DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
2. The examiner attempted to reach the attorney of record, Seth Rodack, via telephone in the interest of expedited prosecution. In particular, the examiner intended to propose examiner’s amendments for the purpose of allowability. However, the examiner was unable to reach the applicant’s representative to discuss the matters below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 07/21/2026 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “covering” in claims 1 and 11 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 Objections
5. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 11, line 12: the term “the component” should be rewritten as --the antenna component-- for the purpose of consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-20 are 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.
8. Claim 1, lines 13-14, recites the limitation “wherein the opening is configured such that a major surface of the component is free of a covering” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the opening is being defined based on a major surface of the component that is not positively required by the claimed invention. Further, per the applicant’s disclosure, in particular FIGS. 2-3 and 7, based on the arrangement between the antenna component 108 and the fairing 110, at least a portion of the antenna component 108 is covered by at least a portion of the fairing 110 and the upper section 202 of the fairing 110. What exactly does the applicant consider to be a major surface of the component? The upper surface of the component 108, delimited by the edge 122, the sidewall 160 and/or the edge 218? Further, while the specification supports an exposed component 108, however, there is no particular disclosure of a covering which is a structural term. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Furthermore, does the applicant contend that the component by itself is free of a covering or the mounting system is free of a covering? Similarly, claim 11 is unclear for the same reasons.
Claims not addressed are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to arguments pertaining to the amendments to claims 1 and 11, the applicant asserts that “The claimed element is illustrated in Applicant’s FIG. 2, where the fairing 110 has an opening 204 that allows the major surface 120 of the antenna 108 remain substantially or completely uncovered and exposed” (emphasis added) on p. 12 of the remarks. These arguments are not considered to be persuasive. As discussed above, regarding claims 1 and 11 under the 112(b) rejection, and as suggested by the remarks, a portion of the component is clearly covered by features of the mounting system. The disclosure is not sufficiently specific as to the major surface of the component that is uncovered, and there is no disclosure of the mounting system being free from any such covering. The major surface of the component as illustrated in the drawings includes a lead line that appears to define a line in the form of a tilde (~) as the major surface. The examiner suggests amending the claim in a manner that specifically points out which portion of the component is exposed/uncovered. For example, the applicant may consider further defining the exposed surface of the component by reciting an upper surface of the component and the portions of the component, and the carrier frame and/or fairing that delimit/define such exposed surface of the component such that the metes and bounds of the claim is definitively clear. The examiner also suggests to not utilize terminologies that are associated with structures (i.e., covering) that are not specifically disclosed in the applicant’s disclosure, since the mere absence of a disclosure is not the disclosure of an absence. See MPEP 2173.05(i) regarding negative limitations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Facciano et al. (US 7681834 B2) discloses an antenna mounting system comprising a carrier frame configured to receive and hold the antenna; a plurality of fittings configured to attach the carrier frame to a vehicle; and a removable fairing with an opening defined there, wherein the fairing is configured is as a removable covering.
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowed. Further clarification of the claims is required in order to determine allowability in light of the rejections under 112(b) as well as the drawing objections set forth in this Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights