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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, regarding independent claim 1, 10, and 18, that the prior art does not teach “wherein the protrusions follow a contour of the one or more grooves…”.
Respectfully, the examiner disagrees with regard to claim 1. The language of claim 1 is broader in nature, and simply limit the cover being moved based on the protrusions and grooves. As seen in Yoo, the protrusion (screw/bolt 140) is capable of rotating within the groove (109), which a person of ordinary skill within the art would recognize as reading upon the claims.
However, the examiner further acknowledges that independent claims 10 and 18 provide further limiting language, describing the protrusions following a contour of a groove in order to guide the movement of the cover. The examiner agrees that this amendment overcomes the prior art and the rejection of claims 10, 18, and their dependent claims are withdrawn.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al. (US 7173571 B2), herein referred to as Webb and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 12021294 B2), herein referred to as Yoo.
Regarding claim 1, Webb discloses a wireless receiver (Fig. 1), comprising: a receiver body (100) encompassing one or more antenna elements (102); a cover (101) removably (col. 6, lines 17-19 states cover 101 removed) coupled to the receiver body (100); and a mounting bracket (103) removably coupled (see fig. 1 for close up of brackets and release knobs 112, 113) to the receiver body (100), wherein at least one of the one or more antenna elements (102), the cover (101), or the mounting bracket (103) is movable (col. 5, lines 55-59) with respect to the receiver body in order to align the wireless receiver with a signal path in a radio access network (Col 5, lines 55-59).
Webb does not disclose wherein the receiver body includes an outer casing with one or more grooves, wherein the cover includes one or more protrusions, and wherein the cover is moved in a direction based on the one or more protrusions and one or more grooves.
However, Yoo discloses a similar device for antennas (see fig. 4), wherein the receiver body (fig. 4) includes an outer casing (100) with one or more grooves (109), wherein the cover includes one or more protrusions (140) which extend inward from an interior surface of the cover (see fig. 4, 140 extends inward from 100), and wherein the cover is moved in a direction based on the one or more protrusions and one or more grooves (col. 8 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the receiver of Webb wherein the receiver body includes an outer casing with one or more grooves, wherein the cover includes one or more protrusions, and wherein the cover is moved in a direction based on protrusions and grooves, as taught by Yoo, in order to guide the tilting motion (col. 8 line 14).
Regarding claim 2, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb also discloses wherein the cover (101) includes a closed end (bottom) and an opposing open (top) end configured to removably receive the receiver body therethrough (see fig. 1), and wherein, to align the wireless receiver with the signal path (col. 5, lines 55-59), the cover is movable between: a first position, in which the cover is coupled to the receiver body such that the closed end of the cover is disposed proximate to a signal-facing surface of the receiver body (when the positioner 103 is lowered fully), and a second position, in which the cover is coupled to the receiver body such that the open end of the cover is disposed proximate to the signal-facing surface of the receiver body (when the positioner 103 is raised/positioned fully).
Regarding claim 3, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb also discloses wherein the one or more antenna elements (102) are mounted within the wireless receiver via a pivot mechanism (331), and wherein, to align the wireless receiver with the signal path, the one or more antenna elements are configured to rotate about an axis via the pivot mechanism (col. 6 lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 4, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 3.
Webb also discloses wherein, to align the wireless receiver with the signal path, the one or more antenna elements (102) are configured to automatically rotate about the axis upon the wireless receiver being powered up (col.2 lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 6, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb also discloses wherein, to align the wireless receiver with the signal path, the mounting bracket (103) is movable between: a first position, in which the mounting bracket is coupled to the receiver body such that the mounting bracket is disposed proximate to a signal-facing surface of the receiver body, and a second position, in which the mounting bracket is coupled to the receiver body such that the mounting bracket is disposed proximate to a surface of the receiver body opposite from the signal-facing surface (when the antenna is lowered and when the antenna is extended fully) .
Regarding claim 7, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb also discloses wherein the mounting bracket (103) includes a rotating mechanism (331) such that the receiver body is rotatable with respect to the mounting bracket (further see fig. 9 for an alternatively shaped device for a better visualization).
Regarding claim 8, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb also discloses wherein; to align the wireless receiver with the signal path, the mounting bracket (103) includes a wedge mechanism such that the receiver body is tiltable with respect to a mounting surface (see fig. 4, 109 and 110 acts as a wedge to tilt the antenna).
Regarding claim 9, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb also discloses further comprising an Ethernet port (604, 605) configured to supply power to the one or more antenna elements (col. 8, lines 8-28).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb and Yoo and further in view of Fried et al. (US 20200119457 A1), herein referred to as Fried.
Regarding claim 5, Webb and Yoo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Webb does not disclose wherein the one or more antenna elements include at least: a first antenna element associated with a long term evolution frequency band, a second antenna element associated with a C-band frequency band, and a third antenna element associated with a millimeter wave frequency band.
However, Fried discloses a device in which multiple antenna elements include at least: a first antenna element associated with a long term evolution frequency band, a second antenna element associated with a C-band frequency band, and a third antenna element associated with a millimeter wave frequency band (para. 0014, all listed bands fall within these given parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified receiver of Webb wherein multiple antenna elements include at least: a first antenna element associated with a long term evolution frequency band, a second antenna element associated with a C-band frequency band, and a third antenna element associated with a millimeter wave frequency band, as taught by Fried, to operate in a plurality of desired frequencies (para. 0014).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10 and claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, wherein the one or more protrusions follow a contour of the one or more grooves to guide movement of the removable cover relative to the receiver body.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845