On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: Application Number 11/655899 or 20080231540 at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=655899&OS=655899&R S=655899
Sorry about the giant URL. If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix.

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

I suspect you may have some problems with claim 3.
"3. A clustered array according to claim 1 where the radiating
elements of said cluster have random three dimensional Cartesian
directional positions of placement with respect to each other and the
surface of the earth."

I don't think you can patent a random collection of elements as it
would be classed as too broad a claim. That would encompass all
antennas that were NOT designed according to non-random calculations.
While the use of randomness is possible (and common) in patents, I've
noticed that they always disclose the method by which the randomness
is achieved.

I would be interesting in seeing a photo, NEC2 deck, and test results
for your random element antenna. Take you time, no hurry.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 30, 8:44*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. *It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: *Application Number 11/655899 *or *20080231540 *at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1...
Sorry about the giant URL. *If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. *If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix. *

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. *Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

I suspect you may have some problems with claim 3.
"3. A clustered array according to claim 1 where the radiating
elements of said cluster have random three dimensional Cartesian
directional positions of placement with respect to each other and the
surface of the earth."

I don't think you can patent a random collection of elements as it
would be classed as too broad a claim. *That would encompass all
antennas that were NOT designed according to non-random calculations.
While the use of randomness is possible (and common) in patents, I've
noticed that they always disclose the method by which the randomness
is achieved.

I would be interesting in seeing a photo, NEC2 deck, and test results
for your random element antenna. *Take you time, no hurry.

The PTO has offered alternative claims but after trashing the request
such an offer would not stand up in court. True a lot of people are
just interested in saying they have a patent
but I am not willing to pay maintenance fees for something that does
not provide protection.
The killer of course is the allegation that I have not placed numbers
on a drawing which does not exist or was submitted from me. There is
no oversight or redress from an examiners descision and no discussion
available since he is not fluent in spoken English so time will run
out and it will be declared abandoned. Walter Cronkite had the phrase
that deals with such situations. By the way I use a program that uses
Mininec as well as being an optimizer. I did have a academic in the
antenna field confirm that my discovery was correct and provided NEC4
proofs which is what PTO accepts as a basic of proof. I got this
confirmation not because I doubted what I had but it is the thing all
engineers should do.
So my work will sleep with me at night and never see the light of day
and hams can feel they have lost nothing. At present I have no
antennas left to operate on.


--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:44:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:44:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. *Probably
my fault (or Quicktime).

Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o
attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25
days to resolve, so all is not lost.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf

PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o
attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25
days to resolve, so all is not lost.

Good luck. As I previously ranted, the obvious stumbling block is the
user of the term "random" array of elements. If the examiner
interprets that as "arbitrary", then your patent is too general to be
considered passable. You might what to look at other patents for
antennas at:
http://www.google.com/patents/
Ignore the applications and concentrate on the patents that have been
issued. Compare these patents with your application. You should see
fairly quickly what you're missing. (Hint: References and Citations).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Aug 31, 5:43*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf
PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o
attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25
days to resolve, so all is not lost.

Good luck. *As I previously ranted, the obvious stumbling block is the
user of the term "random" array of elements. *If the examiner
interprets that as "arbitrary", then your patent is too general to be
considered passable. *You might what to look at other patents for
antennas at:
http://www.google.com/patents/
Ignore the applications and concentrate on the patents that have been
issued. *Compare these patents with your application. *You should see
fairly quickly what you're missing. *(Hint: References and Citations).

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Oddly enough they ( PTO)have offered claims with "arbitrary" involved
I say that is not bad since the positions are arbitrary but dependent
solely
on equilibrium where all are resonant, as is the enclosure, and can be
chosen as the feed..
all of which is determined on weighting applied which provide multiple
arrangements.
It is possible that if more radiators are added then one may not be
resonant and the boundary close to fracture. It is important to note
however that tho the majority will be resonant some will have a
impedance that is too low to feed. As can be seen from the above, for
equilibrium there are no compelling reasons for the elements to be
straight
We have to wait to what the supervisor has to say and what options are
available
Accept or role it in to the followi up application which is in the
same antenna catagory, the latter I am hoping for as it cuts down on
maintenance fees.
Regards

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: Application Number 11/655899 or 20080231540 at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=655899&OS=655899&R S=655899
Sorry about the giant URL. If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix.

wow! exciting to finally see it in print! i already have the perfect name
for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune
telling stick thing... google to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cim the "Kau cim antenna" gives it a more
authoritative sound, maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a
can and design a new antenna!

On Aug 31, 7:16*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about
2008 when I applied for the subject antenna

Foundit. *It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason.
See: *Application Number 11/655899 *or *20080231540 *at:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1...
Sorry about the giant URL. *If that wraps or doesn't work, try:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html
and type in either application number. *If you're going to refer to
your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix.

wow! *exciting to finally see it in print! *i already have the perfect name
for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune
telling stick thing... google to the rescue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cimthe "Kau cim antenna" *gives it a more
authoritative sound, *maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a
can and design a new antenna!

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

On Aug 31, 8:44*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Too late David

Yes Dave, you are too late. I already named this antenna
months ago. "The Cluster@#$%".
I see he has adapted part of my suggestion, but dumped
the most descriptive part of the name.. :/
It kills me that he actually sent this package of mumbo
jumbo to the patent office with a straight face.
And just think, all this was inspired due to delusions
of grandeur brought on by improper use of a modeling program.
:/
But what really kills me is it's already been shown that
a properly designed yagi with a number of elements equal
to the Cluster@#$% is actually the superior antenna of
the two.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Too late David
But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use
the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are
you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the
Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful
graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of
yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this
group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and
Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math
into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws
dropped in ignorance when the term was used.

there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my
collection that i can find. 'steady state' is the closest, but that is
normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient
response has died out. 'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but
any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state
where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no
radiation. 'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has
reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the
thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for
electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation.