DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 1 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 7-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20230164588; hereinafter Wu) in view of Gottl et al. (US20240413522; hereinafter Gottl).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “An antenna, comprising: a first tilt section (142-1) having a first tilted reflector (140E covers all sections) on which is disposed a first plurality of dipoles (134-1) configured to radiate in a first frequency band, and a first flat reflector (top section 142-2) on which is disposed a second plurality of dipoles (130-4) configured to radiate in a second frequency band, the second frequency band being higher in frequency than the first frequency band (¶[0125]; 130-1 through 130-6 of high-band radiating elements 132 as well as a single linear array 134-1 of low-band radiating elements 136), the first tilted reflector being tilted at a first tilt angle relative to the first flat reflector (see tilt in fig. 8C); and a second tilt section (142-3) having a second tilted reflector (140E) on which is disposed a third plurality of dipoles (134-2) configured to radiate in the first frequency band, and a second flat reflector (lower section 142-2) on which is disposed a fourth plurality of dipoles (130-4) configured to radiate in the second frequency band, the second tilted reflector being tilted at a second tilt angle relative to the second flat reflector (see tilt in fig. 8C), wherein the first tilt section and the second tilt section are positioned one above the other along a vertical axis (see annotated fig. 14A above), and wherein the first and second flat reflectors are oriented in the same direction in an azimuth plane (see fig. 8C to and lower 142-2 are facing same direction)”.
Wu does not disclose the first tilt section and second tilt section are “physically discontinuous from each other”.
However, Gottl teaches base station antenna arrays wherein the base station is separated into sections that are “physically discontinuous from each other”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gottl and make Wu’s antenna wherein the first tilt section and second tilt section are physically discontinuous from each other, in order to easier provide separate properties to both sections and to allow separate manufacture of the sections to be joined later.
Regarding claim 2, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “The antenna of claim 1, wherein the second tilt angle is an opposite angle of the first tilt angle in the azimuth plane (see fig. 8C angles are equal and opposite”.
Regarding claim 3, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “The antenna of claim 1, further comprising a conformal radome (112)”.
Regarding claim 7, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “The antenna of claim 1, wherein the first frequency band comprises a low band (¶[0125]; 130-1 through 130-6 of high-band radiating elements 132 as well as a single linear array 134-1 of low-band radiating elements 136)”.
Regarding claim 8, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “The antenna of claim 7, wherein the second frequency band comprises a mid-band (¶[0125]; 130-1 through 130-6 of high-band radiating elements 132 as well as a single linear array 134-1 of low-band radiating elements 136)”.
Regarding claim 9, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “The antenna of claim 1, wherein the first tilted reflector is mechanically coupled to the first flat reflector, and wherein the second tilted reflector is mechanically coupled to the second flat reflector (fig. 8C all are same reflector piece so must be mechanically coupled)”.
Regarding independent claim 17, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “An antenna, comprising: a first section (upper section) having a first reflector (142-1) on which is disposed a first plurality of dipoles (134-1) configured to radiate in a first frequency band, and a second reflector (142-2) on which is disposed a second plurality of dipoles (130-4) configured to radiate in a second frequency band, the second frequency band being higher in frequency than the first frequency band ((¶[0125]; 130-1 through 130-6 of high-band radiating elements 132 as well as a single linear array 134-1 of low-band radiating elements 136); and a second section (lower section) having a first reflector (142-3) on which is disposed a third plurality of dipoles (143-2) configured to radiate in the first frequency band, and a second reflector (142-2) on which is disposed a fourth plurality or dipoles (130-4) configured to radiate in the second frequency band, wherein the first and second reflectors of the first section have orientations such that a direction normal to the first reflector of the first section and a direction normal to the second reflector of the first section are separated by a first tilt angle in an azimuth plane (see tilt angle in fig. 8C), wherein the first tilt section and the second tilt section are positioned one above the other along a vertical axis (see annotated fig. 14A above), wherein the first and second reflectors of the second section have orientations such that a direction normal to the first reflector of the second section and a direction normal to the second reflector of the second section are separated by a second tilt angle (see second tilt angle in fig. 8C), opposite the first tilt angle (angles are opposite and equal), in an azimuth plane, and wherein the direction normal to the second reflector of the first section and the direction normal to the second reflector of the second section are the same direction (both flat reflectors facing in same direction)”.
Wu does not disclose the first tilt section and second tilt section are “physically discontinuous from each other”.
However, Gottl teaches base station antenna arrays wherein the base station is separated into sections that are “physically discontinuous from each other”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gottl and make Wu’s antenna wherein the first tilt section and second tilt section are physically discontinuous from each other, in order to easier provide separate properties to both sections and to allow separate manufacture of the sections to be joined later.
Regarding claim 18, Wu (fig. 8C) discloses “The antenna of claim 17, wherein the first and second reflectors of the first section are mechanically coupled to each other, and wherein the first and second reflectors of the second section are mechanically coupled to each other (fig. 8C all are same reflector piece so must be mechanically coupled)”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gottl, further in view of Xiao et al. (US20240313430; hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses the antenna of claim 3 as shown previously.
Wu does not disclose “wherein the conformal radome comprises: a first shell portion configured to cover the first tilt section; a second shell portion configured to cover the second tilt section; and a transition segment disposed between the first shell portion and the second shell portion”.
However, Xiao teaches “wherein the conformal radome comprises: a first shell portion (16) configured to cover the first tilt section; a second shell portion (15) configured to cover the second tilt section; and a transition segment (space between 15 and 16) disposed between the first shell portion and the second shell portion”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Xiao and make Wu’s antenna wherein the conformal radome comprises: a first shell portion configured to cover the first tilt section; a second shell portion configured to cover the second tilt section; and a transition segment disposed between the first shell portion and the second shell portion, in order to cover all sections of the base station.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gottl, further in view of Ameer et al. (US20220094051; hereinafter Ameer).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses the antenna of claim 2 as shown previously.
Wu does not directly disclose “wherein the first tilt angle is 27 degrees and the second tilt angle is -27 degrees, such that there is a difference of 54 degrees between a direction normal to the first tilt reflector and a direction normal to the second tilt reflector”.
However, Ameer teaches that the exact angle for tilted reflectors is a design choice based on the customer/producers desired radiation pattern and coverage (¶[0048]; For example, the angle of reflectors 110, 120 may be adjusted so that they are generally coplanar, which results in a base station antenna having six columns of radiating elements 130 mounted on a flat reflector. Such an antenna may be desirable for certain applications. The base station antenna can also be adjusted to have the reflectors 110, 120 each tilted away from each other by, for example, an angle of about 30° (so that the reflectors 110, 120 define an angle of about 60°) and used for twin beam applications. Additionally, different customers may desire twin beam antennas having reflector panels that form different angles. For example, some customers may require each reflector panel be bent from the horizontal by about 25°, while other customers may require that the reflector panels be bent by as much as 33°. The base station antennas according to embodiments of the present invention may be used to satisfy any such customer requirements due to the adjustability in the amount that the reflector is bent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ameer and make Wu’s antenna wherein the first tilt angle is 27 degrees and the second tilt angle is -27 degrees, such that there is a difference of 54 degrees between a direction normal to the first tilt reflector and a direction normal to the second tilt reflector, in order to have the radiation cover the desired area.
Furthermore, In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses the antenna of claim 2 as shown previously.
Wu does not directly disclose “wherein the first tilt angle is +22 degrees and the second tilt angle is -22 degrees, such that there is a difference of 44 degrees between a direction normal to the first tilt reflector and a direction normal to the second tilt reflector”.
However, Ameer teaches that the exact angle for tilted reflectors is a design choice based on the customer/producers desired radiation pattern and coverage (¶[0048]; For example, the angle of reflectors 110, 120 may be adjusted so that they are generally coplanar, which results in a base station antenna having six columns of radiating elements 130 mounted on a flat reflector. Such an antenna may be desirable for certain applications. The base station antenna can also be adjusted to have the reflectors 110, 120 each tilted away from each other by, for example, an angle of about 30° (so that the reflectors 110, 120 define an angle of about 60°) and used for twin beam applications. Additionally, different customers may desire twin beam antennas having reflector panels that form different angles. For example, some customers may require each reflector panel be bent from the horizontal by about 25°, while other customers may require that the reflector panels be bent by as much as 33°. The base station antennas according to embodiments of the present invention may be used to satisfy any such customer requirements due to the adjustability in the amount that the reflector is bent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ameer and make Wu’s antenna wherein the first tilt angle is +22 degrees and the second tilt angle is -22 degrees, such that there is a difference of 44 degrees between a direction normal to the first tilt reflector and a direction normal to the second tilt reflector, in order to have the radiation cover the desired area.
Furthermore, In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses the antenna of claim 2 as shown previously.
Wu does not directly disclose “wherein the first tilt angle is +17 degrees and the second tilt angle is -17 degrees, such that there is a difference of 34 degrees between a direction normal to the first tilt reflector and a direction normal to the second tilt reflector”.
However, Ameer teaches that the exact angle for tilted reflectors is a design choice based on the customer/producers desired radiation pattern and coverage (¶[0048]; For example, the angle of reflectors 110, 120 may be adjusted so that they are generally coplanar, which results in a base station antenna having six columns of radiating elements 130 mounted on a flat reflector. Such an antenna may be desirable for certain applications. The base station antenna can also be adjusted to have the reflectors 110, 120 each tilted away from each other by, for example, an angle of about 30° (so that the reflectors 110, 120 define an angle of about 60°) and used for twin beam applications. Additionally, different customers may desire twin beam antennas having reflector panels that form different angles. For example, some customers may require each reflector panel be bent from the horizontal by about 25°, while other customers may require that the reflector panels be bent by as much as 33°. The base station antennas according to embodiments of the present invention may be used to satisfy any such customer requirements due to the adjustability in the amount that the reflector is bent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Ameer and make Wu’s antenna wherein the first tilt angle is +17 degrees and the second tilt angle is -17 degrees, such that there is a difference of 34 degrees between a direction normal to the first tilt reflector and a direction normal to the second tilt reflector, in order to have the radiation cover the desired area.
Furthermore, In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gottl, further in view of Poulin et al. (US20230223687; hereinafter Poulin).
Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses the antenna of claim 17 as shown previously.
Wu does not disclose “wherein the conformal radome comprises: a first shell portion configured to cover the first tilt section; a second shell portion configured to cover the second tilt section; and a transition segment disposed between the first shell portion and the second shell portion”.
However, Poulin teaches adding electrical tilt circuits to tilted arrays to add more refined control over the beam steering (¶[0031-0032]; In radio-frequency (RF) applications, such as in 5G macro base stations, mechanical antenna tilt is utilized to provide coarse beam steering. For example, an antenna may have a 5 to 15 degree down tilt applied so that the beam covers a target area on the ground. Described herein are examples related to architectures, circuits, devices and methods related to electrical tilting of antennas. While such examples are described in the example context of 5G base stations, it will be understood that one or more features of the present disclosure can also be utilized in other RF frequency ranges and/or other settings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Poulin and make Wu’s antenna further comprising: a first electrical tilt circuit coupled to the first plurality of dipoles, the first electrical tilt circuit configured to steer a first antenna beam generated by the first plurality of dipoles, so as to impart a first additional tilt angle to the first antenna beam; and a second electrical tilt circuit coupled to the third plurality of dipoles, the second electrical tilt circuit configured to steer a second antenna beam generated by the second plurality of dipoles, so as to impart a second additional tilt angle to the second antenna beam, in order to both mechanically and electrically steer the antennas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 previously indicated as allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue 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 AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights