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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, with 15-20 being withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/20/2026.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann et al. (US 5909197, hereby referred as Heinemann) in view of Morrison (US 3699585).
Regarding claim 1, 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 structural links which intraconnect the radiating element to constrain the radiating element, and wherein, during assembly, the plurality of dielectric support threads are taut (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.
Heinemann does not teach wherein the plurality of dielectric threads constrain the radiating element in two or more of an axial direction, a radial direction, and a torsional direction, as the plurality of dielectric threads constrain the radiating element in one direction (as shown in figure 1, column 3, lines 14-20).
Morrison suggests the teachings of wherein the plurality of dielectric threads (elements 23 and 24, figures 1-2) constrain the radiating element in two or more of an axial direction, a radial direction, and a torsional direction (as shown in figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of dielectric threads of Heinemann to constrain the radiating element in two or more of an axial direction, a radial direction, and a torsional direction as suggested by the teachings of Morrison instead of just one direction in order to further constrain the helical antenna so it can maintain its shape and does not move into an undesirable configuration which can be used to maintain the designed performance of the radiating element.
Regarding claim 2, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 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 Morrison (US 3699585), and further in view of Ananev et al. (RU 2730114, cited by the applicant, hereby referred as Ananev).
Regarding claim 7, Heinemann as referred in claim 2 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 Morrison (US 3699585), and further in view of Behrens et al. (US 2012/0146880, hereby referred as Behrens).
Regarding claim 11, 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, Heinemann as referred in claim 1 teaches the radiating element assembly with the exception for the following:
wherein the dielectric support threads comprise a radio frequency (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, 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, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding that it would not be obvious to combine any reference with Heinemann that would require removing the top plate has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could see that having the plurality of dielectric support threads also connect to the central support (element 20, figure 1) as suggested by the teachings of Morrison, which would constrain the radiating element in two or more of an axial direction, a radial direction, and a torsional direction, could further constrain the helical antenna so it can maintain its shape and does not move into an undesirable configuration which can be used to maintain the designed performance of the radiating element. Furthermore, they are both deployable helical antennas and are analogous to one another.
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 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
Prosecution Insights