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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 51 has been added to recite the limitation “wherein the first dielectric support extends into each of the gaps” which does not describe in the original filed disclosure of invention. Thus, the recitation must be treated as "new matter".
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 25-27, 46-47, 49, 51 and 54 is 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.
Claim 25, line 1, recites the limitation “The base station antenna of claim 21” which renders the claimed indefinite because claim 21 has been canceled. All of the limitations of the intervening claim 21 have been deleted and not incorporated to the base claim 13. There is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the first feed board PCB” and “the second feed board PCB” in claim and it is not clear where the first and second feed board PCBs are mounted in the antenna. Therefore, for examination purpose, claim 25 is treated as canceled.
Claims 26-27 are rejected for being dependent on indefinite claim 25.
Claim 46, line 1 recites the limitation “The base station antenna of Claim 45” which renders the claimed indefinite because claim 45 has been canceled and all of the limitations of the intervening claim 45 have been deleted and not incorporated to the base claim 13. Therefore, for examination purpose, claim 46 is treated as canceled.
Claim 47 is rejected for being dependent on indefinite claim 45.
Claim 49 is rejected for being dependent on indefinite claim 25.
Regarding claim 51, the limitation “wherein the first dielectric support extends into each of the gaps” renders the claimed indefinite because it is not clear how the first dielectric support extends into each of the gaps. There is no support found in the specification of invention. In additional, the drawings 5E, 7A-7C do not show dielectric support 620 or 720 extending into the gaps. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as “wherein the first dielectric support is adjacent to each of the gaps”.
Regarding claim 54, the limitation “The base station antenna of Claim 50, wherein the reflector assembly further comprises a third panel” defines the reflector assembly having “a first panel, a second panel, a third panel and a fourth panel”. Claim 54 appears to be properly dependent on claim 53. Thus, for examination purpose, it is interpreted as “The base station antenna of Claim 53, wherein the reflector assembly further comprises a third panel”.
Clarifications are required.
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.
Claims 13, 16, 24 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (JP 2011229108) in view of Ding (CN 108400428), Lee et al (US 2003/0095076).
Regarding claim 13, Yamagishi discloses in Figure 5, a base station antenna, comprising:
a first support (5); a second [[dielectric]] support (6); and
a reflector assembly having at least a first panel (25), a second panel (25) and a third panel (25) that are angled with respect to each other and that define an inner cavity, wherein each of the first through third panels (25) is mounted to both the first dielectric support and the second dielectric support and the first and second dielectric supports are at least partly within the inner cavity.
Yamagishi is silent on the first panel capacitively coupled to the second panel and the first support and the second support being dielectric.
Ding discloses in Figure 1 and pars. 0031-0032, two adjacent panels (1) of reflector assembly
capacitively coupled to absorb back radiation electromagnetic wave and so as to effectively improve
base station antenna ratio. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap of Yamagishi with the gap being capacitively coupling as taught by Ding to absorb back radiation electromagnetic waves and so as to effectively improve base station antenna ratio.
Dielectric support is well known in the art of antenna. One of such examples is the teaching of Lee in par. 0046. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the supports of Yamagishi with the support being dielectric as taught by Lee to provide sufficient strength to hold up the panels of the reflector based on particular application or environment of use, and since it has been held that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 13, Yamagishi, Fig. 5 and Ding discloses
wherein the second panel (left 25) is capacitively coupled to the third panel (top 25), and the first panel (right 25) is also capacitively coupled to the third panel (top 25).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 13, Yamagishi discloses in Figure 5, wherein the first panel (25) is integral with the third panel (25).
Regarding claim 41, as applied to claim 13, Yamagishi discloses in Figure 5,
the reflector assembly further comprising a fourth panel, wherein the first panel is also capacitively coupled to the fourth panel.
Claims 17-18, 50-51 and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (JP 2011229108) in view of Ding (CN 108400428), Lee et al (US 2003/0095076) and further in view of Bisiules et al (US 2018/0227775).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 13, Yamagishi discloses in Figure 5,
wherein each (25) of the first panel through third panels includes a longitudinally-extending first central reflector plate that has a first feed board (27) [[printed circuit board ("PCB")]] mounted thereon and first and second longitudinally-extending outer lips on either side of the first central reflector plate that are angled with respect to the first central reflector plate by angles of -450 and 450, respectively (see Fig. 5), and
the second panel (25) includes a longitudinally-extending second central reflector plate that has a second feed board (27) [[printed circuit board ("PCB")]] mounted thereon and third and fourth longitudinally- extending outer lips on either side of the second central reflector plate that are angled with respect to the second central reflector plate by angles of -450 and 450, respectively.
Yamagishi does not disclose the first board and the second board being feed board PCBs.
Bisuiles discloses in Figures 3A-3B and 6A and par. 0103, the first board and he second feed board being feed board PCB (128). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the feed board of Yamagishi with the board being PCB as taught by Bisuiles to provide proper mechanical and electrical support for antenna.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 17, Yamagishi, Fig 5 and Ding, Fig. 1
wherein the first second longitudinally-extending outer lip of the first panel is configured to form a plate capacitor with the second third longitudinally-extending outer lip of the second panel.
Regarding claims 50-51 and 53-55, Yamagishi discloses in Figure 5, a base station antenna, comprising:
a first support (5); and
a reflector assembly having a first panel (25), a second panel (25), a third panel (25) and a fourth panel (25) that are angled with respect to each other,
wherein the first support (5) is at least partly within an inner cavity defined by the first through fourth panels (25), and each (25) of the first through fourth panels is mounted to respective outer walls of the first support (5),
wherein each (25) of the first through fourth panels includes a longitudinally-extending central reflector plate that has a respective feed board (27) printed circuit board ("PCB") mounted thereon and first and second longitudinally-extending outer lips on either side of the central reflector plate that extend outwardly from the central reflector plate at angles of 450 and -45°, respectively, and
wherein the first outer lip of each of the first through fourth panels extends in parallel to the second outer lip on an adjacent one of the first through fourth panels (see Fig. 5) and separated from the respective second outer lip by a respective gap so that each (25) of the first through fourth panels [[capacitively]] coupled to two other of the first through fourth panels;
wherein the first dielectric support (5) extends into each of the gaps.
wherein a corner of the first dielectric support (5) is positioned at one side of the gap.
Yamagishi is silent on the gap is capacitively coupling or capacitor; the first support being dielectric; and the feed board being feed board PCB.
Ding discloses in Figure 1 and pars. 0031-0032, two adjacent panels (1) of reflector assembly
capacitively coupled to absorb back radiation electromagnetic wave and so as to effectively improve
base station antenna ratio. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap of Yamagishi with the gap being capacitively coupling as taught by Ding to absorb back radiation electromagnetic waves and so as to effectively improve base station antenna ratio.
Note that, Yamagishi does not disclose the first support being dielectric. However, such difference is not patentable merit. Dielectric support is well known in the art of antenna. One of such examples is the teaching of Lee in par. 0046. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the support of Yamagishi with the support being dielectric support as taught by Lee to provide sufficient strength to hold up the panels of the reflector based on particular application or environment of use, and since it has been held that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Bisuiles discloses in Figures 3A-3B and 6A and par. 0103, the feed board being feed board PCB (128). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the feed board of Yamagishi with the board being PCB as taught by Bisuiles to provide proper mechanical and electrical support for antenna.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi (JP 2011229108) in view of Ding (CN 108400428), Lee et al (US 2003/0095076) and further in view of Ai (US 2020/0220251).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Yamagishi, Ding and Lee discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 13, except for wherein a plurality of cable-to- printed circuit board ("PCB") connectors are mounted in the first dielectric support.
Ai discloses in Figures 3-4, wherein a plurality of cable-to- printed circuit board ("PCB") connectors (6) are mounted in the first dielectric support (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the first support of Yamagishi with the support having a plurality of cable-to- printed circuit board ("PCB") connectors as taught by Ai to improve device reliability and reduce space. Therefore, to employ having the first support as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 52 and 56 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.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13, 16-18, 24-27, 35, 41, 46-47, 49-56 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
11. 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 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 CRUZ 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights