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
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on May 1, 2026. The Remarks of May 1, 2026, have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the Claims are considered.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, the Applicant (p. 3) argues that Zimmerman does not teach a first accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element. Further, the applicant argues, that “the mere addition of a cover body as in Peng to replace the radome 106 would result in an antenna that lacked 360 degree coverage, and therefore would be unacceptable.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In this regard, Peng (Figs. 4, 5, 7) teaches cover body (302 – Figs. 4 and 7) detachably mounted to the radomes (3011, 3012 – Fig. 7) of two antennas (301 – Fig. 7) so as to cover the lateral opening between the two antennas, the cover body being spaced apart from a pole (3041 – Figs. 5 and 7) on which the antennas are mounted. Peng further teaches an accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element (for details, see the 103 rejection of claim 1 below). Further, Peng (col. 1, lines 33-39) teaches an antenna having 360 degree coverage. Therefore, one skilled in the art would know how to modify Zimmerman according to the teachings of Peng so that an accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element is provided, while preserving the coverage of the antenna.
Also, the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Regarding the rejection of claim 21, the examiner finds the applicant arguments persuasive and the 103 rejection of the claim is withdrawn.
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 1 and 3-21 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 1 (line 10) recites: “the first accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element”. It is not clear whether the radiating element recited here is the same as or different from the radiating element recited earlier (line 7). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as: “the first accommodating space being devoid of any radiating elements”.
Claims 3-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 21 (line 11) recites: “a reflection patch devoid of a radiating element”. It is not clear whether the radiating element recited here is the same as or different from the radiating element recited earlier (line 6). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as: “a reflection patch devoid of any radiating elements”.
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, 3-8, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 20220037768 A1) in view of Peng et al. (US 11316245 B2, hereinafter Peng).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Zimmerman discloses (Figs. 2-5) a cellular antenna (100), comprising:
a radome (110-104) having a lateral recess that defines a first accommodating space with a lateral opening and for accommodating a pole (102), wherein the cellular antenna should be mounted to the pole (regarding the lateral recess and the first accommodating space with a lateral opening, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman below);
an antenna assembly (regarding the antenna assembly, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman below) mounted within a second accommodating space (104) defined by the radome, the antenna assembly comprising a plurality of reflecting plates (114-1, 114-2), each reflecting plate having a radiating element (130) mounted on the reflecting plate; and
PNG
media_image1.png
647
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cover body (106), and the cover body is configured to be detachably mounted to the lateral recess of the radome so as to cover the lateral opening.
Zimmerman does not disclose the cover body being spaced apart from the pole, the first accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element.
Peng (Figs. 4, 5, 7) teaches cover body (302 – Figs. 4 and 7) detachably mounted to the radomes (3011, 3012 – Fig. 7) of two antennas (301 – Fig. 7) so as to cover the lateral opening between the two antennas, the cover body being spaced apart from a pole (3041 – Figs. 5 and 7) on which the antennas are mounted. Peng further teaches an accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element (regarding the accommodating space, see annotated Fig. 7 in Peng below).
PNG
media_image2.png
579
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman by substituting the cover body in Zimmerman with the cover body in Peng so that the cover body is being spaced apart from the pole and having the first accommodating space being devoid of a radiating element as taught by Peng. The first modification related to the cover body would provide structural integrity to the cellular base station antenna, would eliminate visible discontinuities, and would prevent dust, moisture and other unwanted particles entering the interior of the antenna. The second modification related to the first accommodating space would provide appropriate spacing between the antenna elements so that coupling and interference between them is reduced.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 1 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 2-5) further teaches the radome (110-104) is configured as an integral columnar structure with a lateral recess (regarding the lateral recess, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 1 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 2-5) further teaches the lateral recess is a U-shaped recess (regarding the lateral recess, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above; regarding how the applicant defines U-shaped recess, see the current Specification [0068, 0069]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 1 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 2-5) further teaches the radome (110-104) and the cover body (106) form a cylindrical structure (see [0048], lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 1 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 2-5) further teaches the cover body (106) is configured to be joined to the lateral recess of the radome (regarding the lateral recess, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above) in a form-fitting manner.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 6 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 4-5) further teaches the radome (110-104) has joint parts (162), and the cover body (106) has mating parts (164) for joining to the joint parts.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 7 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 4-5) further teaches the joint parts (162) of the radome (110-104) are respectively provided on both sides of the radome adjacent to the lateral opening (regarding the lateral opening, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 1 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 3-5) further teaches the bottom of the lateral recess of the radome is configured to at least partially abut against a peripheral wall of the pole (102) (regarding the lateral recess, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of Claim 1 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Figs. 2-5) further teaches a pole assembly, comprising: a pole (102); and a cellular base station antenna (100) mounted laterally to the pole, the cellular base station antenna being configured as the cellular base station antenna according to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the pole assembly of claim 18 as addressed above.
Zimmerman further teaches the cellular base station antenna is configured to be mounted to the middle of the pole (see [0048], lines 1-4).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zimmerman as applied to claim 7 in view of Tasker et al. (US 20180145403 A1, hereinafter Tasker).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Zimmerman does not teach the limitation wherein the joint part is configured as a joint groove, and the mating part is configured as a joint rib.
Tasker teaches (Figs. 5A-5C) an antenna radome (410) with different radome segments joined together, wherein the joint part is configured as a joint groove (412), and the mating part is configured as a joint rib (423).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, so that the joint part is configured as a joint groove, and the mating part is configured as a joint rib. This modification would provide alternative means of joining together the antenna radome and the cover body, which in some cases may be more cost-effective (see Tasker, [0031], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Zimmerman does not teach the limitation wherein the joint part is configured as a joint rib, and the mating part is configured as a joint groove.
Tasker teaches (Figs. 5A-5C) an antenna radome (410) with different radome segments joined together, wherein the joint part is configured as a joint rib (423), and the mating part (412) is configured as a joint groove.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, so that the joint part is configured as a joint rib, and the mating part is configured as a joint groove. This modification would provide alternative means of joining together the antenna radome and the cover body, which in some cases may be more cost-effective (see Tasker, [0031], lines 5-8).
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zimmerman as applied to claim 1 in view of Ai (US 20200220251 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
PNG
media_image3.png
634
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zimmerman (Fig. 3) further teaches an end cover comprising a base surface, the base surface has a lateral groove corresponding to a contour of the lateral recess of the radome, and the base surface is configured to cover the radome (104) on an end side (regarding the end cover, see annotated Fig. 3 in Zimmerman below).
The modified Zimmerman does not teach the limitation wherein the base cove comprises an apron bent from an outer edge of the base surface and the apron is configured to abut against the radome on a peripheral side.
Ai teaches (Figs. 1-2, 5A, 5B; [0072]) a base station antenna (100) comprising a radome (101) and end cover (1) comprising a base surface (14) and an apron bent from an outer edge of the base surface and the apron is configured to abut against the radome on a peripheral side.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman by adding an apron to the end cover, wherein the apron is bent from an outer edge of the base surface and the apron is configured to abut against the radome on a peripheral side. This modification would enclose the open end of the antenna radome and would provide a seal between the end cover and the inner circumferential surface of the radome (see Ai, [0072], lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 11 as addressed above.
The modified Zimmerman does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the antenna assembly comprises a support structure, and the plurality of reflecting plates are fixed on the support structure.
However, Zimmerman ([0049], lines 11-14) teaches that the antenna assembly comprises a support structure (support brackets), and the plurality of reflecting plates (114-1, 114-2) are fixed on the support structure.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman by adding a support structure to which the plurality of reflecting plates are fixed. This modification would provide added structural rigidity to the reflecting plates (see Zimmerman, [0049], lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 12 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Fig. 5) further teaches the plurality of reflecting plates comprise a first reflecting plate (114-1) and a second reflecting plate (114-2) on both sides of the lateral recess, and the first reflecting plate and the second reflecting plate are spaced apart from each other by the lateral recess, thereby forming a reflection interruption (regarding the lateral recess and the reflection interruption, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 14 as addressed above.
Zimmerman (Fig. 5) further teaches the cellular base station antenna further comprises a reflection patch (114-3), and the reflection patch is configured to at least partially compensate for the reflection interruption (regarding the reflection interruption, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zimmerman as applied to claim 12 in view of Varnoosfaderani et al. (US 12218425 B2, hereinafter Varnoosfaderani).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 12 as addressed above.
The modified Zimmerman does not teach the limitation wherein the support structure comprises a base surface with a plurality of prismatic edges and a side surface bent from a corresponding prismatic edge of the base surface, the base surface of the end cover is fixed to the base surface of the support structure via a fastening device, and a corresponding reflecting plate is fixed to a side surface of the support structure via the fastening device.
Varnoosfaderani teaches (Figs. 6-9) a support structure (180) comprising a base surface with a plurality of prismatic edges and a side surface bent from a corresponding prismatic edge of the base surface (regarding the base surface and the side surface of the support structure, see annotated Fig. 9 in Varnoosfaderani below), a second structure (154) is fixed to the base surface of the support structure via a fastening device (155), and a reflecting plate (150) is fixed to a side surface of the support structure via the fastening device (155).
PNG
media_image4.png
508
665
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, so that the support structure comprises a base surface with a plurality of prismatic edges and a side surface bent from a corresponding prismatic edge of the base surface, the base surface of the end cover is fixed to the base surface of the support structure via a fastening device, and a corresponding reflecting plate is fixed to a side surface of the support structure via the fastening device. This modification would provide means of mounting and securing the corresponding reflecting plate to the antenna end cover in the desired location and orientation.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 15 as addressed above.
The modified Zimmerman does not teach the limitation wherein the reflection patch is fixed on an inner surface of the cover body.
Varnoosfaderani teaches (Figs. 6) a reflector assembly (151) comprising a reflector (150) fixed on an inner surface of the radome (110) of a base station antenna (100) via support brackets (122) and a frame (157).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate to modify Zimmerman, so that the reflection patch is fixed on an inner surface of the cover body. This modification would provide means of securing the reflection patch in the desired location and orientation relative to other elements of the antenna.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zimmerman as applied to claim 18 in view of Gienger et al. (US 20210328337 A1, hereinafter Gienger).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the modified Zimmerman teaches the cellular base station antenna of claim 18 as addressed above.
The modified Zimmerman does not teach a lighting device mounted on the top of the pole.
Gienger teaches (Fig. 4) a pole assembly comprising a pole (200), an antenna (210) mounted on the pole, and a lighting device (204) mounted on the top of the pole.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate to modify Zimmerman by adding a lighting device on top of the pole. This modification would allow the pole assembly to serve not only as a mounting platform for the cellular antenna, but also to light the surrounding environment when necessary (e.g., light city streets at night).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, Zimmerman discloses (Figs. 2-5) a cellular antenna (100), comprising:
a radome (110-104) having a lateral recess that defines a first accommodating space with a lateral opening and for accommodating a pole (102), wherein the cellular antenna should be mounted to the pole (regarding the lateral recess and the first accommodating space with a lateral opening, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman above);
an antenna assembly (regarding the antenna assembly, see annotated Fig. 5 in Zimmerman below) mounted within a second accommodating space (104) defined by the radome, the antenna assembly comprising a reflecting plate (114-1) and a radiating element (130) mounted on the reflecting plate; and
a cover body (106), and the cover body is configured to be detachably mounted to the lateral recess of the radome so as to cover the lateral opening; and
a reflection patch (114-3) mounted on the cover body and residing in the first accommodating space.
However, none of the cited Prior Art references teaches or suggests a reflection patch devoid of a radiating element mounted on the cover body and residing in the first accommodating space.
Therefore, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by the applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights