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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the application are fully considered and are entered. The amendments overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection which they address set forth in the non-final office action mailed 11/26/25, and these objections and rejections are herein withdrawn.
Claims 1-14 and 16-22 remain pending in the application.
Claims 7-14 remain withdrawn from consideration by election.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/25/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the change in scope of each of these claims in view of the amendments made to each.
In detail, Examiner agrees the relied upon prior art of the non-final rejection mailed 11/26/25 does not teach the newly recited elements of “a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports” and “the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports”.
The new ground of rejection made below relies upon prior art previously cited but not previously relied upon.
Further, Applicant’s traversal of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 6 is acknowledged and, in view of Applicant’s remarks, this rejection is herein withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 11, “wherein at least two of the two supports” should read –wherein the two supports–;
Claim 19, line 11, “wherein at least two of the two supports” should read –wherein the two supports–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragos et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0352626) in view of Niekamp (US Patent No. 5,999,145).
Regarding claim 1, Ragos et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna structure, comprising: a plurality of supports (30; see ¶25 lines 6-11); and a plurality of antennas (28), each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on a respective one of the supports (see Fig. 1); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 1); and wherein at least two of the plurality of supports are laterally displaced from each other along one of their respective edges by a prescribed distance and are arranged to form a prescribed angle between themselves (see formation of supports 30, being laterally displaced from each other along an edge of one or the other, and arranged to form an angle between themselves, Fig. 1; ¶26 lines 1-4).
Ragos does not teach a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of the at least two of the plurality of supports, nor the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports.
Niekamp teaches (Figs. 1-6) an antenna structure, comprising: a plurality of supports (10); and a plurality of antennas (12), each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on a respective one of the supports (see Fig. 2); and a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports (200, 202; see Figs. 2, 6); wherein the at least two of the plurality of supports are laterally displaced from each other along one of their respective edges by a prescribed distance and are arranged to form a prescribed angle between themselves (see Fig. 2); the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Ragos to include a connector disposed between ante physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports, the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports, employing the teachings of Niekamp.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of fixedly securing the adjacent panels to one another to improve structural form. Further, the manner by which the panels are structurally attached relative to one another may be considered a matter of design choice, since it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Ragos teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein at least one of the supports is made at least partly of one of plastic, metal, and rubber (¶25 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 3, Ragos teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein each of at least two of the plurality of supports are substantially identical (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ragos teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein each respective one of the supports has mounted thereon at least two of the plurality of antennas (see Fig. 1, multiple instances of 28 mounted on each 30).
Regarding claim 5, Ragos teaches the antenna structure of claim 4, wherein each respective one of the supports has a length sufficient to accommodate all of the at least two antennas mounted thereon (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ragos teaches the antenna structure of claim 1, wherein each respective one of the supports has a thickness sufficient to substantially prevent it from flexing under environmental conditions expected at a location at which the antenna structure is to be deployed (elements 30 functioning to “support” the radiators 28, see ¶25 lines 6-11, structurally requires that they have a thickness sufficient to substantially prevent them from flexing under the conditions of the antenna disclosed).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan et al. (US Patent No. 10,840,604) in view of Tropper (US Patent No. 5,291,211) and Niekamp (US Patent No. 5,999,145).
Regarding claim 16, Jan et al. teaches (Fig. 1A) an antenna structure, comprising: an antenna arrangement comprising: two supports (122 of 12 and 122 of 14); and a plurality of antennas (U), each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on a respective one of the supports (see Fig. 1A); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 1A); and wherein at least two of the plurality of supports are laterally displaced from each other along one of their respective edges by a prescribed distance and are arranged to form a prescribed angle between themselves (see Fig. 1A, ANG); and wherein each support of the at least two antenna arrangements has an edge opposite to the edge along which it is displaced from the other supports of the antenna arrangement of which it is a part (see opposing edges of 122; Fig. 1A).
Jan does not teach the antenna structure comprising at least two such antenna arrangements, wherein each opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon.
Tropper teaches (Figs. 3-5) an antenna structure, comprising: at least two antenna arrangements (arrangement on 30a, and arrangement on 30b), wherein each antenna arrangement comprises: a support (30a; 30b); a plurality of antennas, each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on the support (24a-c; 24d-f); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 5); and wherein each support of the at least two antenna arrangements has an edge opposite to another edge of the antenna arrangement of which it is a part (see edges at fixture points, opposite to edges formed between planar faces of each support 30a, 30b), and wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon (see Fig. 5, hexagonal shape).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan by forming it to comprise two such antenna arrangements, wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon, employing the teachings of Tropper.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna structure to provide and receive omnidirectional signals (see Tropper, Fig. 4).
Jan does not teach a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of the two supports, nor the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the two supports.
Niekamp teaches (Figs. 1-6) an antenna structure, comprising: two supports (10); and a plurality of antennas (12), each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on a respective one of the supports (see Fig. 2); a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports (200, 202; see Figs. 2, 6); wherein the at least two of the two supports are laterally displaced from each other along one of their respective edges by a prescribed distance and are arranged to form a prescribed angle between themselves (see Fig. 2); the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan to include a connector disposed between ante physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports, the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports, employing the teachings of Niekamp.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of fixedly securing the adjacent panels to one another to improve structural form. Further, the manner by which the panels are structurally attached relative to one another may be considered a matter of design choice, since it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Jan teaches the antenna structure of claim 16.
Jan does not teach wherein the simple polygon that appears to be formed has one of four, six, and eight sides.
Tropper teaches (Figs. 3-5) an antenna structure, comprising: at least two antenna arrangements (arrangement on 30a, and arrangement on 30b), wherein each antenna arrangement comprises: a support (30a; 30b); a plurality of antennas, each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on the support (24a-c; 24d-f); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 5); and wherein each support of the at least two antenna arrangements has an edge opposite to another edge of the antenna arrangement of which it is a part (see edges at fixture points, opposite to edges formed between planar faces of each support 30a, 30b), and wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon (see Fig. 5), wherein the simple polygon that appears to be formed has one of four, six, and eight sides (six sides, see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan by forming it to comprise two such antenna arrangements, wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon, wherein the simple polygon that appears to be formed has one of four, six, and eight sides, employing the teachings of Tropper (combining two of the antenna taught by Jan would result in four sides).
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna structure to provide and receive omnidirectional signals (see Tropper, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Jan teaches the antenna structure of claim 16, wherein the antenna structure provides a space coverage with sectorization, wherein a number of sectors provided equals a number antenna arrangements of which the antenna structure is comprised (see Fig. 7A; Jan provides a coverage with sectorization, wherein a number of sectors provided equals a number of antenna arrangements of which the antenna structure is comprised; in the case of Jan alone, one antenna arrangement results in one sector).
Jan does not teach wherein the antenna structure provides a full space coverage.
Tropper teaches (Figs. 3-5) an antenna structure, comprising: at least two antenna arrangements (arrangement on 30a, and arrangement on 30b), wherein each antenna arrangement comprises: a support (30a; 30b); a plurality of antennas, each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on the support (24a-c; 24d-f); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 5); and wherein each support of the at least two antenna arrangements has an edge opposite to another edge of the antenna arrangement of which it is a part (see edges at fixture points, opposite to edges formed between planar faces of each support 30a, 30b), and wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon (see Fig. 5, hexagonal shape), wherein the antenna structure provides a full space coverage (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan by forming it to comprise two such antenna arrangements, wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon, such that the antenna structure provides a full space coverage, employing the teachings of Tropper.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna structure to provide and receive omnidirectional signals (see Tropper, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Jan et al. teaches (Fig. 1A) an antenna structure, comprising: an antenna arrangement comprising: two supports (122 of 12 and 122 of 14); and a plurality of antennas (U), each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on a respective one of the supports (see Fig. 1A); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 1A); and wherein at least two of the plurality of supports are laterally displaced from each other along one of their respective edges by a prescribed distance and are arranged to form a prescribed angle between themselves (see Fig. 1A, ANG).
Jan does not teach the antenna structure comprising at least two such antenna arrangements, wherein at least a portion of another side of each support of each of the at least two antenna arrangements faces at least partly toward a portion of a support of another one of the at least two antenna arrangements.
Tropper teaches (Figs. 3-5) an antenna structure, comprising: at least two antenna arrangements (arrangement on 30a, and arrangement on 30b), wherein each antenna arrangement comprises: a support (30a; 30b); a plurality of antennas, each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on the support (24a-c; 24d-f); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 5); and wherein at least a portion of another side of each support of each of the at least two antenna arrangements faces at least partly toward a portion of a support of another one of the at least two antenna arrangements (inner sides of 30a and 30b which face each other, see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan by forming it to comprise two such antenna arrangements, wherein at least a portion of another side of each support of each of the at least two antenna arrangements faces at least partly toward a portion of a support of another one of the at least two antenna arrangements, employing the teachings of Tropper.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna structure to provide and receive omnidirectional signals (see Tropper, Fig. 4).
Jan does not teach a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of the two supports, nor the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the two supports.
Niekamp teaches (Figs. 1-6) an antenna structure, comprising: two supports (10); and a plurality of antennas (12), each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on a respective one of the supports (see Fig. 2); a connector disposed between and physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports (200, 202; see Figs. 2, 6); wherein the at least two of the two supports are laterally displaced from each other along one of their respective edges by a prescribed distance and are arranged to form a prescribed angle between themselves (see Fig. 2); the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan to include a connector disposed between ante physically coupling adjacent edge portions of at least two of the plurality of supports, the connector maintaining the prescribed angle and the prescribed lateral displacement between the at least two of the plurality of supports, employing the teachings of Niekamp.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of fixedly securing the adjacent panels to one another to improve structural form. Further, the manner by which the panels are structurally attached relative to one another may be considered a matter of design choice, since it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 20, Jan teaches the antenna structure of claim 19, wherein the antenna structure provides a space coverage with sectorization, wherein a number of sectors provided equals a number antenna arrangements of which the antenna structure is comprised (see Fig. 7A; Jan provides a coverage with sectorization, wherein a number of sectors provided equals a number of antenna arrangements of which the antenna structure is comprised; in the case of Jan alone, one antenna arrangement results in one sector).
Jan does not teach wherein the antenna structure provides a full space coverage, and wherein the antenna arrangements are placed so as to provide at least partially overlapping coverage.
Tropper teaches (Figs. 3-5) an antenna structure, comprising: at least two antenna arrangements (arrangement on 30a, and arrangement on 30b), wherein each antenna arrangement comprises: a support (30a; 30b); a plurality of antennas, each of at least two antennas of the plurality of antennas being mounted on the support (24a-c; 24d-f); wherein each of the at least two antennas are mounted on a side of their respective supports so as to face away from each other (see Fig. 5); and wherein each support of the at least two antenna arrangements has an edge opposite to another edge of the antenna arrangement of which it is a part (see edges at fixture points, opposite to edges formed between planar faces of each support 30a, 30b), and wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon (see Fig. 5, hexagonal shape), wherein the antenna structure provides a full space coverage (see Fig. 4), and wherein the antenna arrangements are placed so as to provide at least partially overlapping coverage (see arrangement in Fig. 5, broadside signals from elements 24 are positioned to partially overlap, ensuring full coverage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna structure of Jan by forming it to comprise two such antenna arrangements, wherein each such opposite edge is arranged to be substantially adjacent to an opposite edge of another one of the antenna arrangements so that the at least two antenna arrangements appear to form a simple polygon, such that the antenna structure provides a full space coverage, wherein the antenna arrangements are placed so as to provide at least partially overlapping coverage ,employing the teachings of Tropper.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna structure to provide and receive omnidirectional signals (see Tropper, Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Regarding claim 21, Ragos does not explicitly teach wherein the prescribed lateral displacement is a distance that is less than the wavelength of a center frequency to be transmitted from the antennas mounted to the at least two of the plurality of supports physically coupled by the connector.
Regarding claim 22, Ragos does not explicitly teach wherein the prescribed lateral displacement is a distance that is about one half of the wavelength of a center frequency to be transmitted from the antennas mounted to the at least two of the plurality of supports physically coupled by the connector.
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 Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845