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 06/17/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-16 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2024 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 06/17/2024 is accepted as part of the formal application.
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 1-16 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 “the feed plane” in line 8 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the region of the crossing” in line 8 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3,
The recitation “the linear polarization plane” in line 2 and line 3 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5,
The recitation “the dipole arms of both dipoles extend in the same dipole plane” in line 3 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11,
The recitation “the T-section” in line 4 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the branches” in line 4 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “one of the branches of each pair” in line 5 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12,
The recitation “the pairs of branches” in line 2 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the crossing section” in lines 3-4 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 13,
The recitation “the crossing section” in line 3 is considered vague because it’s confusing. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16,
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 line 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 feed plane” in lines 7-8 is considered indefinite because it does not have and antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the region of the crossing” in line 8 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 1-7, 11-13 and 15-16, 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 feed line for each dipole (a feed line 25, Fig 2; a feed line 27, Fig 3), a balun for each dipole (a balun 37, Fig 2; a balun 39, Fig 3), and wherein the radiator feed extends within a single feed plane between the dipole arms (Fig 2), the feed plane intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing (Fig 4).
Allcock does not explicitly teach a connection port for each dipole arm of the radiator.
However, Allcock teaches the feed line 25 has two connection points, H and G, each connects to each dipole arm (Fig 2), and the feed line 27 has two connection points, L and K, each connects to each dipole arm (Fig 3). This teaching is result effect in order to provide a circular polarization for the antenna (col 2, lines 55-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use each of the connection point as being a connection port.
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 radiator feed comprising a feed line for each dipole, a balun for each dipole and a connection port for each dipole arm of the radiator in Allcock, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
[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
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 does not explicitly teach 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.
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 one 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 with respect to a linear polarization plane of one of dipoles and 135° rotated with respect to a linear polarization plane of the other one of the dipoles in Allcock as modified, in order to provide a simple configuration of a crossed dipole antenna.
Regarding claim 4,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches each one of the dipole arms is connected to one of the connection ports (Fig 2), in particular wherein the dipole arms of the same dipole are connected to connection ports which are connected to the same feed line (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5,
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 2), in particular the dipole arms of both dipoles extend in the same dipole plane, wherein the radiator feed extends perpendicularly to said dipole plane (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 6,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches the radiator comprises a substrate, in particular a PCB (a printed circuit board 21, Fig 2), and metallizations applied to the substrate forming the dipole arms (col 3, lines 39-42), and/or wherein the radiator is made of a metal structure, in particular a metal sheet, forming the dipole arms.
Regarding claim 7,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches the feed lines extend vertically from a respective input port of the radiator feed parallel to one another (Fig 2), in particular wherein laterally between the feed lines a grounded metallization section (a ground plane 41, Fig 2) of the radiator feed is located.
Regarding claim 11,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Allcock teaches the radiator feed comprises a substrate having a first surface, a second surface (Fig 2) and plurality of signal conductors (col 2, lines 41-48) applied to the surfaces, wherein the signal conductors form the feed line, the T-section, the branches (Fig 2) and/or the connection ports, in particular wherein one of the branches of each pair extends partly on the first surface and partly on the second surface.
Regarding claim 12,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 11.
Allcock teaches a crossing section of one of the branches of one of the pairs of branches crosses a crossing section of one of the branches of the other pair of branches (Fig 4), in particular the crossing section extend on different surfaces of the substrate.
Regarding claim 13,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 11.
Allcock teaches the substrate comprises vias (point A, Fig 3), wherein the branches with the crossing sections comprise intermediate sections before and after the crossing section (Fig 4), the intermediate sections of both branches are located on the same surface of the substrate and one of the crossing sections provided on the other surface (Fig 2) and is connected to the intermediate sections by the vias (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 15,
Allcock as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 11.
Allcock teaches the substrate of the radiator feed forms a support structure for the radiator (Fig 2) and/or wherein the radiator feed is formed as a single piece.
Regarding claim 16,
Allcock discloses an antenna (a crossed-drooping dipole antenna ANT, Fig 2) Cell site comprising an antenna, 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 feed line for each dipole (a feed line 25, Fig 2; a feed line 27, Fig 3), a balun for each dipole (a balun 37, Fig 2; a balun 39, Fig 3) 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 (Fig 2), the feed plane intersecting the dipoles in the region of the crossing (Fig 4).
Allcock does not explicitly teach cell site comprising an antenna, and a connection port for each dipole arm of the radiator.
However, it’s well known in the art that a cell site comprises an antenna (Bell, US 20210207683, Fig 15A), and Allcock teaches the feed line 25 has two connection points, H and G, each connects to each dipole arm (Fig 2), and the feed line 27 has two connection points, L and K, each connects to each dipole arm (Fig 3). This teaching is result effect in order to provide a circular polarization for the antenna (col 2, lines 55-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use each of the connection point as being a connection port.
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 a radiator feed, wherein the radiator feed comprising a feed line for each dipole, a balun for each dipole and a connection port for each dipole arm of the 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 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-5 of copending Application No. 18715798.
US Application 18720927
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.
US Application 18715798
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 14 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 8, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the connection ports for the dipole arms of the same dipole lie on different sides of the radiator feed, in particular wherein the connection ports for dipole arms of different dipoles lie directly opposite to one another on the different sides”.
Regarding claim 9, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the radiator feed comprises a T-section and a pair of branches for each dipole, wherein, for each dipole, the feed line extends from an input port to the T-section and each branch of the pair of branches extends from the T-section to a different one of the connection ports, in particular wherein one of the branches of each pair is a delay branch comprising a delay line”.
Dependent claim 10 is considered to be allowable by virtue of its/their dependency/dependencies on claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “at least one grounding layer is applied to the second surface of the substrate at least directly opposite of at least one of the feed lines, one of the branches and/or delay lines, wherein the grounding layer and the respective signal conductor form a microstrip transmission line”.
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