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 December 17, 2025. The Remarks of December 17, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered and the replacement sheets to the figures are accepted. The original objections to the Drawings are withdrawn.
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 28, 29, and 31 are accepted. The objections to these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of the Claims are considered. Regarding claim 35, the examiner finds the applicant’s arguments persuasive and the rejection to the claim is withdrawn. Regarding claim 38, the applicant’s amendment to the claim overcome the 112(b) rejection of the claim and the rejection is subsequently withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the Claims are considered.
The applicant (pages 11-12) argues that because Hendrix et al. (US 20180026327 A1, hereinafter Hendrix) “fails to mention or teach a side mounting surface, let alone a spatial relationship from any such side mounting surface, to read on the claim language in question requires the use of impermissible hindsight”. Based on this, the applicant states: “At best, Hendrix in combination with Foo and Shen merely teaches that an antenna array as taught by Foo and Shen may be secured to a pole with a bracket, but otherwise provides no suggestion as to a spacing relationship with front and side mounting surfaces.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In this regard, Hendrix (Fig. 4) teaches a connector (136) as part of an antenna mounting kit (112, 114, 114”, and 136). As seen in Fig. 4 in Hendrix, the distance between the connector and the antenna (134) is greater than a distance between any elements of the antenna regardless of what these elements might be. Since, Foo et al. (US 8362967 B2, hereinafter Foo) teaches (Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A, B) an antenna comprising a front mounting surface and a side mounting surface (for details, see the 103 rejection of claim 21 below), it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the combination of Foo and Hendrix teaches the limitation wherein a distance between the connector and the front mounting surface is greater than a distance between any position of one of the two side mounting surfaces and the front mounting surface to provide means for attaching the antenna to a pole in a stable and balanced manner so that the antenna is resistant to tilting or to falling under external forces.
Furthermore, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Further, the applicant argues that Hendrix does not teach “an orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface.” Once again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Hendrix (Fig. 3) teaches the limitation in question (for details, see the examiner’s arguments and explanation in the 103 rejections of the respective independent claims below).
The applicant’s amendments to claims 21 and 33 necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following feature(s) are not shown:
Claim 1 (line 20) and claim 33 (line 17): “an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface”.
Therefore, the above features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 (line 6): “both a and b are integers greater than o” should be amended to “both a and b are integers greater than 0”.
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 21-26 and 28-40 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 (lines 19-20) and claim 33 (lines 16-17) recite: “an orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface”. It is not clear how the orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface. In view of the specifications (Fig. 8) the connector has finite dimensions and, thus, its orthographic projection cannot lie on an axis (in order for the orthographic projection of the connector to lie on an axis, the connector would need to have infinitesimally small dimensions). For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (Fig. 8), this limitation is interpreted as follows: an orthographic projection of the center of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface (see annotated Fig. 8 below).
Claims 22-26 and 28-32 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 21 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claims 34-40 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 33 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
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 21, 23-24, 26 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo et al. (US 8362967 B2, hereinafter Foo) in view of Shen et al. (US 20200395674 A1, hereinafter Shen) and Hendrix et al. (US 20180026327 A1, hereinafter Hendrix).
Regarding claim 21, Foo (Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A, B) discloses an antenna comprising:
a front mounting surface (regarding front mounting surface, see annotated Fig. 2B in Foo below);
a side mounting surface (regarding side mounting surface, see annotated Fig. 2B in Foo below);
radiating element arrays (201a-x, 202a-x, 203a-x in Fig. 2A), comprising a front radiating element array (202a-x in Fig. 2A) and a side radiating element array (201a-x), wherein the front radiating element array (202a-x) is mounted on the front mounting surface, the side radiating element array (201a-x) is mounted on the side mounting surface, an included angle that is between the front mounting surface and the side mounting surface is a first included angle, and the first included angle is less than 1800 (regarding included angle, see annotated Fig. 2B in Foo below), and a circuit module (102 – Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Foo does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a first end of the circuit module is connected to an antenna port connected to the front radiating element array and an antenna port connected to the side radiating element array, another end of the circuit module is configured to connect to a plurality of radio frequency ports, and at least one antenna port is electrically connected to at least two of the plurality of radio frequency ports through the circuit module.
Shen teaches (Fig. 3B, [0038]) circuit modules (48, 50 in Fig. 3B) wherein a first end of each circuit module is connected to an antenna port connected to a first radiating element array (42a-d) and an antenna port connected to a second radiating element array (44a-d), another end of each circuit module is configured to connect to a plurality of radio frequency ports, and at least one antenna port is electrically connected to at least two of the plurality of radio frequency ports through the circuit module (regarding the antenna ports and the radio frequency ports, see annotated Fig. 3B in Shen below.)
PNG
media_image3.png
612
798
media_image3.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 Foo to replace the circuit module in Foo with the circuit module in Shen, wherein a first end of the circuit module is connected to an antenna port connected to the front radiating element array and an antenna port connected to the side radiating element array, another end of the circuit module is configured to connect to a plurality of radio frequency ports, and at least one antenna port is electrically connected to at least two of the plurality of radio frequency ports through the circuit module. This modification would provide an antenna having a radiation pattern with the desired coverage (see Shen, [0038], lines 3-7).
The so modified Foo does not teach a mounting kit, wherein the mounting kit is disposed on a side of the front mounting surface that faces away from the front radiating element array, the mounting kit comprises a connector, the connector is configured to connect to a pole, and a distance between the connector and the front mounting surface is greater than a distance between any position of the side mounting surface and the front mounting surface, wherein an orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
707
967
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hendrix (Figs. 3-4; [0032]) teaches an antenna (134) comprising a mounting kit (112, 114, 114”, 136), wherein the mounting kit is disposed on a side of a mounting surface that faces away from the antenna, the mounting kit comprises a connector (136), the connector is configured to connect to a pole (118), and a distance between the connector and the antenna is greater than a distance between any elements of the antenna, wherein an orthographic projection of the connector on the mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the mounting surface (regarding the mounting surface, the orthographic projection of the connector, and the axis of symmetry of the mounting surface, see annotated Fig. 3 in Hendrix below).
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 Foo to add a mounting kit, wherein the mounting kit is disposed on a side of the front mounting surface that faces away from the front radiating element array, the mounting kit comprises a connector, the connector is configured to connect to a pole, and a distance between the connector and the front mounting surface is greater than a distance between any position of the side mounting surface and the front mounting surface, wherein an orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface as taught by Hendrix. This modification would provide means for attaching the antenna to a pole in a stable and balanced manner so that the antenna is resistant to tilting or to falling under external forces (e.g., strong wind).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 21.
The modified Foo (Fig. 2A) further teaches a front mounting plate (202) and a side mounting plate (201), wherein the front mounting surface is located on the front mounting plate, and the side mounting surface is located on the side mounting plate.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 23 as addressed above.
The modified Foo (Fig. 2A) further teaches the front mounting plate (202) comprises a reflecting plate, and the side mounting plate (201) comprises another reflecting plate.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 24 as addressed above.
The modified Foo does not teach the limitation wherein an edge of the front mounting plate has a first folding portion, and the first folding portion is located on a side of the front mounting plate on which the front radiating element array is mounted; or an edge of the side mounting plate has a second folding portion, and the second folding portion is located on a side of the side mounting plate on which the side radiating element array is mounted.
Shen (Figs. 3A, B; [0037, 0039], lines 1-7) teaches an antenna comprising a first mounting plate, wherein an edge of the first mounting plate has a first folding portion, and the first folding portion is located on a side of the first mounting plate on which a radiating element array (42a-42d) is mounted (regarding the first mounting plate and the first folding portion, see annotated Fig. 3A in Shen below).
PNG
media_image5.png
570
578
media_image5.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 Foo, so that an edge of the front mounting plate has a first folding portion, and the first folding portion is located on a side of the front mounting plate on which the front radiating element array is mounted. This modification would provide an antenna having multiple panels that can be arranged and connected seamlessly with each other, so as to provide the desired antenna radiation pattern in a given cell of a cellular network (see Shen, [0037], lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 21.
The modified Foo (Figs. 2A, 2B) further teaches one front mounting surface and two side mounting surfaces, wherein the two side mounting surfaces are respectively disposed on two opposite side surfaces of the one front mounting surface, the front radiating element array (202a-x in Fig. 2A) is disposed on the one front mounting surface, and the side radiating element array (201a-x) is disposed on at least one of the side mounting surfaces (regarding the one front mounting surface and the two side mounting surfaces, see annotated Fig. 2B in Foo above).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 21.
The modified Foo (Figs. 2A, 2B) further teaches the two side mounting surfaces comprise a first side mounting surface (surface of the reflector panel 201 – panels inherently have surfaces) and a second side mounting surface (surface of the reflector panel 203 – panels inherently have surfaces), m columns (m = 2 in Fig. 2A) of front radiating element arrays (202a-x in Fig. 2A) are disposed on the front mounting surface (surface of the reflector panel 202 – panels inherently have surfaces), n columns (n = 1 in Fig. 2A) of side radiating element arrays (201a-x) are disposed on the first side radiating surface, s columns (s = 1 in Fig. 2A) of side radiating element arrays (203a-x) are disposed on the second side radiating surface, and m, n, and s satisfy that m:n:s=b:a:a, wherein both a and b are integers greater than 0, and b>a (per Fig. 2A, b =2, a = 1).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 29 as addressed above.
The modified Foo (Figs. 2A) further teaches b=2 and a=1.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 28 as addressed above.
The modified Foo does not explicitly teach that the circuit module comprises a bridge, the bridge comprises an input port and an output port, the input port is connected to a radio frequency port of the plurality of radio frequency ports, and the output port of the bridge is separately connected to the front radiating element array and the side radiating element array.
Shen (Fig. 3B, [0038] and Fig. 11B, [0088]) teaches the circuit module (48, 50) comprises a bridge (regarding the bridge, the Specification ([0120], line 1) discloses that the bridge may be a Butler matrix as in Shen), the bridge comprises an input port (R, L, C in Fig. 11B) and an output port (1-3 in Fig. 11B), the input port is connected to the a radio frequency port of the plurality of radio frequency ports (regarding the radio frequency ports, see annotated Fig. 3B in Shen above), and the output port of the bridge is separately connected to a first radiating element array (42a-d in Fig. 3B) and a second radiating element array (44a-d in Fig. 3B).
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 Foo so that the circuit module comprises a bridge, the bridge comprises an input port and an output port, the input port is connected to the a radio frequency port of the plurality of radio frequency ports, and the output port of the bridge is separately connected to the front radiating element array and the side radiating element array. This modification would provide an antenna having a radiation pattern with the desired coverage (see Shen, [0038], lines 3-7).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Foo as applied to claim 21 in view of Solondz (US 20140139395 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 21.
The modified Foo does not teach the limitation wherein the first included angle is less than or equal to 900.
PNG
media_image6.png
610
998
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Solondz (Fig. 4A; [0072], lines 1-6) teaches a first radiating element array (410) mounted on a first mounting surface and a second radiating element array (420) mounted on a second mounting surface, wherein an included angle that is between the first mounting surface and the second mounting surface is less than 900 (regarding the first mounting surface, the second mounting surface, and the included angle, see annotated Fig. 4A in Solondz below).
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 Foo, so that the first included angle is less than or equal to 900. This modification would provide an antenna configured to provide both downlink transmission and uplink reception of signals to and from at least two adjacent sectors from one common location (see Solondz, [0072], lines 6-9).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Foo as applied to claim 24 in view of Solondz (cited above).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 24 as addressed above.
The modified Foo does not teach the limitation wherein at least a part of an orthographic projection of the side radiating element array on the front mounting plate is on the front mounting plate.
Solondz (Fig. 4A; [0072], lines 1-6) teaches a first radiating element array (410) mounted on a first mounting plate of the cellular boom (450) and a second radiating element array (420) mounted on a second mounting plate of the cellular boom (450), wherein at least a part of an orthographic projection of the second radiating element array on the first mounting plate is on the first mounting plate. (regarding the first mounting plate and the orthographic projection of the second radiating element array on the first mounting plate, see annotated Fig. 4A in Solondz above).
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 Foo, so that at least a part of an orthographic projection of the side radiating element array on the front mounting plate is on the front mounting plate as a result of the first included angle being less than 900. This modification would provide an antenna configured to provide both downlink transmission and uplink reception of signals to and from at least two adjacent sectors from one common location (see Solondz, [0072], lines 6-9).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Foo as applied to claim 28 in view of Zimmerman (US 11515623 B2) and in view of Li et al. (US 11581631 B2, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Foo teaches the antenna of claim 28.
The modified Foo does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna is an active antenna, the antenna further comprises a radio frequency board and a heat sink, the heat sink is disposed on a side that is of the radio frequency board and that faces away from the front mounting surface, and the front radiating element array and the side radiating element array are connected to the radio frequency board.
Zimmerman (Fig. 6B; col. 8, lines 1-10) teaches an antenna comprising a radio frequency board (124) and radiating elements (130) connected to the radio frequency board.
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 Foo to add a radio frequency board wherein the front radiating element array and the side radiating element array are connected to the radio frequency board. This modification would provide an antenna with means to provide the desired RF signals to the radiating element arrays (see Zimmerman, col. 8, lines 4-10).
The modified Foo does not teach the limitation wherein the antenna is an active antenna, the antenna further comprises a heat sink, the heat sink is disposed on a side that is of the radio frequency board and that faces away from the front mounting surface.
Li (Fig. 16; col. 15, lines 12-21) teaches an active antenna (110) comprising a heat sink (215), the heat sink is disposed on a side that is of a remote radio unit (1120) and that faces away a radiating elements array (120).
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 Foo, so that the antenna is an active antenna comprising a heat sink, the heat sink is disposed on a side that is of the radio frequency board and that faces away from the front mounting surface. This modification would provide the antenna with means for dissipating heat (an inherent function of a heat sink) without the heat sink interfering with the performance of the radiating elements arrays.
Claims 33, 34, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrix in view of Foo and Ma et al. (US 20130225222 A1, hereinafter Ma).
PNG
media_image7.png
598
480
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, Hendrix (Figs. 6-7) teaches a communication system (150), comprising a mounting bracket (160) and at least one antenna (regarding the at least one antenna, see annotated Fig. 7 in Hendrix below), wherein the at least one antenna is mounted on the mounting bracket.
Hendrix does not teach the limitations wherein the at least one antenna comprises one front mounting surface and two side mounting surfaces, the two side mounting surfaces are respectively disposed on two opposite side surfaces of the front mounting surface, a front radiating element array is disposed on the front mounting surface, side radiating element arrays comprise a first side radiating element array and a second side radiating element array, the first side radiating element array is disposed on one of the two side radiating surfaces, and the second side radiating element array is disposed on the other of the two side radiating surfaces.
Foo (Figs. 2A-B) teaches an antenna comprising one front mounting surface and two side mounting surfaces (regarding the front mounting surface and the two side mounting surfaces, see annotated Fig. 2B in Foo above), the two side mounting surfaces are respectively disposed on two opposite side surfaces of the front mounting surface, a front radiating element array (202a-x) is disposed on the front mounting surface, side radiating element arrays comprise a first side radiating element array (201a-x) and a second side radiating element array (203a-x), the first side radiating element array is disposed on one of the two side radiating surfaces, and the second side radiating element array is disposed on the other of the two side radiating surfaces.
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 Hendrix by substituting the antenna of Hendrix with the antenna of Foo. This modification would provide the communication system with a multi-beam antenna having two different beams, wherein the two beams can have different beam directions and/or different wavelengths (see Foo, col. 2, lines 40-56).
The so modified Hendrix does not teach explicitly a mounting kit, wherein the mounting kit is disposed on a side of the front mounting surface that faces away from the front radiating element array, the mounting kit comprises a connector, the connector is configured to connect to a pole, and a distance between the connector and the front mounting surface is greater than a distance between any position of one of the two side mounting surfaces and the front mounting surface, wherein an orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface.
However, Hendrix (Figs. 3-4; [0032]) teaches an antenna (134) comprising a mounting kit (112, 114, 114”, 136), wherein the mounting kit is disposed on a side of a mounting surface that faces away from the antenna, the mounting kit comprises a connector (136), the connector is configured to connect to a pole (118), and a distance between the connector and the antenna is greater than a distance between any elements of the antenna, wherein an orthographic projection of the connector on the mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the mounting surface (regarding the mounting surface, the orthographic projection of the connector, and the axis of symmetry of the mounting surface, see annotated Fig. 3 in Hendrix above).
Therefore, 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 Hendrix to add a mounting kit, wherein the mounting kit is disposed on a side of the front mounting surface that faces away from the front radiating element array, the mounting kit comprises a connector, the connector is configured to connect to a pole, and a distance between the connector and the front mounting surface is greater than a distance between any position of one of the two side mounting surfaces and the front mounting surface, wherein an orthographic projection of the connector on the front mounting surface is on an axis of symmetry of the front mounting surface as taught by Hendrix. This modification would provide means for attaching the antenna to a pole in a stable and balanced manner so that the antenna is resistant to tilting or to falling under external forces (e.g., strong wind).
The so modified Hendrix does not teach the limitation wherein a signal radiated by the front radiating element array covers a first cell, a signal radiated by the second side radiating element array covers a second cell, and a signal radiated by a third side radiating element array covers a third cell.
Ma (Fig. 5A and Figs. 9B-C) teaches a communication system (900 in Figs. 9A-C) comprising a first radiating element array (910 in Figs. 9B-C), a second radiating element array (920 in Figs. 9B-C), and a third radiating element array (930 in Figs. 9B-C), wherein a signal radiated by the first radiating element array covers a first cell (915 in Fig. 9B), a signal radiated by the second radiating element array covers a second cell (925 in Fig. 9B), and a signal radiated by the third radiating element array covers a third cell (915 in Fig. 9B) (regarding the radiating antenna element array see radiating elements 550 in Fig. 5A; regarding the a signal radiated by radiating element array, the examiner notes that it is an inherent property of an radiating element array to radiate a signal).
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 Hendrix to arrange the radiating element arrays in the communication system in the manner as taught by Ma. This modification would provide the predictable result of a communication system which cover three different cells.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 33 as addressed above.
Hendrix (Fig. 7) also teaches a communication system comprising at least two antennas (regarding the at least two antennas, see annotated Fig. 7 in Hendrix above).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 34 as addressed above.
The modified Hendrix does not explicitly teach the communication system comprises at least two radiation areas, and the at least two radiation areas are in one-to-one correspondence with the antennas.
Ma (Figs. 6A-B) teaches a communication system (600) comprising at least two radiation areas (615, 625), and the at least two radiation areas are in one-to-one correspondence with two antennas (610, 620).
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 Hendrix as taught by Ma. This modification would provide the predictable result of a communication system comprising at least two radiation areas, and the at least two radiation areas are in one-to-one correspondence with the antennas. This, in turn, would improve the coverage of the antenna system, so that it can communicate with other wireless devices in the covered areas.
Regarding claim 39, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 34 as addressed above.
Hendrix (Fig. 7) also teaches a communication system comprising three antennas, wherein the three antennas are a first antenna, a second antenna, and a third antenna (regarding the first antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna, see annotated Fig. 7 in Hendrix above).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hendrix as applied to claim 34 in view of Solondz (cited above).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 34.
The modified Hendrix does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein front radiating element arrays mounted on a front mounting surface of each antenna form one antenna panel, side radiating element arrays mounted on each side mounting surface also form one antenna panel.
Foo (Figs. 2A-B; col. 4, lines 33-40) teaches front radiating element arrays (202a-x) mounted on a front mounting surface of an antenna form one antenna panel (202), side radiating element arrays (201a-l, 203a-l) mounted on each side mounting surface also form one antenna panel (201, 203).
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 the antennas in Hendrix according to the teachings of Foo. This modification would provide the predictable result of a communication system wherein front radiating element arrays mounted on a front mounting surface of each antenna form one antenna panel, side radiating element arrays mounted on each side mounting surface also form one antenna panel. This, in turn, would provide the antenna with multiple arrays facing different directions for improved coverage of the antenna system and improved communication with other wireless devices in the covered areas.
The so modified Hendrix does not teach the limitation wherein the communication system comprises a plurality of radiation areas, and at least one of the radiation areas is covered by beams radiated by antenna panels of at least two different antennas.
Solondz (Fig. 7; [0094-0095) teaches a communication system (700) comprising multiple antennas (700a, 700b) and comprising a plurality of radiation areas (Sectors 1-3), and at least one of the radiation areas (Sector 2) is covered by beams radiated by antenna panels of at least two different antennas (panel 720a of antenna 700a and panels 710b, 715b of antenna 700b).
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 the antennas in Hendrix according to the teachings of Solondz so that the communication system comprises a plurality of radiation areas, and at least one of the radiation areas is covered by beams radiated by antenna panels of at least two different antennas. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein each radiation area of the plurality of radiation areas is being served by multiple antenna panels, thus providing redundancy in antenna coverage (see Solondz, [0098]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hendrix as applied to claim 39 in view of Shen (cited above).
Regarding claim 40, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 39.
The modified Hendrix does not explicitly teach signals radiated by the three antennas cover a same cell.
Shen (Fig. 3A; [0037], lines 3-7) teaches a communication system comprising three antennas (42, 44, 46), wherein signals radiated by the three antennas cover a same cell (regarding signals radiated by antennas, the examiner notes that it is inherent property of antennas to radiate signals).
Therefore, 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 Hendrix in a manner taught by Shen, so that signals radiated by the three antennas cover a same cell. This modification would provide a communication system having a quasi-omnidirectional communications signal pattern (see Shen, [0037], lines 3-7).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hendrix as applied to claim 34 in view of Li et al. (US 10812200 B2, hereinafter Li-2).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 34.
The modified Hendrix does not explicitly teach a second calibration circuit is connected between two adjacent antennas of the at least two antennas, and the second calibration circuit is configured to calibrate phases and amplitudes between different antennas.
Li-2 (Fig. 3; col. 9, lines 5-17) teaches a calibration circuit connected to multiple adjacent radiating element arrays/antennas (210), and the calibration circuit is configured to calibrate phases and amplitudes between different antennas.
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 Hendrix by adding a second calibration circuit connected between two adjacent antennas of the at least two antennas, and the second calibration circuit is configured to calibrate phases and amplitudes between different antennas. This modification would provide optimized antenna beams of the communication system (see Li-2, col. 9, lines 13-17).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hendrix as applied to claim 34 in view of Balanis (“Antenna Theory Analysis and Design”, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1997).
Regarding claim 38, as best understood, the modified Hendrix teaches the communication system of claim 34.
The modified Hendrix teaches both the front radiating element array and the side radiating element arrays are part of a plurality of radiating element arrays.
The modified Hendrix does not teach explicitly a first radiating element array of the plurality of radiating element arrays is used as a baseline.
Balanis (Fig. 6.5, p. 258, eq. 6-7a) teaches an array of radiating elements, wherein a first radiating element (element number N) is used as a baseline for determining the phases of the rest of the radiating elements (elements numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 …) in the array by using the separation between the radiating elements and the angle of the desired direction of a transmitted or received electromagnetic wave. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art, that the principle taught by Balanis is applicable to a plurality of radiating element arrays, wherein the first radiating element array of the plurality of radiating element arrays is used as a baseline for determining the phases of the remaining radiating element arrays.
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 Hendrix so that the first radiating element array of the plurality of radiating element arrays is used as a baseline as taught by the known scientific method of Balanis. This modification would allow to determine the phases of radiating element arrays of the plurality of radiating element arrays for determining the incident angle of an electromagnetic wave arriving at the antenna system.
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