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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zink et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7852280, made of record in IDS dated 27 August 2025), hereinafter known as Zink.
Regarding claim 1, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) providing an antenna embedment non-resonant cavity (cavity, see Fig. 2) configured for positioning inside an aircraft fuselage thereby reducing or eliminating antenna protrusion (col. 3, lines 18-20); and placing radiofrequency absorber material (foam absorber, see Fig. 2) inside the embedment non-resonant cavity thereby enhancing embedded antenna input impedance matching (col. 2, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 2, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) placing includes placing the radiofrequency absorber material is placing in the embedment cavity lateral walls or bottom (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) operating at is applied for any frequency range including VLF, LF, VHIF, UHF and SHF (col. 1, lines 49-52).
Regarding claim 4, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) an antenna embedment conductive cavity (cavity, see Fig. 2) configured for positioning inside an aircraft fuselage thereby reducing or eliminating antenna protrusion (cavity, see Fig. 2), the antenna embedment conductive cavity further configured to receive receiving ate at least one radiofrequency absorber material (foam absorber, see Fig. 2) placed inside the embedment conductive cavity to enhance the embedded antenna input impedance matching (col. 2, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 5, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the antenna embedment conductive cavity can have a plurality of shapes (see Fig. 2, cavity not restricted in shape).
Regarding claim 6, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the radiofrequency absorber material can have a plurality of geometries and sizes shapes (see Fig. 2, material not restricted in size or geometry).
Regarding claim 7, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the antenna embedment conductive cavity receives more than one radiofrequency absorber material placed inside the antenna embedment conductive cavity to enhance the embedded antenna input impedance matching (see Fig. 2, multiple materials shown).
Regarding claim 8, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the at least one radiofrequency absorber material placed inside the antenna embedment conductive cavity enhances the embedded antenna input impedance matching by absorbing electromagnetic wave as a load and eliminating multiple reflections of waves that mismatch antenna sintonization at an intended operating frequency band (col. 2, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 9, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) an antenna (radiators, see Fig. 2) having an input impedance at an intended operating frequency band; an antenna embedment cavity (cavity, see Fig. 2) configured for positioning inside an aircraft fuselage (col. 3, lines 18-20), the antenna disposed within the antenna embedment cavity (see Fig. 2); and at least one radiofrequency absorber material (foam absorber) disposed within the antenna embedment cavity (see Fig. 2), the radiofrequency absorber material matching the input impedance of the antenna by absorbing electromagnetic waves as a load and eliminating multiple reflections of the electromagnetic waves (col. 2, lines 50-67).
Regarding claim 10, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the antenna embedment cavity is non-resonant and comprises cavity lateral walls and a cavity bottom forming a depression, the walls and bottom configured to accept an active radiating part of the antenna (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein at least one radiofrequency absorber is disposed in the cavity lateral walls or cavity bottom (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the cavity bottom is planar (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the cavity lateral walls form a rectangular depression (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the at least one radiofrequency absorber is disposed on at least a portion of the cavity bottom and does not cover the cavity lateral walls (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the antenna comprises a disc structure with spacers supporting the disc structure within the depression (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Zink discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the cavity is conductive (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink.
Regarding claim 14, Zink teaches the limitations of claim 10, but does not teach further details of the cavity lateral walls.
Zink does teach in Fig. 1 prior art circular radiatiors.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art change the shape of the cavity lateral wallas of Zink to be circular since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Making the walls circular can accommodate many antenna types more effectively, such as spiral antennas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach or render obvious claim 15 as arranged, specifically “wherein the at least one radiofrequency absorber is disposed on at least a portion of the cavity lateral walls and does not cover the cavity bottom.”
The prior art does not teach or render obvious claim 17 as arranged, specifically “wherein the at least one radiofrequency absorber comprises plural concentric absorbers arranged to frame the depression.”
Claim 18 is allowable based on its dependence from claim 17.
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 DANIEL MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/DANIEL MUNOZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896