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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “in a support pole” should be “on a support pole” because the clamp goes around the outside of the pole and not inside the pole.
At line 3, “a support pole” should be “the support pole” because the preamble already introduced a support pole.
At line 12, “wherein the tilting rotation” should be “wherein the tilting and rotating” to correspond to line 5. “the tilting rotation” does not have antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2, “upper tilting” should be “the upper tilting
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “capable of steered” should be “capable of being steered”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At lines 11-12, “by bolting and bolted and fastened to the lower or upper part” does not make sense. It would read better if it were “by bolting to the lower or upper part”
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 1-12 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.
In regard to claim 1, the claim states at lines 9-11 that “a steering mounting panel with at least one guide slot and at least one guide bolt for steering and rotating the two or more antenna devices in a horizontal direction on the basis of an upper and lower axis”. This is confusing and indefinite based on the specification because it is not understood how “a” i.e. one, mounting panel can attach to two or more antenna devices. The drawings only show one panel per antenna. The embodiments show two steering panels 151, wherein one panel is attached to one antenna. The claim should claim “at least two steering mounting panels..” in order to be clear and definite. The claim will be examined as best understood until further clarification is provided.
In regard to claim 2, at lines 3-6, the claim recites “a relatively upper side” and “a relatively lower side”. It is not clear what the relatively upper and lower sides are part of. Are they part of the steering panel?
In regard to claim 2, at lines 3 and 5, the claim recites a first antenna device and a second antenna device. Are these antenna devices the same as the one or more antenna devices of claim 1, or are they different antenna devices?
In regard to claim 2, the claim has been amended to claim that the upper tilting mechanism and the lower tilting mechanism each have an upper tilting housing. It is not clear how they can each have a tilt housing because the specification states that the tilt housing is 105 and there is only one that connects to the upper tilt bracket 145 and the lower tilt bracket 145. There are not two tilt housing disclosed.
In regard to claim 3, at line 3, “a tilting housing coupled to the support clamp” is introduced. However, claim 1 was amended to include a “tilting housing”. There is only one tilting housing 105 disclosed in the specification so it is not clear if the applicant is trying to claim a second tilting housing or if the tilting housing of claim 3 is the same housing as previously set forth in claim 1. Further, claim 3 claims that the upper and lower tilting mechanisms also comprise an upper driving motor, lower driving motor, and upper and lower gear sets. Again, claim 2 was amended to claim that the upper and lower tilting mechanisms have an upper driving motor and a lower driving motor. Are these the same motors and gear sets as claim 2?
In regard to claim 4, the claim is indefinite because at line 3, the claim states that each tilting mechanism has a tilting housing. This is the same problem mentioned above with respect to claim 3. Only one tilting housing 105 was mentioned in the specification. Therefore, the claim is unclear for the same reasons set forth above.
In regard to claim 5, the claim is indefinite because at line 3, “a steering mounting panel” is claimed. However, claim 1 has been amended to include a steering mounting panel. Therefore, is the steering mounting panel of claim 5 the same or different than the steering mounting panel of claim 1? Further, if there is only one steering mounting panel, it is not clear how both antenna devices are connected to one panel because this has not been disclosed.
In regard to claim 7, line 1 and claim 12, line 2, “the steering means” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 has been amended to change “steering means” to “a steering mounting panel”. Therefore, it is assumed that the steering means of claim 7 should have also been amended to be the steering mounting panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art references of record disclose similar features of applicant’s claimed device, the prior art does not disclose the combination of elements of claim 1, wherein steering panels connected to a tilting housing allow for tilting and rotating two or more antenna devices at the same time. The prior art references of record seem to show one panel connected to one antenna that allows the antenna to tilt or rotate. The examiner can find no proper motivation to modify the references of record to produce applicant’s claimed invention as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 14, 2025, with respect to the 112 issues of the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections in view of Young (KR102145150) have also been found to be persuasive and are hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 created problems in some of the claims dependent therefrom as set forth above. 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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights