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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on December 16th, 2024 and March 12th, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “configured to allow for” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 13 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 13 recites “configured to allow for relative thermal displacement between the antenna element and dielectric support structure”. However, the specification fails to clearly disclose corresponding structure that is clearly associated with performing the claimed function.
Although the specification describes in par [0066] “For example, dielectric support structure 210 and ribbon 208 may only be coupled (e.g. using an adhesive) at the base of dielectric support structure 210, proximate the first end 224 of TEM line 204, allowing for thermal expansion upwards towards the second end 226 of TEM line 204.”. The par. further states that other methods may be used without providing sufficient detail regarding such methods. See par [0066] “ In other examples, other methods of accounting for thermal expansion may be present.”
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du (US 11183763 B2), herein referred to as Du.
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; wherein the backfire antenna element is coupled to the second end of the transmission line (feed points 41-44).
Regarding claim 2, Du anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses wherein the backfire antenna element is helical (See fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 4, Du anticipates 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 anticipates 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 anticipates 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 anticipates 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 anticipates all limitations of base claim 8.
Du also discloses wherein the matching network comprises a quarter-wave transformer, or stub (65-68).
Regarding claim 11, Du anticipates 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 anticipates 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 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); transmitting the RF signal through a 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).
Regarding claim 17, Du anticipates 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 anticipates 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 anticipates 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).
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 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and further in view of Parsche et al. (US 20190089061 A1), herein referred to as Parsche.
Regarding claim 3, Du anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Du also discloses the system further comprising a transmission line, however does not disclose wherein the transmission line is a TEM line, a microstrip line, a coaxial cable, or a dielectric waveguide.
However, 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 16, Du anticipates all limitations of base claim 15.
Du also discloses the system further comprising a transmission line, however does not disclose wherein the transmission line is a TEM line, a microstrip line, a coaxial cable, or a dielectric waveguide.
However, 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).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and further in view of Min et al. (KR 20080027052 A), herein referred to as Min.
Regarding claim 6, Du anticipates 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 anticipates 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and further in view of JP 2008520143 A, herein referred to as JP'143.
Regarding claim 10, Du anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Du does not disclose wherein the transmission line comprises a center conducting ground stub.
However, JP’143 does disclose wherein the transmission line comprises a center conducting ground stub (page 3 of attached, lines 2-8).
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 where the transmission line comprises a center conducting ground stub, as taught by JP’143, in order to provide further impedance matching (page 3 of attached, lines 2-8).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and further in view of O'Neill, JR et al. (US 20060022892 A1), herein referred to as O'Neill.
Regarding claim 13, Du anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Du does not disclose configured to allow for relative thermal displacement between the antenna element and dielectric support structure.
However, O’Neill discloses an antenna (fig. 1), configured to allow for relative thermal displacement between the antenna element and dielectric support structure. (See tapes 23 and 24 attached to an end).
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 it is configured to allow for relative thermal displacement between the antenna element and dielectric support structure, as suggested by the teachings of O’Neill, to prevent damage from thermal expansion/displacement.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du and further in view of Lamensdorf et al. (US 6720935 B2), herein referred to as Lamensdorf.
Regarding claim 14, Du anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Du does not disclose wherein the transmission line further comprises a support structure for supporting the ground plane and antenna element.
However, Lamensdorf discloses a similar antenna wherein the transmission line (40) further comprises a support structure 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 system of Du wherein the transmission line further comprises a support structure for supporting the ground plane and antenna element, as taught by Lamensdorf, to provide structural support to the overall antenna.
Conclusion
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
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845