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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6, 9-11 and 15-19 in the reply filed on 09/04/25 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 7-8 and 12-14 are currently withdrawn.
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 1, 3-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al (US 2015/0295313) in view of Shehan (US 2017/0324171).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Zimmerman discloses in Figures 6-7 and 10, a dipole antenna unit, comprising
two support plates, the two support plates being perpendicularly crossed (see 140a, 140b, Fig. 10),
each support plate being provided with a first
wherein the dipole antenna unit is further provided with a second dipole arm (left 118, Figs. 6-7), the second dipole arm (118) being coupled to the first dipole arm (124) in a non-contact manner (via capacitive area 130, see Figs. 6-7).
Zimmerman is silent the first clad region being a copper clad region.
Shehan in Figs. 1E-1H and par. 0045, the first region being a first copper clad region comprising a balun (116a, Fig. 1G) and a first dipole arm (vertical portion of 114a, Fig. 1E) connected to the balun.
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 clad region of Zimmerman with the first region being copper clad region as taught by Shehan to allow efficient transmission and radiation radio waves with minimal losses for the antenna unit. Therefore, to employ having the first region being copper clad region as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Zimmerman Figures 6-7 and Shehan Figs. 1E-1H and par. 0045 disclose, wherein the support plate is further provided with a second copper-clad region (118, Zimmerman, Figs. 6-7), the second copper-clad region (118) being spaced (by capacitive area 130) from the first copper-clad region (124), the second copper-clad region (118) serving as the second dipole arm (118), and a coupling gap (130) being provided between the second dipole arm (118) and the first dipole arm (124).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, Zimmerman Figures 6-7 and Shehan Figs. 1E-1H and par. 0045 discloses
wherein the first copper-clad region (124, see Zimmerman Figs. 6-7) and the second copper-clad region (118) are arranged on a surface of the same side of the support plate.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Zimmerman Figures 6-7 and Shehan Figs. 1E-1H and par. 0045 disclose,
wherein the support plate is further provided with a third copper-clad region (118, Zimmerman Figs. 6-7), the third copper-clad region being arranged on one side, facing away from the first copper-clad region (124), of the support plate, the third copper-clad region comprising a third dipole arm (118), and
the third dipole arm (118) being coupled to the first dipole arm (124) and the second dipole arm (118) separately in a non-contact manner.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5, Zimmerman Figures 6-7 and Shehan Figs. 1E-1H and par. 0045 disclose,
wherein an orthogonal projection, on the support plate, of the third copper-clad region (118) at least partially overlaps the first dipole arm (124), the second dipole arm (118) and the coupling gap (130); and a total effective length of the first dipole arm (124), the second dipole arm (118) and the third dipole arm (118) is a predetermined value times wavelength (ʎ) of a center frequency of the dipole antenna unit.
Zimmerman is silent on the predetermined value of the total effective length being 0.25 ʎ.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set or select the total effect length of the first dipole arm, second dipole arm and third dipole arm at a desire value to support operation in a band covering a frequency range assigned to the antenna unit. Therefore, to employ having antenna total effective length as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 1, Zimmerman discloses in Figure 10, a base station antenna, comprising a reflector (50); and a plurality of the dipole antenna units according to claim 1, the dipole antenna units being mounted on the reflector (50).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al (US 2015/0295313) in view of Shehan (US 2017/0324171) and further in view of Chaimon et al (US 2012/0146872).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Zimmerman in Figure 6,
wherein a top corner of one end, away from the balun (122) and the second dipole arm, of the first dipole arm (124) is provided with a first corner cut.
Zimmerman does not disclose the top corner of one end away from the second dipole arm.
Chaimon discloses in Figure 7h, wherein the top corner (79) of one end of the first dipole arm away the second dipole arm (77) is provided with a first corner cut.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the top corner of Zimmerman with the top corner as taught by Chaimon to achieve an impedance matching and optimal the radiation characteristic of the antenna unit. Therefore, to employ having the top corner as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al (US 2015/0295313) in view of Shehan (US 2017/0324171) and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2024/0039159).
Regarding claim 15, Zimmerman and Shehan discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for a director arranged above the support plate at a predetermined interval, the director being provided with a directing substrate and a directing pattern arra3nged on the directing substrate.
Zhang discloses in Figures 3-4, a director (40) arranged above the support plate at a predetermined interval, the director (40) being provided with a directing substrate and a directing pattern arranged on the directing substrate (see Fig. 4 and par. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the antenna unit of Zimmerman with the antenna unit having a director as taught by Zhang to improve the directivity of the antenna unit. Therefore, to employ having the director as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses in Figures 3-5,
wherein a distance between the director (40) and a top edge of the support plate.
Zhang does not disclose the distance being 0.05 times a wavelength of a center frequency of the dipole antenna unit.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to select or set the distance between the director and top edge of the support plate at a desired value to achieve a strong coupling between the directing pattern and the dipole arms to improve the directivity of the antenna unit. Therefore, to employ having the distance as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 16-17 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.
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