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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cribb, in view of Liberman is maintained. On page 6 of the remarks, applicant argues that “the Examiner's proposed modification of the helix of Cribb with the open space of the Lieberman's intermediate bulkhead is improper by being based on impermissible hindsight because it is made and includes knowledge gleaned only from the
present application”. Information on impermissible hindsight can be found in MPEP § 2141.01. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that the rejection “is improper by being based on
impermissible hindsight because it is made and includes knowledge gleaned only from the present application”. The MPEP states "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper", therefore the recitation that “The examiner is clearly picking and choosing those features of claim 1 that are explicitly missing from Cribb and looking for various references”, if true, would not make the rejection improper. One of ordinary skill in the art would, without knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclose, would find the combination of Cribb and Liberman to be obvious in order to provide greater support to the structure via the bulkheads of Liberman, as well, they would make the combination to allow for a moveable telescoping structure to decrease size when the antenna is not in use to improve portability as seen in Liberman. The rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Cribb, in view of Liberman is, therefore, maintained.
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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cribb et al. (US 3509578; hereinafter Cribb) in view of Lieberman et al. (US7574832; hereinafter Lieberman).
Regarding claim 1, Cribb discloses “An antenna, comprising: a stem (11) having a longitudinally tubular body (fig. 1 and 2 show 11 is a tubular shape) disposed between a stem first end (12) and a stem second end (far end of 11 (near 2)); a plurality of bulkheads (17) including a terminal bulkhead (17 nearest to end of 22 (near 2)) coupled to said stem second end (last 17 coupled to end of 11) and a plurality of intermediate bulkheads (multiple 17’s in between) disposed on said stem between said stem first end and said stem second end (see fig. 1); and a helix of electrically conductive material disposed around said stem (helix 18) and through an open space of the intermediate bulkheads between a helix first end coupled to a base plate and a helix second end coupled to said terminal bulkhead (helix 18 coupled to 12 via 19)”.
Cribb does not disclose that the intermediate bulkheads are slidably disposed, and that the helix of conductive material is disposed through an open space of the intermediate bulkheads.
However, Lieberman teaches using slidable triangular bulkhead (62) in a telescoping structure for deployment of conductive material wherein the conductive material (60) is disposed through the bulkheads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Lieberman and make Cribb’s antenna with the intermediate bulkheads are slidably disposed, and that the helix of conductive material is disposed through an open space of the intermediate bulkheads, in order to improve support for the telescoping structure thus increasing portability and decrease the space used by the antenna by having the wire within the slide-able structure.
Regarding claim 2, Cribb discloses “The antenna of claim 1, further comprising a passthrough in said base plate, said stem extending through passthrough (fig. 1 shows 11 passing through 12)”.
Regarding claim 6, Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein said terminal bulkhead and each of said plurality of intermediate bulkheads comprise a plurality of triangular bulkheads”.
However, Lieberman teaches wherein said terminal bulkhead (62) and each of said plurality of intermediate bulkheads (62) comprise a plurality of triangular bulkheads (see fig. 3)”.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cribb in view of Liberman, further in view of Freebury’308 et al. (US20170222308; hereinafter Freebury’308).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 2 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein said base plate configured as a ground plane”.
However, Freebury’308 teaches “wherein said base plate configured as a ground plane (reflector assembly includes a reflector 21 which acts as a ground plane)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Freebury’308 and make Cribb’s antenna wherein said base plate configured as a ground plane, in order to receive electromagnetic waves from another source.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 3 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein said ground plane has a circular perimeter”.
However, Freebury’308 teaches “wherein said ground plane has a circular perimeter (21 is circular)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Freebury’308 and make Cribb’s antenna wherein said ground plane has a circular perimeter, in order to receive electromagnetic waves from another source.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cribb in view of Lieberman and Freebury’308, further in view of Ohgren et al. (US20170317423; hereinafter Ohgren).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 4 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “further comprising a sidewall circumferentially coupled to and upwardly extending about said circular perimeter of said ground plane”.
However, Ohgren teaches “further comprising a sidewall (11) circumferentially coupled to and upwardly extending about said circular perimeter of said ground plane (3)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ohgren and make Cribb’s antenna further comprising a sidewall circumferentially coupled to and upwardly extending about said circular perimeter of said ground plane, in order to provide a secure mounting for the antenna assembly and protect the antenna.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cribb in view of Liberman, Freebury’308, and Ohgren, further in view of Holzheimer et al. (US6295035; hereinafter Holzheimer).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 6 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein each successive one of said plurality of triangular bulkheads having a rotational offset”.
However, Holzheimer teaches “wherein each successive one of said plurality of triangular bulkheads having a rotational offset (14’s are rotationally offset in fig. 1)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Holzheimer and make Cribb’s antenna wherein each successive one of said plurality of triangular bulkheads having a rotational offset, in order to improve field of view of the antenna.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 7 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein each successive one of said plurality of triangular bulkheads having said rotational offset of about 60 degrees”.
However, Holzheimer already teaches rotational offsets of the bulkheads and it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the priority date, to offset the triangular bulkheads about 60 degrees, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Holzheimer and make Cribb’s antenna wherein each successive one of said plurality of triangular bulkheads having said rotational offset of about 60 degrees, in order to improve field of view of the antenna.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 7 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “further comprising a vertex cap coupled at each triangular bulkhead vertex”.
However, Holzheimer teaches “further comprising a vertex cap (18) coupled at each triangular bulkhead vertex (14)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Holzheimer and make Cribb’s antenna further comprising a vertex cap coupled at each triangular bulkhead vertex, in order to receive the highest frequencies within the bandwidth.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cribb in view of Liberman, Freebury’308, Ohgren, and Holzheimer, further in view of Freebury et al. (US20200358200; hereinafter Freebury’200).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 9 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “further comprising a cord network interconnecting said plurality of bulkheads, said cord network comprises pairs of cords drawn diagonally to interconnect each adjacent pair of vertex caps of a first bulkhead with each successive rotationally offset vertex cap of a second bulkhead”.
Freebury‘200 teaches a cord network interconnecting said plurality of bulkheads, said cord network comprises pairs of cords drawn diagonally to interconnect each adjacent end of a first bulkhead with each successive end of a second bulkhead (pairs of diagonal cords 21 interconnect each adjacent bulkhead first ends 19 or second ends 20; figs 15,16,18; para[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date, to modify Cribb with the pairs of cords drawn diagonally to interconnect each adjacent end of a first bulkhead with each successive end of a second bulkhead of Freebury‘200,for the purpose of increasing axial and lateral
Stiffness in the reflector assemblies.
Holzheimer teaches each adjacent pair of vertex caps and each successive rotationally offset vertex cap of a second bulkhead (a radiator at the tip 18 (vertex cap) where the triangular elements 14 meet and tips 18 of the triangular elements 14 offset from the vertical and horizontal planes (rotational); paras[0036], [0042]; figs1,3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date, to modify Cribb with the vertex caps of Raytheon, for the purpose of transmitting and receiving the highest frequencies within the bandwidth range (para[0053])
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cribb in view of Liberman, further in view of Tay et al. (US5563615; hereinafter Tay).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 1 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein said helix of electrically conductive material disposed around said stem comprises a plurality of helixes”.
However, Tay teaches “wherein said helix of electrically conductive material disposed around said stem comprises a plurality of helixes (multiple helixes 11 and 12)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Tay and make Cribb’s wherein said helix of electrically conductive material disposed around said stem comprises a plurality of helixes, in order to transmit signals at different frequencies.
Regarding claim 33, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 32 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein each of said plurality of helixes operates singularly or concurrently at a different operational frequency”.
However, Tay teaches “wherein each of said plurality of helixes operates singularly or concurrently at a different operational frequency (two helixes 11/12 for two shortened monopoles radiating by themselves (singularly) at two different resonant frequencies; fig1; col3, lines 25-43)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Tay and make Cribb’s wherein each of said plurality of helixes operates singularly or concurrently at a different operational frequency, in order to transmit signals at different frequencies.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Cribb discloses the antenna of claim 33 as shown previously.
Cribb does not disclose “wherein said plurality of helixes comprises two helixes, three helixes, or four helixes”.
However, Tay teaches “wherein said plurality of helixes comprises two helixes (multiple helixes 11 and 12)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Tay and make Cribb’s wherein said plurality of helixes comprises two helixes, in order to transmit signals at different frequencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights