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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 9th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the objection has been corrected and therefore withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed features of the application. Specifically, the geometry of the driven element legs, and more specifically argues that Winegard’s elements 122, 124, and 132 are separate driven elements and not individual conductors forming a single folded leg of a singular driven element.
However, the claim fails to limit the driven element to be a single folded leg of a singular driven element. The language of the claim is broad enough that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the prior art of record to read upon it. Furthermore, the previous office action did not rely on elements 122, 124, and 132 for the primary referential elements to reject the claims. Instead, they were used as a similar embodiment to teach the obviousness of the shortened conductor portion.
The applicant also argues that the rejection of claims 11 and 15 should be withdrawn for the same reasons as articulated for claim 1. However, in neither claim 11 nor claim 15, are the elements 122, 124, and 132 used as a basis for rejection, either in anticipation, or obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Winegard (US 3396399), herein referred to as Winegard.
Regarding claim 15, Winegard discloses a system, comprising: a media device (inherent based upon col. 1 lines 20-24, discussing usage as a television antenna); a transmission line (col. 1 line 35) connection he antenna to the media device; wherein the antenna comprises: a linear antenna support (B); one or more reflector elements (“R”) positioned on a first section (see fig. 4, bottom) of the antenna support (B); one or more director elements (40, 42, 44) positioned on a second section (see fig. 4, top) of the antenna support (B); a driven element (200-221) positioned in a middle section of the antenna support (B), the middle section being between the first section and the second section (see fig. 4); wherein the driven element comprises a first leg (left) and a second leg (right), each of the first leg and the second leg comprising: a first conductor (200) outwards extending from the antenna support (B); a second conductor (221) extending downwards from the first conductor (200) at a direction generally perpendicular (see fig. 4) to the first conductor (200) and generally parallel to the linear antenna support; and a third conductor (201) extending outwards from the second conductor (221) at a direction generally perpendicular to the second conductor and generally parallel to the first conductor (See fig. 4), wherein the second conductor and the third conductor do not touch the linear support (see fig. 5, dielectric support 10).
Regarding claim 16, Winegard anticipates all limitations of base claim 15.
Winegard also discloses wherein the first leg and the second leg mirror one another (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Winegard anticipates all limitations of base claim 15.
Winegard also discloses wherein the first conductor (200) and the third conductor (201) are generally perpendicular (see fig. 4) to the antenna support (B).
Regarding claim 18, Winegard anticipates all limitations of base claim 15.
Winegard also discloses wherein the second conductor (221) is generally parallel (see fig. 4) to the antenna support (B).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winegard.
Regarding claim 1, Winegard discloses a dipole antenna (fig. 4) for very high frequency (VHF) band and ultra-high frequency (UHF) band communications (col. 1 lines 31-37), comprising: a linear antenna support (B); one or more reflector elements (“R”) positioned on a first section (see fig. 4, bottom) of the antenna support (B); one or more director elements (40, 42, 44) positioned on a second section (see fig. 4, top) of the antenna support (B); a driven element (200-221) positioned in a middle section of the antenna support (B), the middle section being between the first section and the second section (see fig. 4); wherein the driven element comprises a first leg (left) and a second leg (right), each of the first leg and the second leg comprising: a first conductor (200) extending outwards from the antenna support (B); a second conductor (221) extending downwards from the first conductor (200) at a direction generally perpendicular (see fig. 4) to the first conductor (200) and generally parallel to the linear antenna support; and a third conductor (201) extending outwards from the second conductor (221) at a direction generally perpendicular to the second conductor and generally parallel to the first conductor (see fig. 4).
The embodiment of Winegard previously relied upon does not disclose wherein the second conductor is shorter than the first conductor and third conductor.
However, Fig. 3 of Winegard discloses an antenna wherein the second conductor (20) is shorter than the first conductor (132) and the third conductor (124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Winegard wherein the second conductor is shorter than the first conductor and the third conductor, as further taught by the embodiment in fig. 3 of Winegard, when fewer driven elements are required.
Regarding claim 2, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein the first leg and the second leg mirror one another (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein the first conductor (200) and the third conductor (201) are generally perpendicular (see fig. 4) to the antenna support (B).
Regarding claim 4, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein the third conductor (201) is generally parallel (see fig. 4) to the first conductor (200).
Regarding claim 5, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein the third conductor (201) is longer (see fig. 4) than the first conductor (200).
Regarding claim 6, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein the second conductor (221) is generally parallel (see fig. 4) to the antenna support (B).
Regarding claim 10, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein the VHF band frequency range is from about 30 to about 300 Megahertz (MHz) and the UHF band frequency range is from about 300 to about 3 Gigahertz (GHz) (inherent to the teachings as these are the ranges of VHF and UHF respectively, and Winegard explicitly teaches the antenna as capable of UHF and VHF as stated in claim 1).
Claims 7, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winegard and further in view of Blonder (US 4468674), herein referred to as Blonder.
Regarding claim 7, Winegard renders obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Winegard also discloses wherein each of the first and the second leg further comprises: a fourth conductor (202).
Winegard does not disclose a cross-conductor connecting the fourth conductor to the third conductor, wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support.
However, Blonder discloses a similar antenna (fig. 1) with a cross conductor (C, C’) connecting a conductor to another conductor (I to I’ and I’ to I’’), wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Winegard with a cross-conductor connecting the fourth conductor to the third conductor, wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support, as taught by Blonder, to serve as a conductor between legs (col. 2 lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 9, Winegard and Blonder render obvious all limitations of base claim 7.
Winegard also discloses wherein the fourth conductor (202) is longer (see fig. 4) than the third conductor (201).
Regarding claim 19, Winegard anticipates all limitations of base claim 15.
Winegard also discloses wherein each of the first and the second leg further comprises: a fourth conductor (202).
Winegard does not disclose a cross-conductor connecting the fourth conductor to the third conductor, wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support.
However, Blonder discloses a similar antenna (fig. 1) with a cross conductor (C, C’) connecting a conductor to another conductor (I to I’ and I’ to I’’), wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Winegard with a cross-conductor connecting the fourth conductor to the third conductor, wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support, as taught by Blonder, to serve as a conductor between legs (col. 2 lines 7-11).
Claims 8, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winegard and further in view of Blonder and Powers et al. (US 5061944), herein referred to as Powers.
Regarding claim 8, Winegard and Blonder render obvious all limitations of base claim 7.
Winegard does not disclose wherein the fourth conductor is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements are between the fourth conductor and the third conductor.
However, Powers discloses a similar antenna (fig. 2) wherein a conductor (40) is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements (42) are between the main conductor of Powers and at least part of the other conductor (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Winegard wherein the fourth conductor is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements are between the fourth conductor and the third conductor, as suggested by the teachings of Powers, to provide a conductive feed to the dipole (col. 6 line 16-19).
Regarding claim 11, Winegard discloses a dipole antenna (fig. 4) for very high frequency (VHF) band and ultra-high frequency (UHF) band communications(col. 1 lines 31-37), comprising: a linear antenna support (B); one or more reflector elements (“R”) positioned on a first section (bottom, fig. 4) of the antenna support (B); one or more director elements (40, 42, 44) positioned on a second section (fig. 4, top) of the antenna support (B); a driven element (200-221) positioned in a middle section of the antenna support (B), the middle section being between the first section and the second section (see fig. 4); wherein the driven element comprises: a first leg (left) and a second leg (right), each of the first leg and the second leg comprises a first conductor (200) extending outwards from the antenna support, a second conductor (221) extending downwards from the first conductor at a direction generally perpendicular to the first conductor (see fig. 4) and generally parallel to the linear antenna support, and a third conductor (201) extending outwards from the second conductor at a direction generally perpendicular to the second conductor and generally parallel to the first conductor (see fig. 4), wherein the second conductor and the third conductor do not touch the linear antenna support (see fig. 5, dielectric support 10).
Winegard does not disclose a fourth conductor positioned in the first section of the antenna support; and a cross-conductor connecting the conductor to the first leg and the second leg of the driven element, wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support.
However, Powers discloses a conductor positioned in the first section of the antenna support (fig. 2, 40).
Further, Blonder discloses a similar antenna (fig. 1) with a cross conductor (C, C’) connecting a conductor to another conductor (I to I’ and I’ to I’’), wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna of Winegard with a fourth conductor positioned in the first section of the antenna support; and a cross-conductor connecting the conductor to the first leg and the second leg of the driven element, wherein the cross-conductor crosses over the antenna support, as suggested by Powers and Blonder, to provide a conductive feed to the dipole (Powers, col. 6 line 16-19) and to serve as a conductor between legs (Blonder col. 2 lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 12, Winegard, Powers, and Blonder render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Winegard also discloses wherein the first leg and the second leg mirror one another (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Winegard, Powers, and Blonder render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Winegard does not disclose wherein the fourth conductor is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements are between the first leg and the conductor.
However, Powers discloses a similar antenna (fig. 2) wherein a conductor (40) is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements (42) are between the main conductor of Powers and at least part of the other conductor (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Winegard wherein the fourth conductor is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements are between the first leg and the conductor, as taught by Powers, to provide a conductive feed to the dipole (Powers, col. 6 line 16-19).
Regarding claim 14, Winegard, Powers, and Blonder render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Winegard also discloses wherein the fourth conductor is longer than the driven element (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Winegard and Blonder render obvious all limitations of base claim 19.
Winegard does not disclose wherein the fourth conductor is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements are between the fourth conductor and the third conductor.
However, Powers discloses a similar antenna (fig. 2) wherein a conductor (40) is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements (42) are between the main conductor of Powers and at least part of the other conductor (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Winegard wherein the fourth conductor is in the first section of the antenna support such that the one or more reflector elements are between the fourth conductor and the third conductor, as suggested by the teachings of Powers, to provide a conductive feed to the dipole (col. 6 line 16-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights