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 January 19, 2026. The Remarks of January 19, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered. The respective amendment to claim 14 and the replacement sheets to Figs. 1-2 are accepted. There are no further objections to the drawings.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specification are considered and the respective amendments are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Claims are considered and the respective amendments to claims 1, 3, 9, 17, and 18 are accepted. The original objections to these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of the Claims are considered.
Regarding claim 1, the amendment related to the 112 rejection are accepted and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding claim 2, the amendments give rise to a new 112 rejection as presented below.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, and 16 reciting “the corner part”, the corresponding amendments to these claims are accepted and the original 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 10, 11, and 18 reciting “the antenna”, the corresponding amendments to these claims are accepted and the original 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11, and 14, the corresponding amendments to these claims are accepted and the original 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the amendments give rise to new 112 rejections as presented below.
The Remarks regarding the 102 and 103 rejections of the Claims are considered. The amendments to claim 1, which include the allowable subject matter of the original claim 2, overcome the 102 rejection of claim 1 and the rejection is withdrawn. The 103 rejections of the respective dependent claims are subsequently withdrawn, as well.
The applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 5): “disposed at least two corner parts” should be amended to “disposed at the at least two corner parts”;
Claim 4 (line 2): “each of at least two antennas” should be amended to “each of the at least two antennas”;
Claim 4 (lines 3-4): “the each of at least two corner parts” should be amended to “each of the at least two corner parts”;
Claim 5 (lines 3-4): “each of at least two antennas bracket” should be amended to “each of the at least two antennas bracket”;
Claim 10 (line 2): “each of at least two antennas” should be amended to “each of the at least two antennas”;
Claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11-18 are objected to because of their dependence on the respective claims above.
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 2, 4-18 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 2 (lines 5-6) recites: “the at least two corner parts are formed between the metal chamber and the at least two corner parts”. The meaning of this limitation is unclear because the use of the term “between” implies defining boundaries of a corner part. However, the boundaries of a corner part cannot be defined as being formed by another object and the corner part itself. Instead, the boundaries of a corner part need to be defined between at least two objects, wherein both objects are different from the corner part itself.
Claim 2 (lines 6-7 and 9) recites: “the four corner parts”. The scope of the claim is indefinite because four corner parts have not been previously defined.
Claim 4 (lines 3-4) recites: “the antenna bracket is disposed at the each of at least two corner parts”. It is not clear how the antenna bracket (a single object) is disposed at the each of at least two corner parts (at least two distinct objects). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as follows: the antenna bracket of each of the at least two antennas is disposed at a corresponding corner part of the at least two corner parts.
Claim 4 (lines 4-6) recites: “the first radiating module is disposed on the antenna bracket, the first radiating module is connected to the switching component and the first radiating module is configured to”. As recited, the claim defines at least two first radiating modules and at least two antenna brackets on the account of the at least two antennas comprising an antenna bracket and a first radiating module. Therefore, it is not clear which radiating module “the first radiating module” refers to, and which antenna bracket “the antenna bracket” refers to.
Claims 5-16 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 4 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 5 (line 2) recites: “the first radiating module”. Per claim 4, there are at least two first radiating modules (see claim 4 above). Therefore, it is not clear which radiating module “the first radiating module” refers to.
Claim 5 (lines 3-4) recites: “the first dielectric plate is mounted on each of at least two antennas bracket”. Firstly, it is not clear which dielectric plate “the first dielectric plate” refers to since there are at least two dielectric plates (one per each of the at least two antennas radiating modules). Secondly, it is not clear how the first dielectric plate (a single object) is mounted on each of at least two antennas bracket (at least two distinct objects).
Claim 5 (lines 5-6) recites: “the first surface is oriented to a corner of the at least two corner parts”. Firstly, it is not clear which first surface “the first surface” refers to since there are at least two first surfaces (one per each of the at least two antennas radiating modules). Secondly, it is not clear how the first surface (a single object) is oriented to a corner of the at least two corner parts (at least two distinct objects).
Claim 5 (lines 5-6) recites: “a metal wall of the at least two corner parts”. It is not clear whether the at least two corner parts comprise a common metal wall or each of the at least two corner parts comprises an independent metal wall. The Specification (p. 4, second paragraph) discloses: “Two side walls located at two ends of the metal chamber 12 and side walls of the two metal panels 13 collectively form metal wall surfaces of the at least two corner parts 14.” This indicates that each of the at least two corner parts comprises an independent metal wall.
Claims 6-9 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 5 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 9 (lines 13-14) recites: “the metal wall of the at least two corner parts”. As argued above (see claim 5), it is not clear whether the at least two corner parts comprise a common metal wall or each of the at least two corner parts comprises an independent metal wall. The Specification (p. 4, second paragraph) discloses: “Two side walls located at two ends of the metal chamber 12 and side walls of the two metal panels 13 collectively form metal wall surfaces of the at least two corner parts 14.” This indicates that each of the at least two corner parts comprises an independent metal wall.
Claim 10 (lines 13-14) recites: “the second radiating module is disposed on each of at least two antennas bracket”. Firstly, “the second radiating module” is indefinite because a second radiating module has not been previously defined. Secondly, it is not clear how the second radiating module (a single object) is disposed on each of at least two antennas bracket (at least two distinct objects).
Claims 11-16 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 10 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 11 (lines 5-6) recites: “an opening of the at least two corner parts”. It is not clear whether the at least two corner parts have a single common opening or each of the at least two corner parts has an independent opening. The Specification (e.g., Fig. 3) shows the at least two corner parts (14) are independent of each other. Therefore, each of the at least two corner parts would have an independent opening.
Claims 12-16 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 11 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 14 (line 7) and claim 16 (line 9) recite: “the opening of the at least two corner parts”. It is not clear whether the at least two corner parts have a single common opening or each of the at least two corner parts has an independent opening. The Specification (e.g., Fig. 3) shows the at least two corner parts (14) are independent of each other. Therefore, each of the at least two corner parts would have an independent opening.
Claims 15-16 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 14 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 17 (lines 3-4) recites: “one signal detector is respectively connected to one antenna”. It is not clear whether the one signal detector belongs to the at least two signal detectors or refers to a different signal detector. Further, it is not clear whether the one antenna belongs to the at least two antennas as defined in claim 1 or refers to a different antenna.
Claim 17 (lines 3-4) recites: “one signal detector is respectively connected to one antenna”. It is not clear whether the one signal detector belongs to the at least two signal detectors or refers to a different signal detector. Further, it is not clear whether the one antenna belongs to the at least two antennas as defined in claim 1 or refers to a different antenna.
Claim 17 (line 4) recites: “the at least one signal detectors are connected”. Firstly, the “the at least one signal detectors” is grammatically incorrect. Secondly, the scope of this limitation is indefinite because the claim previously defines “at least two signal detectors” and “one signal detector”.
Claim 18 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 17 and is subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 18 recites: “at least one signal detectors are respectively configured” (line 2) and “the at least one signal detectors” (lines 4-5). Firstly, the “at least one signal detectors” is grammatically incorrect. Secondly, it is not clear whether these limitations as recited refer to a single signal detector or multiple signal detectors, and whether these are different from or belong to the at least two signal detectors as defined in claim 17.
Claim 18 (lines 3-4) recites: “the at least two antennas connected to the one signal detector”. Per claim 17, “one signal detector is respectively connected to one antenna” which makes the above limitation indefinite.
Claim 18 (lines 3-4) recites: “an antenna with a strongest signal”. It is not clear whether the antenna with a strongest signal belongs to the at least two antennas defined in claim 1 or refers to a different antenna.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4-18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. (US 20160329641 A1, hereinafter Lee) is cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention. In particular, Lee (Fig. 2C, [0037-0039] and Fig. 5B, [0055]) teaches a base station, comprising:
a metal body (metal body – Fig. 5B), provided with at least two corner parts (400), wherein the at least two corner parts are oriented in different directions;
at least two antennas (300), wherein the at least two antennas are respectively disposed at least two corner parts and the at least two corner parts are configured to reflect a signal radiated by the at least two antennas (corner parts 400 are reflectors and, thus, are inherently configured to reflect a signal radiated by an antenna) to enable a combination of directions of signals radiated by the at least two antennas to cover all directions on a horizontal plane (see [0039], lines 1-9); and
a switching component (228), wherein the at least two antennas are connected to the switching component (see [0039], lines 24-26) to enable an antenna with a strongest signal among the at least two antennas to work (see [0037, lines 30-35).
However, 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. In particular, none of the recited Prior Art references teaches or suggests the metal body comprises a bracket, a metal chamber and two metal panels, wherein the metal chamber and the two metal panels are mounted on the bracket, the two metal panels are respectively located at opposite ends of the metal chamber.
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 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