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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/08/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive to Tanbo (US 20210336349). Therefore, the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 01/09/2026 is vacated.
Drawing Objection(s)
The drawings submitted on 11/05/2024 objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature(s) “a projection extending from a first driven element” of the invention specified in claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency.
Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 18 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18,
The recitation “a projection extending from a first driven element” in lines 1-2 is considered vague because it is unclear regarding what direction that the projection is projected from the first driven element. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnett et al (US 6326920), hereinafter Barnett.
Regarding claim 1,
Barnett discloses an antenna assembly (a high-frequency antenna 100’, Fig 3) comprising:
an antenna (an antenna array 106, Fig 3) formed from a continuous material (col 2, lines 32-51);
wherein the antenna comprises a plurality of antenna modules (a plurality of radiators 108, Fig 3);
wherein each the plurality of antenna modules includes a single feeder (a feed F, Fig 3) configured to receive a voltage; and
wherein each of the plurality of antenna modules is configured to resonate at a plurality of frequencies in response to a single voltage supplied through a respective single feeder (col 3, lines 47-59).
[AltContent: textbox (F)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Barnett (US 6326920))]
PNG
media_image1.png
363
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Barnett teaches an antenna carrier (a frame 104, Fig 3).
Regarding claim 13,
Barnett discloses a method of manufacturing an antenna (an antenna array 106, Fig 3) comprising:
providing a continuous material (col 2, lines 32-51);
processing the continuous material to generate a plurality of preformed shapes (a plurality of preformed shapes, Fig 3);
forming the plurality of preformed shapes into the antenna comprising a plurality of antenna modules (a plurality of radiators 108, Fig 3); and
forming a single feeder (a feed F, Fig 3) from at least one preformed shape;
wherein each of the plurality of antenna modules is configured to resonate at a plurality of frequencies in response to a voltage received from the single feeder (col 3, lines 47-59).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori (US 20060044200), hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claim 7,
Mori discloses an antenna (a multibeam antenna 110, Fig 15) comprising:
a plurality of driven elements (a plurality of feed elements 11A and 11B, Fig 15) and a plurality of parasitic elements (a plurality of parasitic elements 12A, 13A, 12B and 13B, Fig 15) formed from a single continuous material (a ground surface 15A, Fig 15; paragraph [0048]).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (15A)][AltContent: textbox (Mori (US 20060044200) )]
PNG
media_image2.png
626
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 2-4 and 14-18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al (US 6326920), hereinafter Barnett, in view of Knadle, Jr. (US 20050057418), hereinafter Knadle.
Regarding claim 2,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Barnett does not teach at least one antenna module of the plurality of antenna modules includes one or more driven elements and one or more parasitic elements.
However, Knadle teaches an antenna module (a directional antenna array 100, Fig 1) includes one or more driven elements (a driven element 102, Fig 1) and one or more parasitic elements (a director element 104, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use at least one antenna module of a plurality of antenna modules including one or more driven elements and one or more parasitic elements in Barnett, as taught by Knadle, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
[AltContent: textbox (Knadle (US 20050057418))]
PNG
media_image3.png
692
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3,
Barnett in view of Knadle discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 2.
Barnett teaches the one or more parasitic elements are configured and positioned to receive an induced voltage from at least one driven element (Fig 1; “The director element 104 is positioned on one side of the driven element 102 and connected with a boom 108” paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 4,
Barnett in view of Knadle discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 2.
Barnett as modified does not explicitly teach the one or more parasitic elements are configured to resonate at a different frequency than the one or more driven elements.
However, Knadle teaches a driven element 102 (Fig 1) has a length Ldri of 116 (Fig 1) different than a length Ldir1 of 118 of a director element 104 (Fig 1). It is well known in the art that different resonant lengths would have different resonances.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or more parasitic elements being configured to resonate at a different frequency than one or more driven elements in Barnett as modified, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
Regarding claim 14,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Barnett does not teach a step of: folding one or more preformed shapes to create a first driven element.
However, Knadle teaches an antenna module (a directional antenna array 100, Fig 1) includes a driven element (a driven element 102, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a step of folding one or more preformed shapes to create a first driven element in Barnett, as taught by Knadle, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
Regarding claim 15,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Barnett does not teach a step of: folding one or more preformed shapes to create a first parasitic element.
However, Knadle teaches an antenna module (a directional antenna array 100, Fig 1) includes a parasitic element (a director element 104, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a step of folding one or more preformed shapes to create a first parasitic element in Barnett, as taught by Knadle, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
Regarding claim 16,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Barnett does not teach steps of: folding one or more preformed shapes to create a gap between a first driven element and a first parasitic element.
However, Knadle teaches an antenna module (a directional antenna array 100, Fig 1) includes a gap (a spacing Sdir1, Fig 1) between a driven element (a driven element 102, Fig 1) and a parasitic element (a director element 104, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steps of folding one or more preformed shapes to create a gap between a first driven element and a first parasitic element in Barnett, as taught by Knadle, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
Regarding claim 17,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Barnett does not teach a step of: folding one or more preformed shapes to create a bridge between a first driven element and a first parasitic element.
However, Knadle teaches an antenna module (a directional antenna array 100, Fig 1) includes a bridge (a boom 108, Fig 1) between a driven element (a driven element 102, Fig 1) and a parasitic element (a director element 104, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a step of folding one or more preformed shapes to create a bridge between a first driven element and a first parasitic element in Barnett, as taught by Knadle, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
Regarding claim 18,
Barnett discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Barnett does not teach a step of: folding one or more preformed shapes to create a projection extending from a first driven element configured to extend a bandwidth of the first driven element.
However, Knadle teaches an antenna module (a directional antenna array 100, Fig 1) includes a projection (a balun structure 500, Fig 1) extending from a driven element (a driven element 102, Fig 1) configured to extend a bandwidth of the first driven element (paragraph 0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a step of folding one or more preformed shapes to create a projection extending from a first driven element configured to extend a bandwidth of the first driven element in Barnett, as taught by Knadle, in order to provide a low profile, directional antenna that can conform to any number of shapes while providing highly directional antenna patterns.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-12, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “at least a portion of the antenna carrier is configured to form at least part of an effective length for current resonance at a predetermined frequency”.
Regarding claim 8, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the antenna comprises a plurality of antenna modules formed from the single continuous material; wherein each of the plurality of antenna modules comprises the plurality of driven elements and the plurality of parasitic elements”.
Dependent claims 9-12 are considered to be allowable by virtue of its/their dependency/dependencies on claim 8.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-7650. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights