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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al US 20180337459 A1 in view of Hou et al US 20210305717 A1 further in view of Shahvirdi et al US 2021/0058137 A1.
4. Regarding claim 1. Lee teaches (fig 2C) passive reflector (230) for reflecting a radio signal wherein: the passive reflector is configured as a flat element (…from 0058 the reflector 230 may be formed in a planar shape. Even though having a planar shape, the reflector 230 may disperse the 5G beam at various angles….) with a structured surfacefrom 0060 each of the plurality of unit cell arrays may change the direction of a beam incident in the first direction to one of the second direction to the fifth direction. That is, the 5G beams 200 incidents in the first direction may be dispersed to a beam 250 in the second direction, a beam 251 in the third direction, a beam 252 in the fourth direction, and a beam 253 in the fifth direction through the respective unit cell arrays. Thus, the transmission coverage of the 5G beams is widened….). Lee et al fails to teach wherein the structured surface comprises a honeycomb-like arrangement of a plurality of semi-cavity moulds with different base surfaces wherein the moulds are arranged heterogeneously. However, from the same field of endeavor, Hou et al teaches such (from 0436…One structure can be a pattern of hexagons forming the patches 1502 and the other structure can be a mesh or grid 1530 that looks like a honeycomb structure...). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute the structure taught by Hou et al in Lee et al for a more durable structure for use in harsh environments thus making it more cost-effective repair wise. Shahvirdi et al teaches (0101, fig 23; 0058 fig.7 ) that it’s well known to arrange the reflective elements with irregular spacing (reads on arranged heterogeneously) or irregular shapes (also reads on arranged heterogeneodsly). Shahvirdi et al also teaches (0102, figs 24-26) that the base surfaces (reads on layers) can be different. It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute the different structures taught by Shahvirdi et al in the combination of Lee et al and Hou et al depending on the are being used to maximize the coverage area, thus saving additional base stations and cost.
5. Regarding claim 3. Lee et al shows different embodiments (fig 5B, 6A, 6B…) where wherein the passive reflector (planar type) is formed in one piece.
6. Regarding claim 5. Although Lee et al shows multiple configurations in different environments, he doesn’t show wherein the reflective surfaces comprise a reflective side facing the ground in use and a non-reflective side facing away from the ground in use. However, from the same field of endeavor Hou et teaches top of a cell tower in a downward direction (….the front surface of the antenna 10 is mounted opposite the tower or other mounting structure, pointing toward the coverage area for the antenna 10...) It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to mount the passive antenna in such an orientation in order to extend the coverage.
7. Regarding claim 6. The combination of Lee and Hou fail to teach wherein the non-reflective side facing away from the ground in use comprises photovoltaic elements. However, from the same field of endeavor Shahvirdi et al teaches such (from 0063…FIG. 11 illustrates such a reflect array 1100 in which a rotating mechanism 1102 on back surface 1106 is controlled by solar cell 1108…). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to add solar cells to the back of the housing to aid in powering the controller of the device, thus saving power by making it more efficient.
8. Regarding claim 8. Hou et al teaches by mounting his passive (170) radiator on top of a cell tower it inherently extends the coverage of a radio network.
9. Regarding claim 10. Lee et al in combination with Hou et al teach a method of manufacturing the passive reflector according to claim 1 for a radio network (004), comprising the following method steps: determining a radio network coverage (0055) of a radio signal transmitted by a trackable antenna (Lee et al 0005) based on a model of an area (0049 reads on shadow area) to be supplied with the radio signal, determining at least one partial area in the model of the area to be supplied, in which the transmitted radio signal cannot be received (blocked in 0050), determining a position of the passive reflector in the model of the area to be supplied, the position being selected in such a way that the trackable antennafrom the abstract… so that a receiving entity positioned in a shadow area caused by an object can receive the beam….), determining a surface structure of the passive reflector (0106 and 0107), wherein the surface structure is selected in such a way that the radio signal transmitted by the trackable antenna is reflected into the determined sub-region fabricating of the passive reflector based on the determined surface structure, and installing the passive reflector in the area to be supplied based on the determined position (Fig 6C).
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al US 20180337459 A1 in view of Hou et al US 20210305717 A1 in view of Shahvirdi et al US 2021/0058137 A1 further in view of Stephens CN 200680011817 A (see Google translation CN101156078A - Positioning system using destination multipath signals - Google Patents).
11. Regarding claim 2. Lee fails to teach wherein the electrically conductive material comprises an electrically conductive coating. However, from the same field of endeavor Stephens teaches such (…the reflector 114 is spherical, and a metal coating, such as gold, so it has the metal with conductivity (penetration depth) for the carrier signal frequency in the microwave region. In another exemplary embodiment, reflector 114 is a corner shape, and with a metal coating…). It would have been obvious, before the effective date to coat the metal taught used in Lee’s reflector in order to make it easier to mold in order to get the correct reflections in the environment its being used.
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al US 20180337459 A1 in view of Hou et al US 20210305717 A1 in view of Shahvirdi et al US 2021/0058137 A1 further in view of Wu et al US 20220173521 A1.
13. Regarding claim 7. Lee et al fails to teach wherein the planar element comprises a thermally insulating material. However, Wu et al teaches such (see fig 4 and 0057…Further layers include a PVC layer 416 and a fabric or non-woven substrate layer 418. The PVC layer 416 can provide mechanical impact resistance/buffer, moisture resistance, thermal insulation…). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to add a thermal insulation layer to Lee et al in order to keep the metal from rusting thus lowering maintenance costs.
14. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al US 20180337459 A1 in view of Hou et al US 20210305717 A1 in view of Shahvirdi et al US 2021/0058137 A1 further in view of Mensink et al US 20220149213 A1.
15. Regarding claim 9. Lee et al fails to teach the use as a facade element for cladding a building. However, from the same field of endeavor Mensink et al teaches such (see 0002 for photovoltaic uses but includes a reflective layer 0098). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to similarly use reflective devices disguised as cladding as taught by Mensink et al in order to better conceal them and make them more aesthetically pleasing.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (addition of Shahvirdi et al) which is relied upon for the additional limitations of “different base surfaces” and “arranged heterogeneously” to original claims 1 and 4.
17. 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.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights