
a second loop antenna comprising a second conductive loop formed around the core at a first angle relative to the first conductive loop; and
a third loop antenna comprising a third conductive loop formed around the core at a second angle relative to the first conductive loop;
an electronics unit contained within the housing and coupled to the antenna, wherein the electronics unit comprises:
a receiver configured to receive a first signal from the first loop antenna, a second signal from the second loop antenna, and a third signal from the third loop antenna; and
a software-defined radio component configured to process signals associated with the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal; and
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 12. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 12. See the rejections of claim 12}.
an interface contained within the housing and coupled to the electronics unit, wherein the interface is configured to enable data transfer from the electronics unit to a second device external to the housing {Fig.15 item 1516 (data port); [0105] lines 1-3 (DSP 1510 may also be connected to a data port 1516 , to allow specific configuration parameters used in the receiver or the positioning algorithms to be loaded into it .), 6-9 (The serial port 1516 may also be used to output the measured field strength data or the estimated position of the receiver to the vehicle 708.)}.
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 3, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively, above, and further in view of Adams (US3,701,155, hereafter Adams).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the antenna further comprising a sense antenna”. In the same field of endeavor, Adams (‘155) discloses that the antenna further comprising
a sense antenna {Fig.1 item 14 (sense antenna)}.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Adams (‘155) {use a sense antenna} to use a sense antenna. Doing so would receive an RF signal to which direction is to be determined so as to eliminate ambiguity problem in system (e.g. automatic direction finders), as recognized by Adams (‘155) {abstract lines 2-4 (a sense antenna which receives an RF signal to which direction is to be determined); col.1 line 5 (automatic direction finders); col.2 lines 19-21 (The ambiguity problem can be eliminated by use of a sense antenna signal used to intensity modulate the oscilloscope beam)}.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claims 15 and 19 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Claims 4, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively, above, and further in view of Parent et al. (US 20170363705, hereafter Parent).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “The antenna further comprising a first matching network coupled to the first loop antenna”. In the same field of endeavor, Parent (‘705) discloses that the antenna further comprising
a first matching network coupled to the first loop antenna { Fig.9; Fig.31B (loop matching networks 842); [0017] lines 1-5 (FIG . 9 illustrates loop antenna active circuitry and feed point ( s ) 210 , as configured in portions of the base plate platform , where active circuitry 840 can include active loop balun circuit ( s ) 841 and active loop matching networks 842 ( low impedance — see FIG . 31A and FIG . 31B ) .)}.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Parent (‘705) {use matching network coupled to loop antenna} to use matching network coupled to loop antenna. Doing so would reduce the effects of interfering signals so as to minimize electromagnetic interactions between antenna elements (e.g. the dipole and loop elements), as recognized by Parent (‘705) {[0002] lines 5-7 (electromagnetic interactions between the dipole and loop elements are minimized.); [0076] lines 7-8 (reduce the effects of interfering signals) }.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claims 16 and 20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Claims 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claims 1 and 12, respectively, above, and further in view of Premo (DE 202019103465, hereafter Premo).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the core is substantially octagonal”. In the same field of endeavor, Premo (‘465) discloses that in the antenna,
the core is substantially octagonal {page 2 line 13 from bottom (particular shape of the ferrite core); page 4 lines 28-29 (central portion of the elongate magnetic core), 37-38 (polygonal cross sections, triangular, square, hexagonal, octagonal, regular or irregular convex polygon) }.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Premo (‘465) {use particular shape of ferrite core (e.g. octagonal)} to use particular shape of ferrite core (e.g. octagonal). Doing so would maximize the inductance, sensitivity, and range of the antenna constructed with such a core so as to increase the effective range of an emitter antenna while at the same time significantly reducing the length of its magnetic core, as recognized by Premo (‘465) {page 1 lines 5-6 from bottom (increase the effective range of an emitter antenna while at the same time significantly reducing the length of its magnetic core); page 2 lines 11-12 from bottom (maximize the inductance, sensitivity, and range of the antenna constructed with such a core) }.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the core is substantially hexagonal”. In the same field of endeavor, Premo (‘465) discloses that in the antenna,
the core is substantially hexagonal {page 2 line 13 from bottom (particular shape of the ferrite core); page 4 lines 28-29 (central portion of the elongate magnetic core), 37-38 (polygonal cross sections, triangular, square, hexagonal, octagonal, regular or irregular convex polygon) }.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Premo (‘465) {use particular shape of ferrite core (e.g. hexagonal)} to use particular shape of ferrite core (e.g. hexagonal). Doing so would maximize the inductance, sensitivity, and range of the antenna constructed with such a core so as to increase the effective range of an emitter antenna while at the same time significantly reducing the length of its magnetic core, as recognized by Premo (‘465) {page 1 lines 5-6 from bottom (increase the effective range of an emitter antenna while at the same time significantly reducing the length of its magnetic core); page 2 lines 11-12 from bottom (maximize the inductance, sensitivity, and range of the antenna constructed with such a core) }.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thoen (US 2013/0178153, hereafter Thoen).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the core is a regular polygon with a number of sides equal to twice the number of loop antennas of the antenna”. In the same field of endeavor, Thoen (‘153) discloses that in the antenna,
the core is a regular polygon with a number of sides equal to twice the number of loop antennas of the antenna {Fig.4a)}.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Thoen (‘153) {use core with regular polygon cross section to fix loop antenna} to use core with regular polygon cross section to fix loop antenna. Doing so would provide most effective arrangement for generating magnetic field, as recognized by Thoen (‘153) {[0012] lines 3-6 (the magnetic field generated by the first and second coils has orthogonal components, the first and second antenna coils are wound around orthogonal axes as this is the most effective arrangement.)}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schantz (US 2004/0239562, hereafter Schantz).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claims 1 and 8, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the second angle is substantially forty-five degrees”. In the same field of endeavor, Schantz (‘562) discloses that in the antenna,
the second angle is substantially forty-five degrees {Fig.4 item 32 versus items 12 and 14}.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Schantz (‘562) {use multiple loop antennas with a certain arrangement (e.g. relative 45 degree)} to use multiple loop antennas with a certain arrangement (e.g. relative 45 degree). Doing so would establish sectors to provide an indication whether the respective Gaussian doublet is upright (i.e., positive; +) or inverted (i.e., negative; -) so as to obtain a more compact and more reliable apparatus for effecting radio direction finding operations to ascertain angle of arrival of electromagnetic signals at an antenna., as recognized by Schantz (‘562) {[0008] lines 1-4 (a more compact and more reliable apparatus for effecting radio direction finding operations to ascertain angle of arrival of electromagnetic signals at an antenna.); [0051] lines 2-3 (sector of arrival of an electromagnetic Signal at a multi-element antenna apparatus), 10-11 (Antenna elements establish sectors I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII.); [0052] lines 8-10 (an indication whether the respective Gaussian doublet is upright (i.e., positive; +) or inverted (i.e., negative; -).)}.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koujima et al. (US 9,397,401, hereafter Koujima).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the first angle is substantially sixty degrees”. In the same field of endeavor, Koujima (‘401) discloses that in the antenna,
the first angle is substantially sixty degrees {Fig.12 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
593
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Koujima (‘401) {arrange magnetic antenna (coil loop) with a certain angle (e.g. 60 degree)} to arrange magnetic antenna (coil loop) with a certain angle (e.g. 60 degree). Doing so would arrange antenna in a plane so as to enhanced in sensitivity and realize a further reduction in size, as recognized by Koujima (‘401) {col.2 lines 28-29 (a magnetic core thereof, can be further enhanced in sensitivity, and can thereby realize a further reduction in size); col.10 lines 11-12 (the coils arranged in a plane)}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claims 1 and 10, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the second angle is substantially one hundred twenty degrees”. In the same field of endeavor, Koujima (‘401) discloses that in the antenna,
the second angle is substantially one hundred twenty degrees {Fig.12 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
593
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Koujima (‘401) {arrange magnetic antenna (coil loop) with a certain angle (e.g. 60 degree)} to arrange magnetic antenna (coil loop) with a certain angle (e.g. 60 degree). Doing so would arrange antenna in a plane so as to enhanced in sensitivity and realize a further reduction in size, as recognized by Koujima (‘401) {col.2 lines 28-29 (a magnetic core thereof, can be further enhanced in sensitivity, and can thereby realize a further reduction in size); col.10 lines 11-12 (the coils arranged in a plane)}.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roper(‘619) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Buenz et al. (US 2005/0046558, hereafter Buenz).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17, Roper(‘619) does not explicitly disclose that “the interface comprises an Aeronautical Radio, Inc. 429 interface”. In the same field of endeavor, Buenz (‘558) discloses that in the device,
the interface comprises an Aeronautical Radio, Inc. 429 interface {[0035] lines 8-9 (a communications bus 46 of the aircraft which may be an ARINC 429 for commercial aircraft)}.
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 combine Roper(‘619) with the teachings of Buenz (‘558) {use an ARINC 429 as communications bus} to use an ARINC 429 as communications bus. Doing so would provide communication for commercial aircraft in aircraft industry, as recognized by Buenz (‘558) {[0002] line 5 (the aircraft industry); [0035] lines 8-9 (a communications bus 46 of the aircraft which may be an ARINC 429 for commercial aircraft)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230170616 A1 discloses that “An antenna comprising: a core; a first loop antenna comprising a first conductive loop formed around the core; a second loop antenna comprising a second conductive loop formed around the core at a first angle relative to the first conductive loop; and a third loop antenna comprising a third conductive loop formed around the core at a second angle relative to the first conductive loop” {Fig.6; [0086] lines 4-7 (3D antennas 100 have three essentially mutually orthogonally arranged coil windings 101.2, 102.2, 103.2 of electrically conductive wire 111, 112, 113, which are wound around a ferromagnetic antenna core 1.)}, which further support the rejections of claims 1, 12, and 17.
US 20230170616 A1 also discloses that “the core is a regular polygon with a number of sides equal to twice the number of loop antennas of the antenna” {Fig.5a}, which further support the rejection of claim 7.
US3,967,280 discloses that “the antenna further comprising a sense antenna” { Fig.2 item 41 (sense antenna)}, which further support the rejection of claims 3, 15, 19.
US3,967,280 also discloses that “a housing” { Col.9 line 55 (housing)}, “an antenna contained within the housing” { Col.9 lines 54-56 (an antenna assembly comprising within a single integrated housing both said loop antenna and said sense antenna)}, “an interface contained within the housing and coupled to the electronics unit, wherein the interface is configured to enable data transfer from the electronics unit to a second device external to the housing” { Fig.3 item 48 (antenna cable), 49 (ADF receiver unit); Fig.5 item 48 (), 63 (single electronic circuit card 63); col.8 lines 53-54 (interconnected to circuit card 63 by means of short interconnections 58 and 59)}, which further support the rejection of claim 17.
US 2018/0076523 discloses that “the antenna further comprising a first matching network coupled to the first loop antenna” { Fig.3 item 36 (matching network); [0030] lines 3-4 (HF - SIMANT 10 further comprises first and second matching networks 36 , and 36); [0031] lines 2-3 (HF - SIMANT 10 comprising first , second , and third loop antennas 401, 402 , and 403)}, which further support the rejection of claims 4, 16, 20.
US 2020/0266668 discloses that “the first angle is substantially sixty degrees” {Fig.10} and “the second angle is substantially one hundred twenty degrees” {Fig.10}, which further support the rejections of claims 10-11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648