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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the claims because Au discloses a second tilt sensor for a different antenna. However, the previous rejection did not rely upon this. As stated in the previous office action, Au, column 5, lines 14-15 states that each numbered mechanism can be made up of multiple sensors, and further, col. 5 lines 24-26 defines the different types of sensor mechanisms that can be used, therefore teaching the limitations of the claims.
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)(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.
(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 1-5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Au (US 9502764 B2), herein referred to as Au.
Regarding claim 1, Au discloses an antenna monitoring device configured to monitor an alignment of an antenna (column 2, lines 4-11, 22-26), the antenna monitoring device comprising: a first sensor (306) configured to measure an antenna (302) alignment parameter of the antenna using a first type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); a second sensor (col. 5 lines 14-15, plurality of sensors) configured to measure the same antenna (302) alignment parameter of the same antenna using a second type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); and a processor (310) configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter based on the measurements from the first and second sensors (col. 6, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 2, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses the first sensor comprising at least one of a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor, an electrolytic tilt sensor, or a thermal mass accelerometer (electromechanical sensors, col. 5, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 3, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses the second sensor comprising at least one of a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor, an electrolytic tilt sensor, or a thermal mass accelerometer (electromechanical sensors, col. 5, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 4, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses the antenna alignment parameter comprising a tilt of the antenna (col. 5 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 5, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses the antenna alignment parameter comprising a roll of the antenna (col. 5 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 10, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses further comprising: a first set of sensors (col. 5 lines 14-15), plurality of sensors including the first sensor (306), each sensor in the first set of sensors configured to measure the antenna alignment parameter using the first type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); a second set of sensors including the second sensor (col. 5 lines 14-15, plurality of sensors), each sensor in the second set of sensors configured to measure the antenna alignment parameter using the second type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); and the processor (310) being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter based on the measurements from the first set of sensors and the second set of sensors (col. 6, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 11, Au discloses a method of monitoring an alignment of an antenna (column 2, lines 4-11, 22-26), the method comprising: measuring, by a first sensor (306) of an antenna monitoring device, an antenna alignment parameter of the antenna using a first type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); measuring, by a second sensor (col. 5 lines 14-15, plurality of sensors) of the antenna monitoring device, the same antenna alignment parameter using a second type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); and determining, by a processor (310) of the antenna monitoring device, the antenna alignment parameter of the same antenna based on the measurements from the first and second sensors (col. 6, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 12, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses the first sensor comprising at least one of a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor, an electrolytic tilt sensor, or a thermal mass accelerometer (electromechanical sensors, col. 5, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 13, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses the second sensor comprising at least one of a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor, an electrolytic tilt sensor, or a thermal mass accelerometer (electromechanical sensors, col. 5, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 14, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses the antenna alignment parameter comprising a tilt of the antenna (col. 5 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 15, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses the antenna alignment parameter comprising a roll of the antenna (col. 5 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 20, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses further comprising: measuring by a first set of sensors (col. 5 lines 14-15), plurality of sensors including the first sensor (306) the antenna alignment parameter using the first type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); measuring by a second set of sensors including the second sensor (col. 5 lines 14-15, plurality of sensors) the antenna alignment parameter using the second type of measurement mechanism (col. 5, lines 24-26); and determining by the processor (310) the antenna alignment parameter based on the measurements from the first set of sensors and the second set of sensors (col. 6, lines 37-50).
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 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au and further in view of Switzer et al. (US 9708903 B2), herein referred to as Switzer.
Regarding claim 6, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au does not disclose the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which a process is configured to determine a parameter by: using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130) responsive to determining that the first sensor (105) has exceeded its measurement range limitation (col. 14, lines 27-42). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 7, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au does not disclose the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which the processor is configured to determine the alignment parameter by: using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130) to validate the alignment parameter measured by the first sensor (105) responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation (col. 14, lines 27-42). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 8, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au does not disclose the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which the processor is configured to determine the alignment parameter by: using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130) to error correct the alignment parameter measured by the first sensor (105)(col. 14, lines 43-67). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 9, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 1.
Au does not disclose the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: discarding the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which the processor is configured to determine the alignment parameter by: discarding the alignment parameter measured by the first sensor (105); and using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130)(col. 14, lines 47-51). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the processor being configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter by: discarding the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 16, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au does not disclose the determining by the processor, by using the processor: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which by using the processor: using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130) responsive to determining that the first sensor (105) has exceeded its measurement range limitation (col. 14, lines 27-42). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the determining by the processor, by using the processor: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 17, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au does not disclose the determining by the processor, by using the processor: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which by using the processor: using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130) to validate the alignment parameter measured by the first sensor (105) responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation (col. 14, lines 27-42). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the determining by the processor, by using the processor: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor responsive to determining that the first sensor has exceeded its measurement range limitation, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 18, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au does not disclose the determining by the processor, by using the processor: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which by using the processor: using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130) to error correct the alignment parameter measured by the first sensor (105)(col. 14, lines 43-67). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the determining by the processor, by using the processor: using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 19, Au anticipates all limitations of base claim 11.
Au does not disclose the determining by the processor further comprising: discarding the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor.
However, Switzer discloses a system in which by using the processor: discarding the alignment parameter measured by the first sensor (105); and using the alignment parameter measured by the second sensor (130)(col. 14, lines 47-51). While the system of Switzer is not an antenna, the actions of the processor in regard to checking sensor parameters does not rely on the underlying system of which the sensor is tracking.
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 device of Au, the determining by the processor further comprising: discarding the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second sensor, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
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 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
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845