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
The Remarks of 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wu is maintained. On page 9-10 of the remarks, applicant argues that first, “In complete contrast, the linear array 134 of radiating elements on the flat reflectors of Wu are expressly described as the "low-band radiating elements," while the linear arrays 130-1 through 120-6 of radiating elements mounted on the tilted reflectors are expressly described as the "high-band radiating element." See Wu at [0125]. In other words, just the opposite of the claimed invention”. Second, applicant argues that “it is clear that in FIG. 8C of Wu above, the view is along the vertical axis which means the first tilted section comprising radiating elements 130-1 through 130-3 and the second tilted section comprising radiating elements 130-4 through 130-6 are positioned side-by-side relative to the vertical axis, and not one above the other along a vertical axis, as is now expressly required by claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, applicant equates 134 to the dipoles of the flat reflector, however, as expressed in the office action the dipoles of the tilted reflector are 134-1 and 134-2 which equate to dipoles 136 which are the low-band radiating elements (see ¶[0125]). Furthermore, the radiators 130-4 are the dipoles for the flat reflector and are described as high-band radiating elements. Secondly, Wu does disclose “the first tilt section and the second tilt section are positioned one above the other along a vertical axis” as shown in the annotated fig. 14A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Wu teaches more than required for the invention as claimed in the instant application, it still teaches each and every element as set forth in the claim and is therefore still anticipating the claimed invention (MPEP 2131). The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wu is, therefore, maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 17 recite “which is disposed a fourth plurality or dipoles” but should read “which is disposed a fourth plurality of dipoles”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US20230164588; hereinafter Wu).
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)”.
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)”.
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 5, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the first shell portion comprises a sloped shape having a first slope angle that is substantially similar to the first tilt angle”.
Wu and Xiao has been shown as teaching the antenna of claim 4.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. For at least this reason claim 5 is allowed.
Claim 6 is allowed for its dependence.
Regarding claim 12, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the first electrical tilt circuit configured to steer a first antenna beam generated by the first plurality of dipoles, so as to impart an additional +5 degrees of tilt angle to the first antenna beam” and “the second electrical tilt circuit configured to steer a second antenna beam generated by the second plurality of dipoles, so as to impart an additional -5 degrees of tilt angle to the second antenna beam”.
Wu, Ameer, and Poulin are cited as teaching “The antenna of claim 11, further comprising: a first electrical tilt circuit coupled to the first plurality of dipoles” and “a second electrical tilt circuit coupled to the third plurality of dipoles”.
Claim 13 is allowed for its dependence.
Claims 15-16 are allowable for reciting similar subject matter to that of claims 12-13.
Claim 20 is allowable for reciting similar subject matter to that of claims 5-6.
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
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 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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights