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 Group II (claims 12-19) in the reply filed 02/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: “configured to operates” should read “configured to operate”.
Claim 17: “RF” should read “radiofrequency (RF)”.
Claim 18: “circuity” should read “circuitry”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-16 and 19 are objected to due to their dependency.
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(s) 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn et al. (US 2011/0215984; “Coburn”).
Claim 12. Coburn discloses (fig. 1 below) “A method of making an antenna system including an antenna suite (¶24, “the embodiments herein may include a triaxial helical antenna with three antennas covering three separate frequency bands or configurations with greater than three antennas”), the method comprising:
providing a frame (fiberglass shell 5) defining an enclosed volume; and
providing a plurality of antennas within the enclosed volume (¶24, “As shown in FIG. 1, coaxial helical antenna 1 includes a low frequency helical (LFH) antenna 10, a high frequency helical (HFH) antenna 30”), wherein the plurality of antennas includes a plurality of helical antennas (10, 30); wherein each antenna of the plurality of antennas is directional (¶25, “the circumference of antenna 10 is near the wavelength, λc, at the desired center frequency of operation, fa” and ¶5, which discusses circular polarization, indicates that the antenna system is designed for directional/end-fire operation), wherein each antenna is configured to operate over a different passband (¶33, “LFH antenna 10 and HFH antenna 30 are driven individually to yield dual-band operation”), and wherein the plurality of antennas includes a lowest-frequency antenna (low frequency helical antenna 10) having a lowest-frequency passband including a lowest frequency, wherein the lowest frequency defines a longest operation wavelength of the plurality of antenna”.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coburn does not disclose “wherein the enclosed volume has a maximum dimension in any direction that is less than one-quarter of the longest wavelength of the lowest-frequency passband”. However, Coburn teaches (¶28) “The size of shaped ground plane 50 may be chosen as small as possible without reducing the gain or pattern purity over the desired bandwidth”, and the ground plane 50 determines the diameter of the frame which defines the enclosed volume (see fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the length and diameter of the helical antenna can be changed such that the helical is less than a quarter of wavelength. Therefore, a maximum dimension of the frame in which the helical antennas are situated can be less than one-quarter of a wavelength.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to wherein the enclosed volume has a maximum dimension in any direction that is less than one-quarter of the longest wavelength of the lowest-frequency passband. Doing so provides a compact antenna system that occupies a small volume.
Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13. Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn discloses “wherein the plurality of helical antennas is configured for an end-fire radiation mode (¶25, “the circumference of antenna 10 is near the wavelength, λc, at the desired center frequency of operation, fa” and ¶5, which discusses circular polarization, indicates that the antenna system is designed for directional/end-fire operation)”.
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 17: Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn discloses “further comprising providing transmission circuitry (¶29, “microstrip impedance transformer 60 includes length 62, a bottom ground plate 64, and a transmission line 66”; ¶30, “coaxial helical antenna 1 may include a splitter 70 (e.g., a broadband splitter) coupled to microstrip impedance transformer 60 to provide a 50Ω input to LFH antenna 10 and HFH antenna 30, enabling coaxial helical antenna 1 to operate as a wideband antenna”) configured to supply each of the plurality of antennas (10, 30) with radiofrequency (RF) energy for transmission”.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn et al. (US 2011/0215984; “Coburn” or “C”) in view of Mikryukov et al. (NPL “Coaxial helical antenna with improved isolation”, pub. 1999; “Mik”).
Claim 14. Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn discloses a pair of adjacent antennas (10, 30) separated by a separation distance (see fig. 1). Coburn also discloses that the diameter of the first helix 30 is larger than the diameter of the second helix 10 (abstract).
Coburn does not disclose “wherein each adjacent pair of antennas of the plurality of antennas is separated by a separation distance of less than 1/15 of an operation wavelength of one of the antennas of the adjacent pair, respectively”.
Mik teaches two adjacent helical antennas (fig. 1). Mik also teaches (II. Results) that the ratio of the diameters of the helical antennas can be changed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Mik to the method of Coburn and modify the dimensions of each adjacent pair of antennas such that each adjacent pair of antennas of the plurality of antennas is separated by a separation distance of less than 1/15 of an operation wavelength of one of the antennas of the adjacent pair. Doing so allows for desired operational characteristics (II, Mik) and band properties (III, Mik).
Furthermore, a change in size of a component (i.e. a change in size of one or both antennas 10, 30) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. . In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 16. Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of antennas is configured such that in operation the antennas are substantially decoupled from one another”.
However, Mik teaches (II) that the angles of winding of the helical antennas can be different to each other in order to “diminish the mutual influence of the coaxially placed helices (CPH)”, and “the mutual influence of CPH decreases when their axial lengths differ from each other…”. Mik therefore teaches wherein the plurality of antennas is configured such that in operation the antennas are substantially decoupled from one another.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Mik to the method of Coburn, wherein the plurality of antennas is configured such that in operation the antennas are substantially decoupled from one another. Doing so allows for an antenna system with increased gain, reduced cross-polarization, and reduced sidelobes.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn et al. (US 2011/0215984; “Coburn” or “C”) in view of Lalezari et al. (US 5,838,282; “Lal”).
Claim 15. Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of antennas includes at least five antennas”.
However, Coburn teaches (¶24), “the embodiments herein may include a triaxial helical antenna with three antennas covering three separate frequency bands or configurations with greater than three antennas”).
Lal teaches (fig. 2) an antenna suite with at least five antennas (col. 2, lines 61-; “For example, in a preferred embodiment, the first array includes a stacked patch antenna element and a plurality of quadrafilar helical elements. The element types chosen for a particular array depend on the overall antenna pattern desired for the array.”, and see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lal to the method of Coburn, wherein the plurality of antennas includes at least five antennas. Doing so allows for a desired antenna pattern for the antenna system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn in view of Zhang et al. (EP 3316397A1; “Zhang”).
Claim 18. Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn does not explicitly disclose “further comprising providing reception circuitry configured to receive RF energy from one or more target RF sources within range of the plurality of antennas”.
However, Coburn does disclose “a coaxial helical antenna for receiving information through electromagnetic waves”.
Zhang teaches (fig. 1) an antenna system comprising a plurality of helical antennas (20), and reception circuitry (¶20, “transceiver to realize transceiving control over the helical antenna signals”) configured to receive RF energy from one or more target RF sources within range of the plurality of antennas (¶49, “receive multichannel signals”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Zhang to the method of Coburn, further comprising providing reception circuitry configured to receive RF energy from one or more target RF sources within range of the plurality of antennas. A transceiver allows combined transmitter and receiver functions, saving space and lowering power consumption.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coburn in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2008/0174488; “Weinstein”).
Claim 19. Coburn teaches the method of claim 12.
Coburn does not disclose “further comprising providing processing circuity configured to produce an output signal indicative of a location of one or more RF targets within range of the plurality of antennas”.
Weinstein teaches (fig. 1) an antenna system comprising a plurality of helical antennas (22, 24). Weinstein also teaches processing circuitry (fig. 4) configured to produce an output signal indicative of a location of one or more RF targets within range of the plurality of antennas (claim 5, “wherein said electronic user interface further comprises diversity electronics which includes both direction selection and finding circuitry”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Weinstein to the method of Coburn, further comprising providing processing circuity configured to produce an output signal indicative of a location of one or more RF targets within range of the plurality of antennas. Doing so allows for helical antennas to be used in a passive tracking system with no moving parts.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Strickland (US 2003/0164805), fig. 1 – five helical antennas
Praba (US 5,258,771), fig. 1 – array of helical antennas which operate at low and high frequencies.
Hwang et al. (US 5,345,248), fig. 1 – array of helical antennas arranged to reduce coupling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845