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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This Office Action is a response to Applicant’s communication (or preliminary’s amendment) filed on 06/03/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-21 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 and 05/02/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner.
If applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.97 to disclose the same.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 06/03/2024 is accepted as part of the formal application.
Claim Objection(s)
Claims 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14,
The recitation “the connecting arms” in line 4 would be “connecting arms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
The recitation “the radiator” in line 3 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “each dipole” in lines 3-4 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the dipoles” in line 4 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “each polarized dipole” in lines 5-6 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the region of the crossing” in line 7 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2,
The recitation “the feed plane” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5,
The recitation “and/or” in line 2 is considered vague because it’s unclear regarding what is included or excluded by the claim language. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6,
The recitation “and/or” in line 2 is considered vague because it’s unclear regarding what is included or excluded by the claim language. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8,
The recitation “the electric field” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10,
The recitation “the respective dipole arm” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “said dipole arm” in lines 3-4 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11,
The recitation “the respective dipole arm” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12,
The recitation “the dipole arms” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13,
The recitation “the dipole arms” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15,
The recitation “the at least one polarized dipole” in lines 1-2 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the respective polarized dipole” in line 3 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16,
The recitation “the metallization of the respective dipole arm” in line 3 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 21,
The recitation “the radiator” in line 3 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “each dipole” in lines 4 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the dipoles” in line 4 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the region of the crossing” in line 7 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
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 1-13, 15-16 and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allcock (US 4686536), hereinafter Allcock.
Regarding claim 1,
Allcock discloses an antenna (a crossed-drooping dipole antenna ANT, Fig 2), in particular for a mobile communication cell site, comprising at least one radiator (a radiator RAD, Fig 2) and a radiator feed (a feed FRAD, Fig 2) being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator, the radiator being a dual polarized dipole radiator (Fig 4), wherein each dipole is formed of two dipole arms (radiating element conductor 29, Fig 2; radiating element conductor 31, Fig 3) and the dipoles are in a crossed arrangement relative to each other (Fig 4), wherein the radiator feed comprises a respective feed line (a feed line 25, Fig 2; a feed line 27, Fig 3) for each polarized dipole and extends within a single feed plane (Fig 2) between the dipole arms intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing (a region of a slot 45, Fig 2).
Allcock does not explicitly teach the crossed-drooping dipole antenna ANT (the antenna) is for a mobile communication site.
However, it’s well known in the art that an antenna is for a mobile communication cell site (Bell, US 20210207683, Fig 15A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an antenna being for a mobile communication cell site in Allcock, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (ANT)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FRAD)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RAD)][AltContent: textbox (Allcock (US 4686536))][AltContent: textbox (Allcock (US 4686536))]
PNG
media_image1.png
484
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Allcock (US 4686536))]
PNG
media_image2.png
302
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Bell (US 20210207683))]
PNG
media_image3.png
744
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches adjacent dipole arms are spaced apart by a gap (Fig 4), wherein the gap defines the feed plane (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 3,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches the dipole arms of each dipole extend in a dipole plane (Fig 4), in particular the dipole arms of both dipoles extend in the same dipole plane, wherein the radiator feed extends perpendicular to said dipole plane (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 4,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock does not explicitly teach the feed plane is 45° rotated in respect to a first linear polarization plane and 135° rotated in respect to a second linear polarization plane.
However, it’s well known in the art that a feed plane is 45° rotated with respect to a linear polarization plane of one of dipoles and 135° rotated with respect to a linear polarization plane of the other dipole of the dipoles (Wu, US 20230017375, Fig 3, paragraph [0009])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a feed plane being 45° rotated in respect to a first linear polarization plane and 135° rotated in respect to a second linear polarization plane in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 5,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches the radiator and/or the radiator feed comprise a substrate (a printed circuit board 21, Fig 2) and conductors applied to the substrate, wherein the conductors form the dipole arms (Fig 2) or the feed lines, respectively, particularly wherein the substrate is a single layered PCB (Fig 4) or a multi-layered PCB.
Regarding claim 6,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 5.
Allcock teaches the substrate of the radiator feed forms a support structure (Fig 2) for the radiator and/or wherein the radiator feed is formed as a single piece.
Regarding claim 7,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock does not explicitly teach each feed line comprises at least one ground line and a signal line, the ground line and the signal line preferably forming a microstrip line.
