Status
This action is FINAL and is responsive to the amendment filed August 18, 2026.
Claims 11–13 and 15 are allowed.
Claims 1–10, 16, and 18–22 are rejected.
Claims 14 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 19 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1–13, 15, 16, and 18–22 are pending.
Applicant has amended independent claim 11 to incorporate the limitations of claim 14, which was indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and has amended claim 15 to depend from claim 11. Claims 11–13 and 15 are allowed.
The amendments to claims 11, 12, 15, and 19 and the addition of claims 21 and 22 have been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 6 remain objected to as reciting substantially identical subject matter. Claim 2 recites that each of the plurality of orifices extends completely through a thickness of the adapter plate; claim 6 recites that each orifice extends completely through a thickness of the adapter plate. Applicant has not addressed this redundancy. Correction is required.
Claim 2 is further objected to for the informality "each of the plurality of orifices extend," which should read "each of the plurality of orifices extends" to correct subject-verb agreement.
Appropriate correction is required. These objections are directed to form and do not constitute grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
A. Arguments directed to claims 1, 4, and 7, the puck limitation
Applicant argues that the cited passages of Chao do not disclose pucks, that Chao's relief 31 is a wiring-clearance cutout, that Chao's actual antenna-to-plate hardware consists of lugs, clevises, and pin rods, and that Wallace's orifices are fastener hole patterns rather than orifices configured to receive pucks.
These arguments are directed to the references individually and to express disclosure of the claimed terminology, neither of which is the applicable standard. The rejection of claim 1 is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not § 102. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(IV). Nor is it necessary that a reference disclose the claim term verbatim; the question is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill. MPEP § 2123.
Claim 1 does not define "puck" beyond reciting that the antenna base comprises a plurality of pucks and that each puck is positioned within a respective orifice of the adapter plate. Giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a "puck" is a discrete element depending from the antenna base and received within an orifice of the plate.
Wallace discloses the antenna-to-adapter-plate interface and the plurality of orifices through the plate through which the antenna is attached (Wallace, col. 6, ll. 6–11; col. 2, ll. 54–58; col. 4, ll. 58–65; Figs. 4, 5e, 6e, 7e, 8e). Chao is relied upon for its teaching that the adapter plate carries structural interface provisions that mechanically support the antenna assembly and provide the necessary mechanical interfaces between the antenna assembly and the fuselage fitting configuration (Chao, col. 2, ll. 39–48), including plate provisions that accommodate elements of the antenna assembly at the plate interface (Chao, col. 3, ll. 13–19). Chao's clevis-and-pin-rod hardware, identified by Applicant, is itself an arrangement of discrete mechanical elements received in registered provisions of the adapter plate, confirming rather than negating the teaching relied upon.
One of ordinary skill seeking mechanically stable, positionally registered antenna-to-plate seating would have found it obvious to provide discrete elements at the antenna base received within the plate orifices. The combination yields predictable results using known structural interface concepts. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Applicant's arguments as to claims 4 and 7 rest entirely on the asserted absence of the underlying puck structure and are unpersuasive for the same reasons. As to claim 7, the recited dimensional relationship — a puck extending at least 90% of the adapter plate thickness — is a routine dimensional design choice for seating an element within a receiving orifice so as to prevent play, rocking, or misalignment under flight loading. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); MPEP § 2144.04.
B. Arguments directed to claim 16, the aft support wall
Applicant argues that Chao's deflector 70 is positioned forward of the antenna assembly, is angularly rather than orthogonally oriented, is mounted to a central pad rather than rising from the plate's main body, and that relocating it aft would change Chao's principle of operation.
The rejection does not propose bodily relocating deflector 70 from its forward position to an aft position. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; MPEP § 2145(III).
Chao teaches that upward-extending structural elements mounted to the adapter plate body provide effective structural protection and load management for an antenna assembly (Chao, col. 4, ll. 34–40; Figs. 6, 7A, 7B). Chao further teaches that the adapter plate is provided with dedicated geometry at a selected longitudinal end to react impact and flight loading at that end — specifically, the nose portion 33 forward of the lugs, adapted to be stiffer in the vertical direction and to transform a longitudinal load into an induced downward vertical deflection (Chao, col. 3, ll. 57–65). Chao therefore teaches the general principle of siting load-reacting structure on the adapter plate at the location where the load is to be managed.
An antenna assembly mounted to an aircraft fuselage is subject to aft flight loading and aft impact events as well as forward ones. Applying Chao's teaching, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide an upward-extending support wall on the main body of the adapter plate at the aft position, to provide structural support and protection for the aft portion of the antenna assembly. This is a straightforward application of known structural support principles yielding predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Applicant's contention that such a wall would render Chao unsatisfactory for its intended purpose is not persuasive, because the rejection does not modify or displace Chao's forward deflector 70. Chao's forward bird-strike function is unaffected by the presence of additional aft structure.
C. Arguments directed to claim 19, the cupping geometry
Applicant argues that the combination of a support wall extending around the aft end of the antenna at least 120 degrees together with an inward-facing vertical surface corresponding in shape to the antenna's outward-facing vertical surface defines a cupping geometry not taught or suggested by either reference.
Each recited limitation was addressed in the Office Action of July 1, 2026 — the 120-degree circumferential extent with respect to claim 17, and the corresponding mating surfaces with respect to claim 19. Applicant has not identified any unexpected result arising from combining them. Selecting a degree of circumferential wrap sufficient to stabilize the antenna against multi-directional loading is a routine dimensional design choice, and configuring mating surfaces to correspond in shape is a fundamental fit-and-clearance design requirement for any support wall surrounding a portion of an antenna assembly. MPEP § 2144.04. The combination produces only the predictable result of close-fitting circumferential support, which is the stated purpose of each limitation individually. Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976).
D. Arguments directed to new claim 21, teaching away
Applicant argues that converting selected orifices into close-fit cylindrical sockets sized within 5 percent of the puck diameter would dedicate Wallace's adapter plate to a single antenna model and destroy the multi-vendor interchangeability that is Wallace's purpose.
This is not persuasive. Wallace's plate carries multiple overlapping hole patterns serving different antenna models (Wallace, col. 6, ll. 57–67; Figs. 5e, 6e, 7e, 8e). Providing close-tolerance registration at a selected set of orifices does not remove or obstruct the remaining patterns, and the plate would continue to accommodate the other antenna models Wallace contemplates. Wallace is therefore not rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and its principle of operation — a single plate carrying multiple attachment patterns — is unchanged.
Further, a reference teaches away only where it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2145(X)(D). Wallace's preference for interchangeability is not a criticism of close-tolerance seating.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1–10, 16, and 18–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 9,614,272) in view of Chao et al. (US 10,673,129).
Claims 1–10, 16, and 18–20
The rejections of claims 1–10 and 16 and 18–20 are maintained for the reasons set forth at pages 3–10 of the Office Action mailed July 1, 2026, which are incorporated herein by reference, together with the reasoning set forth in the Response to Arguments above. Claims 1–10, 16, 18, and 20 stand unamended. Claim 19 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of canceled claim 17, which limitations were addressed at page 9 of the prior Office Action and are further addressed at Section C above.
Claim 21 (new)
Claim 21 recites that each puck extends orthogonally from a downward-facing surface of the antenna base and has a cylindrical shape with a diameter within 5 percent of the diameter of the respective orifice.
Wallace in view of Chao teaches the puck-in-orifice interface as set forth with respect to claim 1. Wallace further discloses circular orifices through the adapter plate (Wallace, Figs. 5e, 6e, 7e, 8e), for which a cylindrical mating element is the natural and predictable geometric counterpart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the pucks to extend orthogonally from the downward-facing surface of the antenna base with a cylindrical shape sized within 5 percent of the receiving orifice diameter. Orthogonal projection from the seating face is the configuration that permits axial insertion of an element into a through-orifice, and a close diametral clearance is the recognized means of eliminating lateral play between a projecting element and its receiving bore so as to ensure reliable and repeatable antenna-to-adapter-plate alignment during installation and flight loading. Selection of the specific clearance is a routine dimensional optimization of a result-effective relationship — clearance versus positional registration — well within the level of ordinary skill. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); MPEP §§ 2144.04(IV), 2144.05(II).
Claim 22 (new)
Claim 22 recites that the antenna comprises an antenna base and that the support wall extends upward and orthogonally from the main body a distance at least half a height of the antenna base and is positioned aft of the antenna base.
Wallace in view of Chao teaches the upward-extending aft support wall as set forth with respect to claims 9 and 16, and the at-least-half-height dimension as set forth with respect to claims 18 and 9, which limitations Applicant has not separately traversed.
As to the orthogonal orientation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the support wall to extend orthogonally from the main body. A wall oriented perpendicular to the plate reacts aft loading in direct shear and bearing rather than through a bending couple, and occupies the minimum plan-view footprint on the adapter plate for a given wall height — both being recognized structural design considerations. Selecting the angular orientation of a support wall relative to the surface from which it rises is a routine configuration choice yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Applicant's argument that making the wall orthogonal would eliminate Chao's deflection angle 71 and with it the sole function Chao ascribes to deflector 70 is addressed at Section B above: the rejection does not modify deflector 70, and Chao's forward deflection function is unaffected by the addition of aft structure. Applicant's further argument that a wall rising alongside the antenna base would obstruct installation of differently shaped antennas is likewise addressed at Section D above, Wallace's remaining hole patterns and antenna models being unaffected by structure positioned aft of the antenna base.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11–13 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious an adapter plate having a feature at a forward end configured to convert an otherwise blunt impact load into a slicing impact load, the feature having a leading edge that is a forward-most portion of the feature and two sides extending from the leading edge, wherein the angle between the two sides is less than 90 degrees. While Chao discloses a forward nose portion providing load redirection and a deflector providing angular impact redirection, neither Chao nor Wallace, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests a forward feature defined by an acute-angled leading edge as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights