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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-14) and species A (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “radiofrequency (RF)” when it should recite “radio frequency (RF)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads act as non-linear structural links”. It is unclear what are the metes and bounds of “act as non-linear structural links”. That language can be construed as the shape of the plurality of dielectric support threads, but there are many portions of the plurality of dielectric support threads that are linear since the threads are taut, which contradicts the claim language and disclosure, which makes it unclear. It will be construed as “wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads act as structural links” for the purposes of examination.
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads act as non-linear structural links which interconnect the radiating element”. It is unclear how the plurality of dielectric support threads would interconnect the radiating element. Based on the specification and the drawings, it appears that the applicant means that the plurality of dielectric support threads interconnect the radiating element to the support system, and it will be construed as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads are taut with near zero tension”. In paragraph [0046] of the specification, it states that “the dielectric support threads are taut, not tensioned, to provide a consistent stiffness though testing, launch and on-orbit life”. But later on in the same paragraph it states “when the threads are under tension but allow the radiating element to move when under compression (i.e., the threads support the radiating element in one direction, tension of the thread, but not the other direction, compression of the thread)….The assembly stiffness (of the support, threads, and radiating element) is obtained by ensuring that the radiating element is constrained by threads in axial and/or radial and/or torsional directions by at least 2 threads so at least one is acting in tension at any given time”. These statements contradict each other and make the metes and bounds of “wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads are taut with near zero tension” unclear since one is not sure if there is tension or there is no tension. It will be construed as “wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads are taut” for the purposes of examination.
Furthermore, the term “near zero tension” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, and therefore also rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the central support" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 7 should be dependent on one of claims 2-4 or 6, or amended to introduce the central support.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinemann et al. (US 5909197, hereby referred as Heinemann).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Heinemann teaches the following:
a radiating element assembly, for an antenna, comprising:
a radiating element (element 10, figure 1) for emitting and/or receiving electromagnetic waves;
a radiating element support system (elements 12, 20, and 50-55, figure 1) for physically supporting the radiating element when in operation, comprising:
a plurality of dielectric support threads (elements 50-55, figure 1), wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads act as non-linear structural links which interconnect the radiating element to constrain the radiating element in one or more of an axial direction, a radial direction, and a torsional direction (as shown in figure 1, column 3, lines 14-20), and wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads are taut with near zero tension (as shown in figure 1, column 3, lines 14-20); and
at least one support (the combination of elements 12 and 20, figure 1) wherein the plurality of dielectric support threads (elements 50-55, figure 1) interconnect the radiating element with the at least one support to constrain the radiating element in the one or more of the axial direction, the radial direction, and the torsional direction (as shown in figure 1, column 3, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the at least one support (element 20, figure 1) includes a central support positioned within the radiating element (element 10, figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein the central support (element 20, figure 1) is fixed to a ground plane (element 11, figure 1) at a base of the antenna (“base plate 11 can be made of lightweight, thermally stable and non-conductive material. The base plate is usually the ground plane for the antenna”, column 3, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein the central support (element 20, figure 1) is rigid in tension, compression, bending, and torsion (column 1, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the at least one support includes at least one external support (elements 11/12, figure 1) positioned external to the radiating element (element 10, figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the at least one support (element 20, figure 1) includes a central support within the radiating element (element 10 figure 1) and at least one external support (element 12, figure 1) position external to the radiating element (element 10, figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the radiating element (element 10, figure 1) is helical (“A helical flexible antenna conductor”, column 1, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the radiating element (element 10, figure 1) is flexible due to a shape of the radiating element (“A helical flexible antenna conductor”, column 1, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the radiating element support system (elements 12, 20, and 50-55, figure 1) prevents movement of the radiating element (element 10, figure 1) beyond a correct nominal position (column 1, lines 31-34 and 46-43).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann et al. (US 5909197, hereby referred as Heinemann) in view of Ananev et al. (RU 2730114, cited by the applicant, hereby referred as Ananev).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the radiating element assembly with the exception for the following:
wherein the radiating element and the central support are manufactured as a single piece.
Ananev suggests the teachings of wherein the radiating element and the central support are manufactured as a single piece (“the external conductor of the balun, the spiral radiators and the disk are made in the form of a single piece made by additive technology by layer-by-layer laser fusion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the radiating element and the central support of Heinemann to be manufactured as a single piece as suggested by the teachings of Ananev which is an alternative way of manufacturing the radiating element assembly “which reduces the number of assembly units in the antenna design… and allows the antenna blank to be completed in one technological process”.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann et al. (US 5909197, hereby referred as Heinemann) in view of Behrens et al. (US 2012/0146880, hereby referred as Behrens).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the radiating element assembly with the exception for the following:
wherein each of the dielectric support threads has a thread diameter in the range of 0.005 to 0.050 inches.
Behrens suggests the teachings of wherein the dielectric support threads comprise glass fibers (paragraph [0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have each of the dielectric support threads of Heinemann to have a thread diameter in the range of 0.005 to 0.050 inches since the diameter would be selected in the claimed range because this is a typical diameter for commercially available glass fibers, and as suggested by the teachings of Behrens using glass fibers would help determine the shape of the antenna in its deployed state while also not interfering with the radio frequency transmission / reception, and, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the radiating element assembly with the exception for the following:
wherein the dielectric support threads comprise a radiofrequency (RF) transparent material.
Behrens suggests the teachings of wherein the dielectric support threads comprise a radiofrequency (RF) transparent material (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dielectric support threads of Heinemann to comprise a radiofrequency (RF) transparent material as suggested by the teachings of Behrens in order to help determine the shape of the antenna in its deployed state while also not interfering with the radio frequency transmission / reception, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the radiating element assembly with the exception for the following:
wherein the dielectric support threads comprise glass or aramid fibers.
Behrens suggests the teachings of wherein the dielectric support threads comprise glass (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dielectric support threads of Heinemann to comprise glass fibers as suggested by the teachings of Behrens in order to help determine the shape of the antenna in its deployed state while also not interfering with the radio frequency transmission / reception, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the radiating element assembly with the exception for the following:
wherein each dielectric support thread comprises two or more strands twisted together.
Behrens suggests the teachings of wherein each dielectric support thread comprises two or more strands twisted together (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have each dielectric support thread of Heinemann to comprise two or more strands twisted together as suggested by the teachings of Behrens in order to help determine the shape of the antenna in its deployed state while also not interfering with the radio frequency transmission / reception, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The rejections made using the cited references in the European Search Report would also apply to the current claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845