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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26th, 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to disclose non-mechanical non-electrical sensors or non-mechanical non-electrical measurement mechanisms. Paragraph 0019 of the specification discloses a list of non-limiting sensor types. However, fails to disclose how any of them are specifically non-mechanical or non-electrical, or both. This is further aggravated by the disclosure, also in paragraph 0019, that the sensors have to be connected to the processor, which necessarily forces at least the measurement mechanism to be electrical in nature, even if a person of skill in the art still considered the sensor itself to be non-electrical in nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 contains the limitation: “a second non-mechanical non-electrical sensor configured to measure the same antenna alignment parameter of the same antenna using a second type of non- mechanical non-electrical measurement mechanism; and a processor configured to determine the antenna alignment parameter based on the measurements from the first electromechanical sensor and the second non- mechanical non-electrical sensor”.
Claim 11 contains the limitation: “measuring, by a second non-mechanical non-electrical sensor of the antenna monitoring device, the same antenna alignment parameter of the same antenna using a second type of non-mechanical non-electrical measurement mechanism; and determining, by a processor of the antenna monitoring device, the antenna alignment parameter based on the measurements from the first electromechanical sensor and second non-mechanical non-electrical sensor”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on these two claims and refer back these limitations directly.
However, the specification fails to disclose non-mechanical non-electrical sensors or non-mechanical non-electrical measurement mechanisms. Paragraph 0019 of the specification discloses a list of non-limiting sensor types. However, fails to disclose how any of them are specifically non-mechanical or non-electrical, or both. This is further aggravated by the disclosure, also in paragraph 0019, that the sensors have to be connected to the processor, which necessarily forces at least the measurement mechanism to be electrical in nature, even if a person of skill in the art still considered the sensor itself to be non-electrical in nature.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au (US 9502764 B2), herein referred to as Au and further in view of Vock et al. (US 20030163287 A1), herein referred to as Vock.
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 electromechanical (col. 5 lines 25-30) sensor (306) configured to measure an antenna (302) alignment parameter of the antenna using a first type of electromechanical 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 electromechanical sensor and the second sensor (col. 6, lines 37-50).
Au does not disclose wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism is if the non-mechanical non-electrical type.
However, Vock discloses the use of a non-mechanical non-electrical sensor (para. 0306, sensor 542 may include a small gyroscope or an electrolytic type tilt device, and as the sensor is non-mechanical and non-electrical, the measurement mechanism is by nature).
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 wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism of is of the non-mechanical non-electrical type, as taught by Vock, to provide at least backup measurement without supplied power.
Regarding claim 2, Au and Vock render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses the first electromechanical sensor comprising a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor (electromechanical sensors, col. 5, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 3, Au and Vock render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Au does not disclose the second non-mechanical non-electrical sensor comprising at least one of an electrolytic tilt sensor or a thermal mass accelerometer.
However, Vock as discussed in claim 1, Vock discloses an electrolytic tilt sensor (para. 0306).
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 modified device of Au wherein the second sensor comprises an electrolytic tilt sensor, as taught by Vock, to provide at least backup measurement without supplied power.
Regarding claim 4, Au and Vock render obvious 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 and Vock render obvious 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 and Vock render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Au also discloses further comprising: a first set of electromechanical sensors (col. 5 lines 14-15), including the first electromechanical sensor (306), each electromechanical sensor in the first set of electromechanical sensors configured to measure the antenna alignment parameter using the first type of electromechanical 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).
Au does not disclose wherein the second set of sensors and the second measurement mechanism are of the non-mechanical non-electrical type.
However, as discussed in claim 1, Vock discloses the use of a non-mechanical non-electrical sensor (para. 0306, sensor 542 may include a small gyroscope or an electrolytic type tilt device, and as the sensor is non-mechanical and non-electrical, the measurement mechanism is by nature).
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 modified device of Au wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism of is of the non-mechanical non-electrical type, as taught by Vock, to provide at least backup measurement without supplied power.
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 electromechanical sensor (306) of an antenna monitoring device, an antenna alignment parameter of the antenna using a first type of electromechanical 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 electromechanical sensor and the second sensor (col. 6, lines 37-50).
Au does not disclose wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism are of the non-mechanical non-electrical type.
However, Vock discloses the use of a non-mechanical non-electrical sensor (para. 0306, sensor 542 may include a small gyroscope or an electrolytic type tilt device, and as the sensor is non-mechanical and non-electrical, the measurement mechanism is by nature).
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 method of Au wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism of is of the non-mechanical non-electrical type, as taught by Vock, to provide at least backup measurement without supplied power.
Regarding claim 12, Au and Vock render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses the first electromechanical sensor comprising a micro electromechanical system (MEMS) sensor (electromechanical sensors, col. 5, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 13, Au and Vock render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Au does not disclose the second non-mechanical non-electrical sensor comprising at least one of an electrolytic tilt sensor or a thermal mass accelerometer.
However, Vock as discussed in claim 1, Vock discloses an electrolytic tilt sensor (para. 0306).
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 modified device of Au wherein the second sensor comprises an electrolytic tilt sensor, as taught by Vock, to provide at least backup measurement without supplied power.
Regarding claim 14, Au and Vock render obvious 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 and Vock render obvious 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 and Vock render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Au also discloses further comprising: measuring by a first set of electromechanical sensors (col. 5 lines 14-15), including the first electromechanical sensor (306) the antenna alignment parameter using the first type of electromechanical 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 electromechanical sensors and the second set of sensors (col. 6, lines 37-50).
Au does not disclose wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism are of the non-mechanical non-electrical type.
However, Vock discloses the use of a non-mechanical non-electrical sensor (para. 0306, sensor 542 may include a small gyroscope or an electrolytic type tilt device, and as the sensor is non-mechanical and non-electrical, the measurement mechanism is by nature).
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 modified method of Au wherein the second sensor and the second measurement mechanism of is of the non-mechanical non-electrical type, as taught by Vock, to provide at least backup measurement without supplied power.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au and Vock and further in view of Switzer et al. (US 9708903 B2), herein referred to as Switzer.
Regarding claim 6, Au and Vock render obvious 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 electromechanical sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second non-mechanical non-electrical 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 electromechanical sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second non-mechanical non-electrical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to validate the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical sensor responsive to determining that the first electromechanical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical 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 non-mechanical non-electrical sensor to error correct the antenna alignment parameter measured by the first electromechanical 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 and Vock render obvious 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 electromechanical sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second non-mechanical non-electrical 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 electromechanical sensor; and using the antenna alignment parameter measured by the second non-mechanical non-electrical sensor, as suggested by the teachings of Switzer, to ensure the sensor information is with the predetermined range (col. 14, lines 27-31).
Conclusion
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
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights