DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 06/11/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 2 and 7-8 were previoulsy canceled;
Claim 3 is canceled;
Claim 9 is newly added;
Claim 1 is currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1, 4-6 and 9 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/206 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2021/0384616A1 hereinafter “Patel’616”.
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 [232]) 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 higher frequency band than 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)
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) wherein
a width of the second antenna housing is smaller than a distance between innermost edge of the two rows first antenna elements. (as denoted in Fig below)
PNG
media_image1.png
966
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
682
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Regarding claim 4, Patel’616 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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])
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel’616 in view of US2023/0164883A1 hereinafter “Patel’883”.
Regarding claim 9, Patel’616 discloses the wireless communication device of claim 1, further comprising:
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)
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s argument with regard to prior art US2018/0026379 hereinafter “Barker” is moot, as 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, specifically, the first, second, third and fifth argument presented on pages. 7, 8, 8 and 10, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s fourth augment presented on page. 9 regarding Patel’616 has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the sub-module [300] includes mounting rails [312] that extend outward into width direction to position at or beyond the innermost edge of the mid-band elements [232]; thus does sub-module is equal to or greater than the distance between the inner most edge of element [232] which is the opposite of the relationship recited in claim 1.
The examiner disagrees, in every instance of the drawing where the submodule [300] is shown with the mid-band element [232], it clearly shows the width of the innermost edge of the mid-band element [232] is greater than the width of the module [300], even taken into account the width of the mounting rail [312]; as denoted in annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be ween, even considering the extended length of the mounting rail, the overall width is still less than the distance between the two pair of element [232].
Conclusion
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.
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 Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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 2845
Prosecution Insights