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 P. 6-9, filed 6/15/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12, 19-21 and 23-25 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference and newly found prior art reference(s). Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
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.
Claims 12, 19, 21 & 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/226344.
Regarding Claim 12, Wu et al. teaches a cross-dipole radiating element (Figs. 3A-4B, 6, 12A-13B), comprising:
a first dipole radiator that includes a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm (arms 954 of dipole 953 Figs. 12A-13B Par. 0115);
a second dipole radiator that includes a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (arms 954 of other dipole 953 Figs. 12A-13B Par. 0115); and
a conductive ring (170/970 Figs. 3A, 4B, 12A-13B Par. 0111) that is mounted forwardly of the first and second dipole arms by first through fourth connecting sections that galvanically connect the conductive ring to the first through fourth dipole arms (since “The conductive ring 970 may be identical to the conductive ring 170 Par. 0111”, it is implicit that it is likewise electrically connected to the dipoles 953 through 172 Par. 0093).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu et al. teaches wherein a perimeter of the conductive ring substantially overlaps a perimeter defined by the first through fourth dipole arms (Figs. 12A-13B).
Regarding Claim 21, Wu et al. teaches wherein each connecting section extends from a distal end of a respective one of the first through fourth dipole arms (implicit through 172 Par. 0093).
Regarding Claim 23, Wu et al. teaches a cross-dipole radiating element (Figs. 3A-4B, 6, 12A-13B), comprising:
a feed column that includes first through fourth feed stalks (960 Fig. 13A Par. 0116 / four feed stalks of 336 Fig. 6 Par. 0100); and
a conductive ring that is mounted forwardly of the feed column (170/970 Figs. 3A, 4B, 12A-13B Par. 0111),
wherein the first through fourth feed stalks are galvanically connected to each other through the conductive ring (since “The conductive ring 970 may be identical to the conductive ring 170 Par. 0111”, it is implicit that it is likewise electrically connected to the dipoles 953 through 172 Par. 0093).
Regarding Claim 24, Wu et al. teaches further comprising: a first dipole radiator that includes a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm that are connected to the feed column (arms 954 of dipole 953 Figs. 12A-13B Par. 0115); and a second dipole radiator that includes a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm that are connected to the feed column (arms 954 of other dipole 953 Figs. 12A-13B Par. 0115).
Regarding Claim 25, Wu et al. teaches wherein the first through fourth feed stalks are galvanically connected to the conductive ring through the respective first through fourth dipole arms (implicit through 172 Par. 0093).
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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/226344 and Sundararajan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0037804.
Regarding Claim 20, Wu et al. teaches the radiating element of claim 12 as shown in the rejection above.
Wu et al. is silent on wherein the first through fourth dipole arms are cloaking dipole arms.
However, Sundararajan et al. teaches wherein the first through fourth dipole arms are cloaking dipole arms (Abstract, Par. 0005-0010).
In this particular case, providing the first through fourth dipole arms to be cloaking dipole arms is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Sundararajan et al. in order to “make the low band dipole substantially transparent to high band RF energy without inhibiting the performance of the dipole in the low band” (Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first through fourth dipole arms of Wu et al. to be cloaking dipole arms based on the teachings of Sundararajan et al. as a result effect in order to obtain better performance by reducing interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 are allowed.
Claims 13-16,18 and 26 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, in view of Applicant’s Remarks P. 6-9, filed 6/15/2026, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the feed column, the first dipole radiator and the second dipole radiator are formed as a monolithic structure, wherein the monolithic structure is a bent sheet metal structure” in the arrangement as required by the claim. Claims 3, 4 and 6-9 directly or indirectly depend therefrom.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the first dipole radiator, the second dipole radiator, the first through fourth connecting sections and the conductive ring comprise a monolithic structure” in the arrangement as required by the claim. Claims 14, 15 and 18 directly or indirectly depend therefrom.
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the feed column, the first and second dipole radiators and the conductive ring are a monolithic bent sheet metal structure” in the arrangement as required by the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights