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
The Remarks of 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Rossman (US20220344793) is maintained.
On page 1-2 of the remarks, applicant argues that Rossman fails to disclose a deployable antenna which extends vertically when deployed and such that, when deployed, is substantially planar. Examiner respectfully disagrees; first, as shown in fig. 3B of Rossman the antenna does extend vertically when deployed and second, while the exemplary embodiments in figs. 3A-4 of Rossman show the antenna system of being curved, however as seen in ¶[0015] of Rossman “In some embodiments, the substrate and/or the housing is flexible allowing it to bend around the curved hull of the underwater vehicle when in the stowed position” and ¶[0036] “According to some embodiments, substrate 406 is flexible such that it can bend within the curved shape defined by housing 402” the antenna is not necessarily curved and can be planar in a deployed state (as seen in figs. 5A-5C) and then curve when stowed. Therefore, Rossman does disclose “a deployable antenna which extends vertically when deployed and such that, when deployed, is substantially planar”. The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-17 as anticipated by Rossman is, therefore, maintained.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rossman et al. (US20220344793; hereinafter Rossman).
Regarding claim 1, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “An antenna assembly (106) comprising: a flexible substrate (406 and ¶[0015]; the substrate and/or the housing is flexible allowing it to bend around the curved hull of the underwater vehicle when in the stowed position) configured to be extended from a retracted configuration to a deployed configuration (fig. 3A/B), and retracted from the deployed configuration to the retracted configuration (fig. 3A/B); a ground plane element (506) disposed on the substrate; and a plurality of antenna elements (502/508/510) disposed on the substrate; wherein, in the deployed configuration, the antenna assembly extends vertically away from a hull of an underwater vehicle (see fig. 3B) such that the antenna assembly is substantially planar (¶[0015]; “In some embodiments, the substrate and/or the housing is flexible allowing it to bend around the curved hull of the underwater vehicle when in the stowed position” and ¶[0036]; “According to some embodiments, substrate 406 is flexible such that it can bend within the curved shape defined by housing 402”), and wherein, in the retracted configuration, the antenna assembly is retracted into the hull and/or conforms to a shape of the hull (fig. 3A/B)”.
Regarding claim 2, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the substrate is attached to the underwater vehicle (attached to hull 302)”.
Regarding claim 3, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the ground plane and the antenna elements comprise one or more layers of a metallization material (¶[0035]; According to some embodiments, substrate 406 includes two layers bonded together to provide three different metallization layers (e.g., one on the frontside, one in the middle, and one on the backside))”.
Regarding claim 4, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the antenna elements are arranged along a horizontal axis on one side of the substrate (fig. 5a)”.
Regarding claim 5, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the antenna elements are arranged along a vertical axis on one side of the substrate (fig. 5a, elements 508/510 are vertically disposed)”.
Regarding claim 6, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, comprising an aperture at least partially surrounded by at least one of the antenna elements (the spirals of the antennas create apertures)”.
Regarding claim 7, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the antenna elements comprise trapezoid, a bow tie, and/or a lollipop type element (508 are trapezoidal)”.
Regarding claim 8, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, comprising pneumatic actuators, hydraulic actuators, and/or a mechanical means for deploying and retracting the antenna assembly (mechanical assembly 304)”.
Regarding claim 10, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “An underwater vehicle comprising: a hull (302); and an antenna assembly (106) coupled to the hull (fig. 3A/B), the antenna assembly including a flexible substrate (406 and ¶[0015]) configured to be extended vertically away from the hull when deployed such that the antenna assembly is substantially planar ((¶[0015]; “In some embodiments, the substrate and/or the housing is flexible allowing it to bend around the curved hull of the underwater vehicle when in the stowed position” and ¶[0036]; “According to some embodiments, substrate 406 is flexible such that it can bend within the curved shape defined by housing 402”) and where the flexible substrate is further configured to be retracted into the hull (fig. 3A/B), a ground plane element (506) disposed on the substrate, and a plurality of antenna elements (502/508/510) disposed on the substrate”.
Regarding claim 11, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The underwater vehicle of claim 10, comprising a propulsion system (804) for moving the underwater vehicle in water)”.
Regarding claim 12, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, wherein the ground plane and the antenna elements comprise one or more layers of a metallization material (¶[0035]; According to some embodiments, substrate 406 includes two layers bonded together to provide three different metallization layers (e.g., one on the frontside, one in the middle, and one on the backside))”.
Regarding claim 13, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, wherein the antenna elements are arranged along a horizontal axis on one side of the substrate (fig. 5a)”.
Regarding claim 14, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, wherein the antenna elements are arranged along a vertical axis on one side of the substrate (fig. 5a, elements 508/510 are vertically disposed)”.
Regarding claim 15, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, comprising an aperture at least partially surrounded by at least one of the antenna elements (the spirals of the antennas create apertures)”.
Regarding claim 16, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, wherein the antenna elements comprise trapezoid, a bow tie, and/or a lollipop type element (508 are trapezoidal)”.
Regarding claim 17, Rossman (figs. 3-5) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, comprising pneumatic actuators, hydraulic actuators, and/or a mechanical means for deploying and retracting the antenna assembly (mechanical assembly 304)”.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossman in view of Daton-Lovett et al. (US20160226126; hereinafter Daton-Lovett).
Regarding claim 9, Rossman discloses the antenna assembly of claim 1 as shown previously.
Rossman does not disclose “wherein the substrate comprises a bi-stable composite material”.
However, Daton-Lovett teaches disposing antennas on a bi-stable substrate as a method of deploying the antenna (¶[0023]; In an embodiment, the mast comprises a reinforced composite. Thus, the mast can be made from layers of fibre reinforced polymer or the like. In an embodiment, the mast comprises a bistable material. It is anticipated that these materials will be preferred materials for forming the mast in many applications).
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 Daton-Lovett and make Rossman’s antenna assembly wherein the substrate comprises a bi-stable composite material, in order to allow the substrate to deploy and retract in a more passive fashion.
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 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