DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 06/25/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1 and 3-16 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected; 2) no claims are objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 06/25/2026.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. KR10-2021-0032222, filed on 03/11/2021, has been filed in this matter.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks about Kim’s outer surface, Examiner is not persuaded.
Even if Examiner agrees that Kim discloses framework or skeleton structure, which Examiner does not, given Kim’s FIGs. 8(a) & 8(b), Examiner finds it reasonable that PHOSTA could take the distribution of the sensors and apply the teaching to a non-framework or skeleton structure. In that instance, all of the principles and teaches of Kim would apply and would operate as expected by PHOSITA.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks about Kim’s internal wiring, Examiner agrees but finds it irrelevant.
Examiner discloses internal wiring and not external wiring as claimed. For the purposes of the combination, Examiner is not relying on Kim for such wiring and indicating other references that show external wiring. Examiner does not understand why external wiring could not or would not work when applied to Kim if the circuitry connecting all of the sensors was on or otherwise built into the domed structure. As such, since Examiner is not mapping to Kim for such and otherwise finds combining in such as reasonable, Examiner is not persuaded.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks about Jung, Examiner relies on new reference, Pina (US 20160271420 A1) to better explain the combination of the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210404809 A1) in view of Pina (US 20160271420 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses:
A tilt and direction detecting apparatus (Kim, FIG. 4, [0053], slope detection device 100) comprising:
a dome structure including a spherical surface (Kim, [0064], structure 1);
a plurality of optical sensors (Kim, FIG. 4, [0065], optical sensors 2) configured to measure the intensity of sunlight (Kim, [0065], “… in addition to visible light emitted by the sun…”); and …
… configured to enclose at least a portion of the spherical surface and to be disposed in contact with the spherical surface at the enclosed portion (Kim, FIGS. 5(a) & 5(b), [0069], “FIG. 5(a) shows multiple optical sensors 2 fixed at regular intervals on a virtual spherical surface. The normal 22 of the light receiving surface 21 of each of the optical sensors 2 is provided to be the same as the normal of the spherical surface”) …
… is disposed on the spherical surface such that … the plurality of optical sensors are disposed on the same spherical surface (Kim, FIGS. 5(a) & 5(b), [0069], “FIG. 5(a) shows multiple optical sensors 2 fixed at regular intervals on a virtual spherical surface. The normal 22 of the light receiving surface 21 of each of the optical sensors 2 is provided to be the same as the normal of the spherical surface”) and the plurality of optical sensors are oriented in different directions from each other (Kim, FIG. 4, [0064], “The multiple optical sensors 2 are provided on the spherical surface of the structure in a manner that face different directions), …
Kim discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a flexible circuit printed board …
… wherein, the plurality of optical sensors are disposed on the flexible circuit board …
… wherein the flexible printed circuit board includes a plurality of base units and a plurality of first connecting portions connecting two neighboring base units among the plurality of base units, and
the plurality of first connecting portions are disposed on an outer surface of the spherical surface.
However, Pina, in a similar field of endeavor (LASER THERAPY APPARATUS AND METHOD), discloses:
… a flexible circuit printed board (Pina, FIG. 4A, [0031], first printed circuit board 450) …
… wherein, the plurality of optical sensors are disposed on the flexible circuit board (Pina, FIG. 4A, showing multiple optical elements on the first printed circuit board 450) …
… wherein the flexible printed circuit board includes a plurality of base units and a plurality of first connecting portions connecting two neighboring base units among the plurality of base units (Pina, FIG. 4A, [0031], “first printed circuit board 450 and a second printed circuit board 460 are connected and bent into a dome shape,” and “the printed circuit boards 450, 460 may include areas of overlap 470, 472, 474, 476 when bent into a dome shape.” Examiner notes that Pina discloses printed circuit boards with optical elements on them, designed to be bent and work in conjunction with each other and have an interconnected and overlapping structure), and
the plurality of first connecting portions are disposed on an outer surface of the spherical surface (Pina, FIG. 2, [0025], cap body shell 210. Examiner fully acknowledges that Pina’s design is to direct the optical elements internally to the domed surface. Examiner is relying on Kim for the outward facing optical elements and finds it reasonable for PHOSITA to apply the principles of the internally facing dome to an outwardly facing dome).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the domed printed circuit board of Pina. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of printed circuit boards as disclosed by Pina and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically using a flexible printed circuit board for ease of construction and wiring.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the flexible printed circuit board including the plurality of base units and the plurality of first connecting portions is formed as a single body.
The structural integrity is a result-effective variable. In that, if there is insufficient support it would fail and too much support could interfere with the optics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the spherical surface includes a plurality of supporting surfaces, and each of the plurality of base units is disposed on each of the plurality of supporting surfaces,” since determining the optimum support structure to provide sufficient support is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the thickness of the base units is larger than the thickness of the first connecting portions.
The thickness of the base units as claimed is to “reinforce the rigidity of the circuit portions” (Specification, [0063]). The structural integrity is a result-effective variable. In that, if the material is too thin it would fail to provide support and if the material is too thick it could interfere with the optics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the thickness of the base units is larger than the thickness of the first connecting portions,” since determining the optimum thickness to provide sufficient support is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the spherical surface includes a plurality of supporting surfaces, and each of the plurality of base units is disposed on each of the plurality of supporting surfaces.
The structural integrity is a result-effective variable. In that, if there is insufficient support it would fail and too much support could interfere with the optics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the spherical surface includes a plurality of supporting surfaces, and each of the plurality of base units is disposed on each of the plurality of supporting surfaces,” since determining the optimum support structure to provide sufficient support is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 5, and Kim further discloses:
… further comprising a plurality of cover members disposed on the plurality of base units, respectively (Kim, FIG. 8, [0100], screen wall 12),
wherein the cover members each include a light receiving hole corresponding to each of the optical sensors (Kim, FIG. 8, showing how the screen walls 12 make individual holes sectioning the optical sensors 2).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein either the dome structure or the cover member includes a through-hole, and the other one includes a protruding portion capable of being fitted to the through-hole.
However, based on Applicant’s FIG. 5, “a bottom view of a cover member of a tilt and direction detecting apparatus,” Examiner understands the above limitations to mean that claim dome structure has a through hole for a peg to fit into for positioning. Though Kim does not explicitly disclose the above limitation, Kim’s structure 1 is connected to antenna apparatus 101.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Pina with the claimed through-hole system. PHOSITA would have known about the multiple means to connect and interlock pieces would require routine skill in the art and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Pina. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a known means to connect and interlock pieces.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the through-hole includes a first hole and a second hole, and the protruding portion includes a first protruding portion having a shape corresponding to the first hole and a second protruding portion having a shape corresponding to the second hole.
As noted for Claim 7, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Pina with the claimed through-hole system. PHOSITA would have known about the multiple means to connect and interlock pieces would require routine skill in the art and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Pina. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a known means to connect and interlock pieces.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the first hole configures in that at least one of size and shape is different from the second hole.
As noted for Claims 7 and 8, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Pina with the claimed through-hole system. PHOSITA would have known about the multiple means to connect and interlock pieces would require routine skill in the art and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Pina. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a known means to connect and interlock pieces.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 6, and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the cover members each include:
a cover body (Kim, FIG. 8, showing how the screen walls 12 make individual holes sectioning the optical sensors 2); and
a plurality of supporting portions configured to support the cover body, that extended from one side of the cover member facing the base unit (Kim, FIG. 8, [0100], screen wall 12),
wherein each of the plurality of supporting portions is spaced apart from one another around the light receiving hole (Kim, FIG. 8, [0100], screen wall 12).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 10, and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the plurality of supporting portions include a first supporting portion, a second supporting portion neighboring the first supporting portion, and a third supporting portion neighboring the second supporting portion (Kim, FIG. 8, [0100], screen wall 12. Examiner notes there are multiple, interconnecting screen walls), …
The combination of Kim and Pina discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
…wherein a first space, which is a space between the first supporting portion and the second supporting portion, is larger than a second space, which is a space between the second supporting portion and the third supporting portion.
However, the support spacing is a result-effective variable. In that, if there is insufficient support it would fail and too much support could interfere with the optics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the spherical surface includes a plurality of supporting surfaces, and each of the plurality of base units is disposed on each of the plurality of supporting surfaces,” since determining the optimum support structure to provide sufficient support is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the supporting portions are laser-fused onto the supporting surface.
However, examiner takes official notice that laser fusing and etching circuit boards is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Pina with laser-fusing and etching. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of laser-fusing and etching which would require routine skill in the art and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Pina. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a known means to work circuits.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 1, and Kim further discloses:
… further comprising a main board that is configured to calculate the angle of incidence of sunlight from information outputted from the plurality of optical sensors (Kim, FIG. 1, [0055], management server 103), and
The combination of Kim and Pina discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… that includes a first surface contiguous to the dome structure and a second surface opposite to the first surface,
wherein the flexible printed circuit board further includes a second connecting portion for electrically connecting the plurality of optical sensors and the main board,
wherein one end of the second connecting portion is connected to the second surface.
However, Kim discloses in FIG. 1, [0051]:
The antenna apparatus 101 for mobile communication may be provided on a pillar 102 standing on the ground.
Additionally, Kim discloses in FIG. 1, [0055]:
Multiple antenna apparatuses are installed in a distributed manner over a large area where a mobile communication service is provided. In order to ensure an appropriate service area, the antenna apparatus is installed preferably at the highest position, such as the top of the mountain, a roof of a building, or the like. The slope information of the antenna apparatuses may be transmitted to a management server 103 located at a remote location over a network, or the like, for convenience of management. In this case, in transmitting the slope information to the management server 103, communication is performed via the inside of the antenna by using a wireless network or by applying a communication protocol embedded in the antenna apparatus for mobile communication.
Examiner acknowledges that Kim operates remotely and wirelessly, and Applicant’s claimed invention is directly connected. Based on information and understanding, as written, Applicant is claiming that the domed sensor array is directly connected to the main board that calculates the angle, and that that board has an opposite side also connected to the domed sensor array.
Additionally, Examiner understands that if Kim’s management server 103 were internal to antenna apparatus 101, then Kim would functionally disclose the claimed invention. As disclosed, Kim’s antenna apparatus 101 is directly wired and connected to a circuit within antenna apparatus 101 to transmit the management server 103. Wired connections and wireless connections are well known in the art and PHOSITA would have been aware about their uses and applications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Pina with a direct wired connection to the management server. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of direct, wired connections and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Pina. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a known means to connect and wire electrical components.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose
… wherein the main board further includes a through groove, and at least a portion of the second connecting portion is configured to pass through the through groove.
However, as noted above, the use of wired and wireless connections are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Pina with a direct wired connection to the management server. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of direct, wired connections and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Pina. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of a known means to connect and wire electrical components.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 1, and Kim further discloses:
… further comprising at least one of a GPS module (Kim, [0074], “The time providing unit may be a network clock receiver, a wireless time synchronization extraction module, or a GPS module”) and a camera module (Kim, FIG. 4, [0065], optical sensors 2).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kim and Pina discloses Claim 1, and Kim further discloses:
… and an antenna apparatus (Kim, FIG. 1, [0050], antenna apparatus 101),
wherein the tilt and direction detecting apparatus is installed on the antenna apparatus (Kim, FIG. 1, [0050], antenna apparatus 101).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights