0

I seek to catalog prior-art for this patent application for a Yagi-Uda style antenna using a collection of ground plane style elements resulting in a slick vertical polarization beam antenna system.

Since the Yagi patent goes back to 1926 or so and there has been lots of development since then, this search will likely go way way back in time to find the relevant nuggets.

So far these patents portray the topology and relationships shown in the application antenna array as if they are public knowledge...

  • US2982959 - Antenna for both horizontally and vertically polarized waves
  • US3821742 - Dual polarized antenna with triangular wire reflector
  • US4223317 - Dual polarization antenna couplets

These patents focus on providing/adding a way to select either horizontal or vertical polarization to what they seem to infer as previously known vertical pol. Yagi-Uda array. This switchable polarization doesn't apply, or need to apply, to the current patent application, but it is interesting to note the topology of antenna elements is precisely what is portrayed in the "beam forming antenna" application. This suggests the authors of the 1960 and 1977 patents were improving the very system the recent application is attempting to patent.

Anyone else seen a Yagi-Uda array composed of sets of conductors, one vertical, two horizontal, arranged in the beam forming array?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

As of 7/9/2014 the application in question has an outstanding non-final rejection that was issued in June. It cites: US3179943 Log periodic monopole array and image ground plane ...

enter image description here

There are several other references mentioned in the Office Action. You can look up the whole history of published patent applications and patents (if filed in the last 10 years or so) at USPTO Public PAIR.

Improve this answer
2
  • I read the Nonfinal Rejection document and wow oh wow, this really helps portray the mind of the examiner. I've heard it said Utility patents are routinely rejected to force the applicant to defend their claims. I did wonder about the broad wording used in this new patent's claims, but never thought the examiner would use a totally different antenna topology to nullify them. This, I suppose, is the danger of too broad claims right?
    – JSH
    Jul 9, 2014 at 17:57
  • Yes - I am a patent agent and I tell my clients the examiner is not rejecting their invention, they are rejecting my claims.
    – George White ♦
    Jul 10, 2014 at 3:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .