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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed May 5th, 2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 13, with regard to the prior 112(f) interpretation is accepted and the prior statement of 112(f) interpretation is no longer relevant to the claim.
Applicant's arguments filed May 5th, 2026, with regard to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the coaxial cable of Parsche does not constitute a TEM line. However, it is well known within the art that a coaxial cable supports a transverse electromagnetic propagation mode. Furthermore, the new combination of references now discloses the TEM line with a center conducting ground stub, rendering the argument moot. Finally, the arguments claim that the “disparate and fragile antennae” of Du and Parsche would not be able to survive a launch, and claims that Lamensdorf does not remedy the deficiency. However, as discussed in the previous office action, the structure of Lamensdorf’s feed does provide further structural support. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that a metal tube, as provided in Lamensdorf, would likely be sufficient structural support to survive a launch.
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 1-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 11183763 B2), herein referred to as Du and further in view of Parsche et al. (US 20190089061 A1) and Lamensdorf et al. (US 6720935 B2), herein referred to as Parsche and Lamensdorf, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses an antenna system (fig. 1), the system comprising: a base structure (combination of 20, 30, and 23); a transmission line extending from the base structure (column 5, lines 22-27 explicitly disclose a feed line going through the support hole 22), the transmission line coupled to the base structure at a first end (at hole 22) of the transmission line; a ground plane (10) coupled to the transmission line at a second end (at ground plane) of the transmission line; and a backfire antenna element (31-34) between the ground plane (10) and the base structure; a support structure (20) configured to support the ground plane and antenna element, wherein the backfire antenna element is coupled to the second end of the transmission line (feed points 41-44).
Du does not disclose wherein the transmission line is specifically a transverse electromagnetic line, the support structure being integrated with the TEM line, the TEM line thereby providing mechanical support; and a center conducting ground stub integrated into the TEM line; and wherein the TEM line is disposed within a cone defined by the base structure and the ground plane.
However, transmission lines such as coaxial cable, which are generally understood to support a transverse electromagnetic propagation mode, at least for ordinary operations, are well known in the art, and can be seen in Parsche (para. 0011). Furthermore, the line of Parsche also contains a center conducting ground stub (106) integrated into the TEM line (connected to inner conductor 105), and wherein the TEM line is disposed within a cone defined be the base structure and the ground plane (fig. 6).
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 system of Du wherein the transmission line is specifically a transverse electromagnetic line; and a center conducting ground stub integrated into the TEM line; and wherein the TEM line is disposed within a cone defined by the base structure and the ground plane as taught by Parsche, to provide multiple conductors (para. 0011), and to elongate RF coverage patterns (para. 0031) and to reduce tensile stresses on the inner conductor (para. 0055).
Furthermore, Lamensdorf discloses a similar antenna wherein the transmission line (40) further comprises a support structure (42) for supporting the ground plane (48) and antenna element (46).
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 system of Du the support structure being integrated with the TEM line the TEM line thereby providing mechanical support, as taught by Lamensdorf, to provide structural support to the overall antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the backfire antenna element is helical (See fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 3, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du does not disclose wherein the TEM line includes a microstrip line, a coaxial cable, or a dielectric waveguide.
However, as discussed in claim 1, transmission lines such as a coaxial cable, are well known in the art, as can be seen in Parsche (para. 0011).
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 system of du wherein the transmission line is a coaxial cable, as taught by Parsche, to provide multiple conductors (para. 0011).
Regarding claim 4, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses the system further comprising a dielectric support structure (20), wherein the helical antenna element is coupled to the dielectric support structure (col. 4, lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 5, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 4.
Du also discloses wherein the dielectric support structure is constructed from a dielectric material (col. 4, lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 7, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the backfire antenna element is constructed from a conductive metallic material (col. 4 lines 42-43).
Regarding claim 8, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the transmission line comprises a matching network (col. 4 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 9, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 8.
Du also discloses wherein the matching network comprises a quarter-wave transformer, or stub (65-68).
Regarding claim 10, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du does not disclose wherein the TEM line comprises a center conducting ground stub.
However, as discussed in claim 1, Parsche discloses wherein the TEM line comprises a center conducting ground stub (106).
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 system of Du wherein the TEM line comprises a center conducting ground stub as taught by Parsche, to reduce tensile stresses on the inner conductor (para. 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the base structure is constructed from a metallic material (portion 30 of the base is a conductive patch).
Regarding claim 12, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the antenna system is configured to at least one of: transmit UHF frequency signals; and receive UHF frequency signals (col. 5 line 5, 1583 MHz is within UHF range).
Regarding claim 13, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the antenna element (31-34) and dielectric support structure (20) are coupled at the base structure (See fig. 1 and 2) allowing for thermal displacement between the antenna element and dielectric support structure (functional language, which is inherent based upon the structure given).
Regarding claim 15, Du discloses a method of transmitting an RF signal through an antenna system (fig. 1), the method comprising: providing an RF signal to an antenna system as an input (fig. 2A); transmitting the RF signal through a transmission line of the antenna system (col. 5 lines 22-27), the transmission line comprising an impedance matching network (col. 4 lines 53-56) supporting a ground plane (10) and a helical antenna element (31, 34) via a support structure (20); transmitting the RF signal through the helical antenna element (33) having an axial center (vertical through hole 22); and radiating the RF signal away from the antenna system through the helical antenna element, wherein the transmission line is positioned at the axial center of the helical antenna element (See fig. 1-2, 2B) and disposed entirely within a volume defined by the helical antenna element (fig. 2).
Du does not disclose wherein the transmission line is specifically a TEM line and the support structure is integrated with the TEM line thereby providing mechanical support and providing a center conducting ground stub integrated into the TEM line.
However, transmission lines such as coaxial cable, which are generally understood to support a transverse electromagnetic propagation mode, at least for ordinary operations, are well known in the art, and can be seen in Parsche (para. 0011). Furthermore, the line of Parsche also contains a center conducting ground stub (106) integrated into the TEM line (connected to inner conductor 105).
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 system of Du wherein the transmission line is specifically a transverse electromagnetic line; and a center conducting ground stub integrated into the TEM line, as taught by Parsche, to provide multiple conductors (para. 0011) and to reduce tensile stresses on the inner conductor (para. 0055).
Furthermore, Lamensdorf discloses a similar antenna wherein the transmission line (40) further comprises a support structure (42) for supporting the ground plane (48) and antenna element (46).
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 system of Du the support structure being integrated with the TEM line the TEM line thereby providing mechanical support, as taught by Lamensdorf, to provide structural support to the overall antenna.
Regarding claim 16, Du, Parsche, and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Du does not disclose wherein the TEM line includes a microstrip line, a coaxial cable, or a dielectric waveguide.
However, as discussed in claim 1, transmission lines such as a coaxial cable, are well known in the art, as can be seen in Parsche (para. 0011).
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 system of du wherein the transmission line is a coaxial cable, as taught by Parsche, to provide multiple conductors (para. 0011).
Regarding claim 17, Du, Parsche, and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Du also discloses wherein the matching network comprises a quarter-wave transformer, or stub (65-68).
Regarding claim 19, Du, Parsche, and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Du also discloses wherein the antenna element is constructed from a conductive metallic material (col. 4 lines 42-43).
Regarding claim 20, Du, Parsche, and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Du also discloses wherein the antenna system is configured to at least one of: transmit UHF frequency signals; and receive UHF frequency signals (col. 5 line 5, 1583 MHz is within UHF range).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du, Parsche, and Lamensdorf and further in view of Min et al. (KR 20080027052 A), herein referred to as Min.
Regarding claim 6, Du, Parsche and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Du does not disclose wherein the backfire antenna element comprises a rectangular cross section.
However, Min discloses a helical antenna element which comprises a rectangular cross section (see fig. 16).
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 Du wherein the backfire antenna element comprises a rectangular cross section, as taught by Min, in order to adjust radiating characteristics.
Regarding claim 18, Du, Parsche, and Lamensdorf render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Du does not disclose wherein the antenna element comprises a rectangular cross section.
However, Min discloses a helical antenna element which comprises a rectangular cross section (see fig. 16).
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 Du wherein the backfire antenna element comprises a rectangular cross section, as taught by Min, in order to adjust radiating characteristics.
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 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
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights