DETAILED ACTION
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 12/31/2025. In virtue of this request:
Claims 2 and 8 were previously canceled;
Claim 7 is canceled;
Claim 1 is currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1 and 3-6 are pending;
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 § 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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0384616A1 hereinafter “Patel’616” in view of US2023/0164883A1 hereinafter “Patel’883” in view of
Regarding claim 1, Patel’616 discloses a wireless communication device (¶124L1: a base station antenna) comprising:
a first antenna housing (¶125L1-3: an elongated structure that extend along a longitudinal axis L)
a mounting space formed in at least part of the first antenna housing (¶4-6: the antenna assembly includes a main backplane that has sidewalls and a main reflector); and
a plurality of first antenna elements (¶129L1-3: the antenna includes a plurality of dual-polarized radiating element) disposed in the first antenna housing (¶130L1-5:the radiating element may be mounted from the main reflector) and configured to transmit and receive a first signal (¶130L7-11: the first mid-band radiating element configured to transmit and receive signals in a second frequency band comprising 1427-2690 MHz range).
a second antenna housing (¶137l3-4: self-contained sub-module) configured to be inserted into the mounting space (¶138L1-2: the sub-module may be slidably received on the main backplane); and
a plurality of second antenna elements disposed in the second antenna housing (¶139L15-19: the sub-module inching the high-band radiating element mounted thereon) and configured to
transmit and receive a second signal having a different frequency band from that of the first signal (¶132L1-8: the high-band radiating element may be configured to transmit and receive signal in the third frequency band, comprising the 3300-4200 MHz frequency range)
a dummy cover (¶139L19: the bottom end cap) configured to cover the mounting space to correspond to the shape of the first antenna housing (as shown in Fig.7 for example) wherein
the plurality of first antenna elements are arranged in two rows at preset interval along a length direction (as shown in Fig.2 for example)
Patel’616does not explicitly disclose:
the dummy cover is configured to cover the mounting space only when the second communication device is not mounted in the mounting space, wherein
the dummy cover has a continuous surface without any through opening
Patel’616 does disclose in ¶147 that the sub-module is self-contained and can operate whether or not the sub-module is mounted within the remainder of the or not; furthermore, Patel discloses in ¶140 that the end caps for the sub-module is designed with ability to resist water/moisture ingress in mind.
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to design an end cap to cover the opening of the mounting space as disclosed by Patel’616 that can resist water/moisture ingress when the sub-module is not mounted, such as the cover (which has a continuous surface with no opening) disclosed by Patel’833 in Fig.12. (¶91L1-10: a cover may be a separate removable cover that prevent the ingress of water into the compartment)
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the cover offers protection form water and moisture.
Patel’616 in view of Patel’883 hereinafter “Patel’616/Patel’883” does not explicitly disclose:
a width of the mounting space is smaller than a distance between innermost edge of the two first antenna elements.
Barker discloses a base station in Fig.1 for example, with a low band array antenna [115] sitting between two row of high band array [111, 112] wherein
a width of the mounting space is smaller than a distance between innermost edge of the two first antenna elements. (as shown Figs. 5-8 and Fig.10-12 for example) (Note: none of the antenna overlaps each other in those figures)
It would’ve been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the mounting space such that the width is smaller than the distance between innermost edge of the two first antenna elements, so as to not have any of the antenna element overlap as disclosed by Barker.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the separation provides optimal array separation distance which provides minimum inter-sector interference. (Barker ¶49L30-31)
Regarding claim 3, Patel’616/Patel’883 in view of Barker hereinafter “Patel’616/Patel’883/Barker” discloses in Patel’616 the wireless communication device of claim 2, wherein
a frequency band of the first signal (¶130L7-11: the first mid-band radiating element configured to transmit and receive signals in a second frequency band comprising 1427-2690 MHz range) is lower than a frequency band (¶132L1-8: the high-band radiating element may be configured to transmit and receive signal in the third frequency band, comprising the 3300-4200 MHz frequency range)
Regarding claim 4, Patel’616/Patel’883/Barker discloses in Patel’616 the wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein
the mounting space is configured such that the second antenna housing is inserted in the length direction of the first antenna housing and held therein. (¶138L1-3: the sub-module may be slidably received on the main backplane. As shown best in Fig.4)
Regarding claim 5, Patel’616/Patel’883/Barker discloses in Patel’616 the wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein
the mounting space is configured such that the second antenna housing is inserted from above the first antenna housing and held therein. (¶160L1-16: the sub-module may simply be placed on the main reflector and secure in place using fasteners)
Regarding claim 6, Patel’616/Patel’883/Barker discloses in Patel’616 the wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of first antenna elements and the plurality of second antenna elements are arranged in two rows at preset intervals along the length direction (as shown in Fig.2 for example), wherein
the distance between two first antenna elements disposed in the width direction, among the plurality of first antenna elements, is larger than the distance between two second antenna elements disposed in the width direction among the plurality of second antenna elements. (as shown in Fig.2 for example, mid-band radiating element [232] has larger width distance between the left and right side than high-band radiating element [252])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844