However, Allcock teaches the feed lines 25, 27 is a balanced transmission feed line (col 3, lines 52-56), and are conductors printed onto the circuit board (col 2, line 43-46). It’s well known in the art that a balanced feed line includes a ground line and a signal line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use each feed line comprising at least one ground line and a signal line, the ground line and the signal line preferably forming a microstrip line in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 8,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock does not explicitly teach the electric field of the feed lines are in the same plane.
However, Allcock teaches the feed lines 25 are conductors printed onto the same circuit board 21, and feed lines 27 are conductors printed onto the same circuit board 23 (col 2, line 41-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electric field of feed lines are in the same plane in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 9,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 7.
Allcock does not explicitly teach each feed line comprises two ground lines that are arranged adjacent to and at opposing sides of the signal line.
However, it’s well known in the art that a coplanar feed line comprises two ground lines that are arranged adjacent to and at opposing sides of a signal line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use each feed line comprising two ground lines being arranged adjacent to and at opposing sides of a signal line in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 10,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 9.
Allcock does not explicitly teach one of the ground lines of a respective feed line is galvanically connected to the respective dipole arm and the other one of the ground lines of the respective feed line is capacitively coupled to said dipole arm.
However, it’s well known in the art that a coplanar feed line comprises one ground line of a feed line is connected to a dipole arm and the other ground line of the coplanar feed line is capacitively coupled to the one ground line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of ground lines of a respective feed line being galvanically connected to a respective dipole arm and the other one of the ground lines of the respective feed line being capacitively coupled to said dipole arm in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 11,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 9.
Allcock does not explicitly teach both ground lines of a respective feed line are galvanically connected to the respective dipole arm, in particular said ground lines are electrically connected to each other via a transmission line arranged on the radiator.
However, it’s well known in the art that a coplanar feed line comprises ground lines are connected to a dipole arm, the ground lines are electrically connected to each other via a transmission line arranged on a radiator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use both ground lines of a respective feed line being galvanically connected to a respective dipole arm, in particular said ground lines being electrically connected to each other via a transmission line arranged on a radiator in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 12,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 7.
Allcock does not explicitly teach one of the dipole arms of one of the polarized dipoles of the radiator is electrically connected to the signal line of the respective feed line, in particular wherein the signal line and the at least one ground line are connected to a different one of the dipole arms.
However, Allcock teaches one feed line of the feed lines 25 connected to one dipole arm of the dipole arms 29, and the other feed line of the feed lines 25 connected to the other dipole arm of the dipole arms 29 (Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of dipole arms of one of polarized dipoles of a radiator being electrically connected to a signal line of a respective feed line, in particular wherein the signal line and at least one ground line being connected to a different one of the dipole arms in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 13,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 7.
Allcock teaches the radiator comprises an electrically conducting connecting arm electrically connected to one of the dipole arms (Fig 2) and bridging the region of the crossing (Fig 2), in particular wherein the connecting arm is electrically connected to the signal line (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 15,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Allcock teaches the at least one polarized dipole (Fig 4) and the connecting arm (Fig 4) of the respective polarized dipole are arranged at opposing surfaces of the substrate.
Regarding claim 16,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Allcock teaches the connecting arm is galvanically connected to the signal line (Fig 2) and capacitively coupled to the metallization of the respective dipole arm (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 21,
Allcock discloses an antenna (a crossed-drooping dipole antenna ANT, Fig 2), the antenna comprising at least one radiator (a radiator RAD, Fig 2) and a radiator feed (a feed FRAD, Fig 2) being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator, the radiator being a dual polarized dipole radiator (Fig 4), wherein each dipole is formed of two dipole arms (radiating element conductor 29, Fig 2; radiating element conductor 31, Fig 3) and the dipoles are in a crossed arrangement relative to each other (Fig 4), wherein the radiator feed comprises a respective feed line (a feed line 25, Fig 2; a feed line 27, Fig 3) for each polarized dipole and extends within a single feed plane between the dipole arms (Fig 2) intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing (a region of a slot 45, Fig 2).
Allcock does not explicitly teach cell site comprising an antenna.
However, it’s well known in the art that a cell site comprises an antenna (Bell, US 20210207683, Fig 15A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cell site comprising an antenna, the antenna comprising at least one radiator and a radiator feed being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator in Allcock, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Provisional Rejection, Nonstatutory Double Patenting - No Secondary Reference(s).
Claims 1-5 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6 and 16 of copending Application No. 18720927.
US Application 18715798
Claim 1, Antenna, in particular for a mobile communication cell site, comprising at least one radiator and a radiator feed being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator, the radiator being a dual polarized dipole radiator, wherein each dipole is formed of two dipole arms and the dipoles are in a crossed arrangement relative to each other, wherein the radiator feed comprises a respective feed line for each polarized dipole and extends within a single feed plane between the dipole arms intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing.
Claim 2, Antenna according to claim 1, wherein adjacent dipole arms are spaced apart by a gap, wherein the gap defines the feed plane.
Claim 4, Antenna according to claim 1, wherein the feed plane is 45° rotated in respect to a first linear polarization plane
and 135° rotated in respect to a second linear polarization plane.
Claim 3, Antenna according to claim 1, wherein the dipole arms of each dipole extend in a dipole plane, in particular the dipole arms of both dipoles extend in the same dipole plane, wherein the radiator feed extends perpendicular to said dipole plane.
Claim 5, Antenna according to claim 1, wherein the radiator and/or the radiator feed comprise a substrate and conductors applied to the substrate, wherein the conductors form the dipole arms or the feed lines, respectively, particularly wherein the substrate is a single layered PCB or a multi-layered PCB.
Claim 21, Cell site comprising an antenna, the antenna comprising at least one radiator and a radiator feed being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator, the radiator being a dual polarized dipole radiator, wherein each dipole is formed of two dipole arms and the dipoles are in a crossed arrangement relative to each other, wherein the radiator feed comprises a respective feed line for each polarized dipole and extends within a single feed plane between the dipole arms intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing.
US Application 18720927
Claim 1, Antenna, in particular for a mobile communication cell site, comprising at least one radiator and a radiator feed being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator, the radiator being a dual polarized dipole radiator, wherein each dipole is formed of two dipole arms and the dipoles are in a crossed arrangement relative to each other, wherein the radiator feed comprises a feed line for each dipole, a balun for each dipole and a connection port for each dipole arm of the radiator, and wherein the radiator feed extends within a single feed plane between the dipole arms, the feed plane intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing.
Claim 2, Antenna according to claim 1, characterized in that adjacent dipole arms are spaced apart by a gap, wherein the gap defines the feed plane.
Claim 3, Antenna according to claim 1, characterized in that the feed plane is 45° rotated with respect to the linear polarization plane of one of the dipoles and 135° rotated with respect to the linear polarization plane of the other one of the dipoles.
Claim 5, Antenna according to claim 1, characterized in that the dipole arms of each dipole extend in a dipole plane, in particular the dipole arms of both dipoles extend in the same dipole plane, wherein the radiator feed extends perpendicularly to said dipole plane.
Claim 6, Antenna according to claim 1, characterized in that the radiator comprises a substrate, in particular a PCB, and metallizations applied to the substrate forming the dipole arms, and/or wherein the radiator is made of a metal structure, in particular a metal sheet, forming the dipole arms.
Claim 16, Cell site comprising an antenna, the antenna comprising at least one radiator and a radiator feed being electrically coupled to the at least one radiator, the radiator being a dual polarized dipole radiator, wherein each dipole is formed of two dipole arms and the dipoles are in a crossed arrangement relative to each other, wherein the radiator feed comprises a feed line for each dipole, a balun for each dipole and a connection port for each dipole arm of the radiator, and wherein the radiator feed extends within a single feed plane between the dipole arms, the feed plane intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 17-20 are 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 14, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the radiator feed extends through the substrate of the radiator from a bottom surface of the substrate to a top surface of the substrate, and wherein the connecting arms of the radiator are arranged along the top surface of the substrate, the bottom surface of the substrate or along opposing surfaces of the substrate and/or wherein each dipole arm is formed as a metallization on the substrate, wherein the metallization of each polarized dipole extends in a single plane and wherein the metallization of the polarized dipoles of the radiator are arranged along the top surface of the substrate, the bottom surface of the substrate or along opposing surfaces of the substrate”.
Regarding claim 17, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “at least two radiators supported by the radiator feed, wherein the radiator feed is formed as a single piece, in particular wherein the radiator feed includes a signal distribution network portion”.
Dependent claims 18-20 are considered to be allowable by virtue of their dependencies on claim 17.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-7650. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845