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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop, US-6337666-B1 and in view of Rao et al, US-20080258989-A1 (hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claim 1, Bishop discloses the following:
an antenna assembly, comprising:
one or more printed circuit boards (PCBs) (40, figs. 7, 9, col. 4, lines 36-41), wherein each of the one or more PCBs comprises a first side (46, fig. 9) and a second side (44, fig. 7), wherein each of the one or more PCBs comprises:
a counter pose element (76, 78, fig. 9) formed on the first side (46), wherein the counter pose element comprises one or more conductive elements (76, 78), wherein lengths of the one or more conductive elements correspond to a band of operation for the antenna assembly (col. 5, lines 18-20); and
a driven element (54) formed on the second side (44);
a feed element (22, 52) coupled to each of the one or more PCBs (40, fig. 7), wherein the feed element is configured to energize the driven element for each of the one or more PCBs (col. 4, lines 45-52); and
a grounding portion (63, 66, 72, figs. 7-9) coupled to each of the one or more PCBs (40).
Bishop does not disclose the antenna assembly, comprising: a radome; the one or more printed circuit boards (PCBs) configured to be housed by the radome and the driven element comprising a slit that allows for current crowding of the driven element.
Bishop discloses the encapsulated in plastic to produce a mechanically rugged device that is not easily damaged as with common whip dipole antennas (col. 2, lines 42-44), one of ordinary skill in that art there could be a radome in the antenna assembly.
Rao suggests the antenna assembly, comprising: a radome (35, fig. 4, para [0028]); the one or more printed circuit boards (PCBs) (fig. 4: the substrate 33 of the antenna 30) configured to be housed by the radome (35) and the driven element (36, fig. 3) comprising a slit (A-C) that allows for current crowding of the driven element (para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radome and the slit as suggested in Rao to the antenna assembly taught in Bishop as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the components of the antenna assembly from external impact and improving the impedance matching and adjusting the resonant frequency (Rao, para [0037]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 2, Bishop discloses wherein the grounding portion (72, fig. 9) comprises a rigid material positioned along a straight line and configured to couple to a portion of the one or more conductive elements (76, 78) for each of the one or more PCBs.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 3, Bishop does not disclose wherein the slit for each of the one or more PCBs is configured to adjust an electrical length of the driven element.
Rao suggests the slit (A, para [0037]) for each of the one or more PCBs is configured to adjust an electrical length of the driven element (para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the electrical length as suggested in Rao of the driven element Taught in Bishop as claimed for the purpose of achieving the desired operating frequency without changing the physical length of the driven element (Rao, para [0037]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 7, Bishop discloses wherein the one or more conductive elements of the counter pose element comprise a plurality of radiating arms (76, 78, fig. 9, col. 5, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 8, Bishop discloses wherein the plurality of radiating arms (76, 78, fig. 9) are each connected by a single feature (fig. 9 below and 72).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Bishop discloses wherein the driven element (54, fig. 7) comprises a conductive layer (fig. 7).
Bishop does not disclose wherein the slit is included in the conductive layer.
Rao suggests wherein the driven element (34, figs. 3-4) comprises a conductive layer, wherein the slit (A-C) is included in the conductive layer (34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the slit in the conductive layer as suggested in Rao to the antenna assembly taught in Bishop as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 13, Bishop discloses the antenna assembly of Claim 1, further comprising a pivotable arm (26, fig. 6) coupled to the feed element (22, 52) and configured to pivot along an axis of rotation (fig. 6) and provide the antenna assembly a plurality of orientations (fig. 6).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 15, Bishop discloses wherein the antenna assembly is configured to produce omni-directional radiation pattern (col. 2, lines 41-42).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 16, Bishop discloses wherein the antenna assembly is configured to produce directional radiation pattern (fig. 11, col. 3, lines 19-20).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop and Rao as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hsu et al, US-20210359393-A1 (hereinafter Hsu) applied as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 4, although the combination of Bishop and Rao does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical length of the driven element corresponds to a transmission frequency range, wherein the electrical length of the driven element is shorter than a physical length of the driven element at higher frequencies and the electrical length of the driven element is longer than the physical length of the driven element at lower frequencies, the antenna assembly disclosed on Bishop and Gao has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Bishop discloses the antenna operates at different frequencies (col. 2, lines 33-38) depending on the electrical length of the driven element 54 (col. 4, lines 55-59).
Rao discloses the antenna has different electrical length at different frequencies (para [0037], Figs. 5-9) depending on the dimensions and location of the slit A.
Hsu applied as a teaching reference teaches that the electrical length of the driven element is shorter at higher frequencies and the electrical length of the driven element is longer at lower frequencies (para [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to have different electrical length at different frequencies as suggested in Takahashi to the antenna assembly taught in Bishop and Rao as claimed for the purpose of achieving the desired operating frequency without changing the physical length of the driven element (Rao, para [0037]).
Claims 5-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop and Rao as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Smith, US-20160190708-A1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bishop and Rao does not disclose wherein the driven element comprises a feedline that linearly tapers in width from a first point to a second point.
Smith suggests wherein the driven element comprises a feedline (113, 115, fig 1) that linearly tapers in width from a first point to a second point (fig. 1, para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the feedline of the antenna assembly taught in Bishop and Rao to linearly taper in width as suggested in Smith as claimed for the purpose of matching the impedance from one end to the other in order to improve the quality of the signal transmitting in the feedline to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bishop and Rao does not disclose wherein the feedline is configured to transform a feed impedance of a transmission line from a characteristic impedance to an impedance of the driven element.
Smith suggests wherein the feedline (113, 115, fig 1) is configured to transform a feed impedance of a transmission line from a characteristic impedance to an impedance of the driven element (para [0024]: 115 is called impedance transformer, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in the art that the feedline 115 would transform the feed impedance from the transmission line 111, 113 to an impedance of the driven element 101, 103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transform a feed impedance of a transmission line taught in Bishop and Rao to an impedance of the driven element as suggested in Smith as claimed for the purpose of matching the impedance from one end to the other in order to improve the quality of the signal transmitting in the feedline to improve the antenna’s performance.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 9, Bishop does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of radiating arms are of a different length, Bishop discloses each of the radiating arms 76,78 has a length corresponding to a quarter wavelength of the frequency of interest (Col. 5, lines 18-20).
Smith discloses wherein at least two of the plurality of radiating arms are of a different length (105, 107, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radiating arms taught by Bishop and Rao to be of a different length as suggested in Smith as claimed for the purpose of forming an antenna assembly being able to operate in different frequencies depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bishop and Rao does not disclose wherein the plurality of radiating arms correspond to a frequency range, wherein a shortest radiating arm corresponds to a higher end of the frequency range and a longest radiating arm corresponds to a lower end of the frequency range.
Smith suggests wherein the plurality of radiating arms correspond to a frequency range, wherein a shortest radiating arm (107, fig. 1) corresponds to a higher end of the frequency range (para [0022]) and a longest radiating arm (105) corresponds to a lower end of the frequency range (para [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radiating arms taught by Bishop and Rao to correspond to a frequency range as suggested in Smith as claimed for the purpose of forming an antenna assembly being able to operate in different frequencies depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bishop and Rao does not disclose wherein the plurality of radiating arms correspond to a frequency range, wherein a shortest radiating arm corresponds to a higher end of the frequency range and a longest radiating arm corresponds to a lower end of the frequency range.
Smith suggests wherein the plurality of radiating arms correspond to a frequency range, wherein a shortest radiating arm (107, fig. 1) corresponds to a higher end of the frequency range (para [0022]) and a longest radiating arm (105) corresponds to a lower end of the frequency range (para [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radiating arms taught by Bishop and Rao to correspond to a frequency range as suggested in Smith as claimed for the purpose of forming an antenna assembly being able to operate in different frequencies depending on the requirements of the application.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neenan et al, US-20210098856-A1 (hereinafter Neenan).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bishop and Rao does not disclose wherein the radome comprises two parts releasably joined together.
Neenan suggests wherein the radome comprises two parts releasably joined together (201, 223, fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radome taught in Bishop and Rao comprising two parts releasably joined together as suggested in Neenan for the purpose of being able to disassemble the radome in order to get access to the components inside the radome for trouble shooting or replacements without damaging the radome.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bishop and Rao does not disclose wherein the radome is configured to compress a gasket when assembled to be configured for outdoor use.
Neenan suggests wherein the radome (201, 223, fig. 12) is configured to compress a gasket (225) when assembled to be configured for outdoor use (para [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a gasket as suggested in Neenan to the radome of the antenna assembly taught in Bishop and Rao for the purpose of protecting the components inside the radome from the impact of the weather such as rain or dirt (Neenan, para [0043]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu, NPL “Understanding Coaxial Cable: A Comprehensive Guide” applied as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 18, Bishop discloses wherein the feed element (22, fig. 8, col. 4, line 60 – col. 5, line 4) comprises an outer conductor (63) and an inner conductor (62).
Although Bishop does not explicitly disclose wherein the feed element comprises an insulator, Bishop discloses the feed element 22 is a coax cable (col. 4, line 64), one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand that there would be an insulator in the coax cable between the inner conductor and the outer conductor to isolate the signals of the inner conductor and the outer conductor.
Liu applied as a teaching reference discloses the coax cable comprises an insulator (drawing in page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the insulator as taught in Liu to the feed element taught in Bishop and Rao as claimed for the purpose of protecting the inner conductor and insulating the signal from the outer conductor (Liu, page 2, para 2).
Regarding claim 19, Bishop discloses wherein the outer conductor (63, fig. 8-9) is coupled to the first side for each of the one or more PCBs (46).
Regarding claim 20, Bishop discloses wherein the inner conductor (62, figs. 7-8) is coupled to the second side for each of the one or more PCBs (44).
Regarding claim 21, although Bishop does not explicitly disclose wherein the insulator is configured to electrically isolate the inner conductor from the outer conductor, Bishop discloses the feed element 22 is a coax cable (col. 4, line 64), one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand that the insulator in a coax cable between the inner conductor and the outer conductor to isolate the signals of the inner conductor and the outer conductor.
Liu applied as a teaching reference discloses wherein the insulator is configured to electrically isolate the inner conductor from the outer conductor (drawing in page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the insulator configured to electrically isolate the inner conductor from the outer conductor as taught in Liu to the feed element taught in Bishop and Rao as claimed for the purpose of protecting the inner conductor and insulating the signal from the outer conductor in order to improve the reliability of the signal transmission (Liu, page 2, para 2) to improve the antenna’s performance.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Wang et al, US-20040145522-A1, fig. 6A, 6B – driven element and counter pose element disposed on opposite sides of the PCB
Smith et al, US-20210119339-A1, fig. 16A, 16B – driven element and counter pose element disposed on opposite sides of the PCB
Islam, US-20130009836-A1, fig. 1 – driven element and counter pose element disposed on opposite sides of the PCB and driven element comprises a slit
Kwon et al, US-20060158383-A1, fig. 5A, 5B – driven element and counter pose element disposed on opposite sides of the PCB
Lin, CN-216354790-U, fig. 2 – driven element comprises a slit
Tlusty, US-20220336951-A1, fig. 2 – driven element comprises a slit
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights