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 November 14, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on November 14, 2025 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, ln. 3, the term “radiation element” should be replaced with “radiation unit” to comply with antecedent basis rules and procedures for claim terms.
In claim 6, ln. 5, for grammatical reasons, the phrase “each the” should be replaced with “each of the.”
In claim 20, ln. 4, the two instances of the term “the number” should be replaced with “a number” to comply with antecedent basis rules and procedures for claim terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11: The term “winding directions” lack antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11 should depend on claim 10 wherein an inductance coil is claimed which provides the requisite antecedent basis for the claimed winding directions.
Claims 19 and 20: The limitation “wherein the at least one first antenna is arranged in one or more columns, and the at least one second antenna is arranged in one or more columns” is indefinite as the language of the claim is confusing. It is unclear how one antenna can constitute a column. For the purposes of applying prior art, the Examiner interprets the limitation according to the disclosed embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0226344).
Wu, in figure 12A-13B, discloses:
Claim 1: A dual-polarized radiation unit (940) for an antenna, comprising: four dipoles (953), wherein: radiation arms (954A, 954B) of the four dipoles are configured in relation to two mutually perpendicular lines; the two mutually perpendicular lines divide the radiation unit into four regions; a center portion of the dual-polarized radiation unit where the four regions intersect with the two mutually perpendicular lines is direct current (DC) conductive (fig. 13B); and wherein each of the four regions has a hollow region (958).
Claim 2: wherein the two mutually perpendicular lines are a first line (line extending along slot 952-1) and a second line (line extending along slot 952-1), and wherein a first side of the dual-polarized radiation unit is perpendicular to the first line of the two mutually perpendicular lines, wherein the first side intersects the first line (fig. 13B).
Claim 3: wherein the dual-polarization radiation unit is of an octagonal shape (fig. 13B).
Claim 4: further comprising: four grooves (952-1 to 952-4), respectively configured at an adjoining portion of two adjacent regions of the four regions (fig. 13B).
Claim 5: further comprising: four feed lines (960, fig. 13A), wherein the four feed lines respectively correspond to the four grooves, and a length of any one of the four feed lines corresponds to an impedance (966).
Claim 7: further comprising: a common-mode choke circuit positioned near a feed point and associated with one of the four grooves (156, fig. 3A).
Claim 12: further comprising: a shunt filter (conductive portion which defines t-shaped opening 958), configured as a metallic wire extending inwardly from an edge of the hollow region (fig. 13B).
Claim 13: wherein the shunt filter is configured as an open circuit line (fig. 13B).
Claim 14: further comprising: an inductance part (conductive portion which defines t-shaped opening 958) extending from an edge of the hollow region towards the center portion of the dual-polarized radiation unit.
Claim 15: wherein the radiation arms of the four dipoles are planar and symmetrical about the two mutually perpendicular lines (fig. 13B).
Claim 16: An antenna, comprising: at least one dual-polarized radiation unit (940); and a radiation element matching circuit (966); wherein: one of the at least one dual-polarized radiation unit comprises four dipoles (953); radiation arms (954A, 954B) of the four dipoles are configured in relation to two mutually perpendicular lines; the two mutually perpendicular lines divide the radiation unit into four regions; a center portion of the dual-polarized radiation unit where the four regions intersect with the two mutually perpendicular lines is direct current (DC) conductive (fig. 13B); and each of the four regions has a hollow region (958).
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.
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0226344).
Claim 8: Wu fails to explicitly disclose the dual-polarized radiation unit according to claim 1, further comprising: a common-mode choke circuit; however, Wu does suggest the use of a common-mode choke circuit (855 and 857, figs. 11A and 11B; para. [0108]). Wu discloses using said circuit so as to filter the connection between adjacent arms (para. [0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Wu to include the above circuit in order to have improved isolation between two adjacent arms by enabling said filtering.
Claim 9: Wu discloses the dual-polarized radiation unit according to claim 8, wherein the common-mode choke circuit includes a first track (855) and a second track (857), and wherein electrical lengths of the first track and the second track are the same (figs. 11A and 11B).
Claim 10: Wu discloses the dual-polarized radiation unit according to claim 8, wherein: the first track and the second track are configured on both sides of the radiation arm in a form of an inductance coil and are parallel to each other (figs. 11A and 11B).
Claim 11: Wu discloses the dual-polarized radiation unit according to claim 8, wherein winding direction of the first track and the second track are the same (figs. 11A and 11B).
Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0226344) in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,437,722; hereinafter Wu ‘722).
Claim 17: Wu discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, as discussed in the rejections above. Wu fails to disclose an antenna system, comprising: at least one first antenna; and at least one second antenna, wherein a working frequency band of the at least one second antenna is higher than a working frequency band of the at least one first antenna. However, Wu ‘722, in figure 3, discloses a base station antenna comprising at least one first antenna (300) with inductive elements integrated into the dipole arms, and at least one second antenna (500 or 400), wherein a working frequency band of the at least one second antenna is higher than a working frequency band of the first antenna (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the invention of WU in a base station antenna, as shown by Wu ‘722, in order to have provided an antenna system capable of multiband communication.
Claim 18: Wu discloses the antenna system according to claim 17, wherein one of the at least one first antenna and one of the at least one second antenna partially overlap with each other (fig. 3, Wu ‘722).
Claim 19: Wu discloses the antenna system according to claim 18, wherein the at least one first antenna is arranged in one or more columns, and the at least one second antenna is arranged in one or more columns (fig. 3, Wu ‘722); and a number of columns of the first antenna is same as a number of columns of the second antenna (fig. 3, Wu ‘722).
Claim 20: Wu discloses the antenna system according to claim 18, wherein the at least one first antenna is arranged in one or more columns, and the at least one second antenna is arranged in one or more columns (fig. 3, Wu ‘722); and the number of columns of the second antenna is twice of the number of columns of the first antenna (fig. 3, Wu ‘722).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted in the Remarks filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but not all are found persuasive.
On page 9, paragraphs 5 and 6, of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the Examiner relied on T-shaped openings 958 (FIGS. 12A-13B of Wu) to correspond to the claimed “center portion of the four regions is direct current-conducting,” previously presented in claim 1, and under this interpretation goes on to explain why Wu fails to disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
In response, Applicant is incorrect in characterizing that the Examiner relied on T-shaped openings 958’ to correspond to the claimed “center portion of the four regions is direct current-conducting.” That is because the T-shaped openings 958 were cited as corresponding to the claimed “hollow region.” (Non-Final action, pg. 5) The limitation “a center portion of the dual-polarized radiation unit where the four regions intersect with the two mutually perpendicular lines is direct current (DC) conductive” is disclosed in figure 13B of Wu. As shown in the drawing, each arm 954 of conductive patch 950 galvanically connect at a center portion of patch 950.
Applicant’s arguments on page 11 of the Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claim 6, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of August 12, 2025 has been withdrawn.
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 ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Robert Karacsony/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845