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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 17-22 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections, some of claim objections, and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “This amendment explicitly recites the capacitive coupling between the feed circuit (via the coupling elements) and the radiating conductive elements, which is a core aspect of the disclosed feeding unit that differs from the direct soldering or connection shown in Aleksandrovich. Sun, while using capacitive coupling, does so in a structurally and functionally distinct manner as argued below.
The Examiner maps features of independent claim 1 as follows:
Aleksandrovich is asserted to disclose: A dual-polarized antenna with a radiating unit of four conductive elements separated by a cruciform slit, four support elements connected to the conductive elements and fixed to a reflective plate, and a feeding unit with two strip lines on a PCB forming matching circuits.
Sun is asserted to supply the missing limitations: A feeding unit consisting of a PCB disposed on the conductive elements, two coaxial cables along the support elements, the coaxial cables' outer conductors connected to a conductive layer on the PCB's bottom surface, the conductive layer having a cruciform slit dividing it into four parts corresponding to the radiating elements, and two strip lines crossing the cruciform slit center connected to coupling elements.
The core of the Examiner's obviousness rationale hinges on equating the function and purpose of the conductive layer segmentation in Sun with that in the present application. This{SCHP
equivalence is now not supported by a detailed comparison.
In the present application, the conductive layer on the PCB bottom, divided by the cruciform slit, is part of a feeding unit designed to "better match the dual-polarized antenna with feeding coaxial cables through a wide frequency band." The structure, including the crossed strip lines and coupling elements, aims for wideband impedance matching. The description does not emphasize "high isolation" as the primary solved problem for this specific segmented ground plane feature. However, Sun's invention addresses a different problem: suppressing undesirable "shoulders" in the radiation pattern caused by common-mode currents on non-excited corners of a box dipole. The feed signal routing substrate (PCB) with ground plane segments (36b) on its rear face is "capacitively coupled to the radiating arms". The cruciform slit and the segmentation of the ground plane are fundamentally to create and define distinct ground plane segments (36b) that are capacitively coupled across an air gap (33) to the specific trapezoidal radiating arms (32a-32d). This capacitive coupling network is designed to control common-mode currents for pattern shaping, not primarily for wideband impedance matching of a crossed-dipole or dipole-square radiator as in the present application. The "high isolation" mentioned in Sun refers to the isolation provided by the coaxial cables' shielded center conductors within the feed network, not an inherent result of the segmented ground plane structure itself.
In the present application, the four parts of the conductive layer are "disposed corresponding to four conductive elements of the radiating unit." The strip lines cross the slit's center and connect to coupling elements (e.g., plates, open stubs, metallized holes) to form a matching circuit. The coupling is to the conductive elements (dipole arms) themselves. However, The ground plane segments (36b) in Sun are capacitively coupled to the innermost, shortest sides (SS) of the specialized trapezoidal radiating arms (32a-32d) of a box dipole. The geometry is dictated by the unique trapezoidal arm shape. The signal traces (36a) span gaps between the diverging sides of these arms. The connection is not to a generic conductive element but to a specific location on a specific arm shape for a specific coupling mechanism.
While Sun discloses a PCB with a cruciform slit dividing a conductive layer into four parts, this feature operates in a fundamentally different context, solves a different technical problem (pattern shaping via controlled capacitive coupling vs. wideband matching), and has a different structural relationship with the radiating elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize Sun's ground plane segmentation, which is integral to its unique box dipole arm coupling scheme, as a substitute part for achieving wideband matching in a conventional crossed-dipole or dipole-square antenna like Aleksandrovich's. The Examiner's assertion of obviousness improperly treats these structurally similar but functionally and contextually distinct features as interchangeable.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because of the following reasons:
The added limitation “coupling elements that are capacitively coupled to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit” does not have support in the spec which will be considered as new matter as explained below.
After applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are still not clear, the claim would be considered indefinite as explained below.
Moreover, Applicant argued that the antenna in Aleksandrovich and Sun has similar structure but different in functionality and distinct features but the claims do not recite the distinct functionality and features so as long as the prior art has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 11, 17-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “connected by its inner strip conductors to first ends of two strip lines disposed on a top surface of the printed circuit board” should read “connected bytheir inner strip conductors to first ends of two strip lines disposed on a top surface of the printed circuit board”.
Claim 8: “wherein four conductive elements of the radiating unit” should read “wherein the four conductive elements of the radiating unit”.
Similar objection would be applied to clams 11 and 17.
Claim 18: “wherein each of the strip conductors of the symmetrical lines is connected by one end to dipole arms and are connected by opposite end to the adjacent support elements” should read “wherein each of the strip conductors of the symmetrical lines is connected by one end to dipole arms and [[are]] is connected by opposite end to the adjacent support elements”
Claim 20: “wherein strip conductors connecting ends of the folded dipoles” should read “wherein strip conductor[[s]] connecting ends of the folded dipoles”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “coupling elements that are capacitively coupled to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit”, but the subject matter was not described in the specification. Although in the Remarks, Applicant stated that “Support can be found at least in the Specification as filed, [0031]: "... Coupling elements13a and 13b create capacitive coupling between second ends of strip conductors 12a and 12b and conductive element 3", the spec only mentions conductive element 3, the spec does not support the coupling elements that are capacitively coupled to the four conductive elements. Moreover, in fig. 1, the coupling elements 13a, 13b are far away from conductive elements 1 and 2 so it is not clear how the coupling elements 13a, 13b are capacitively coupled to conductive elements 1 and 2.
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 1-9, 11-12 and 17-22 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the conductive layer covering the bottom surface of the printed circuit board comprises the cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts" in lines 13-14 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because this cruciform slit is different to the cruciform slit at a middle of the radiating unit previously recited in line 3-4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " wherein the two strip lines cross the cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts at a center of the cruciform slit " in lines 16-17 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the two strip lines or the cruciform slit divide the conductive layer into four parts. Moreover, it is not clear if these four parts are the same or different to the four parts recited in line 14. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " coupling elements that are capacitively coupled to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit" in lines 18-19 which renders the claim indefinite. In fig. 1, the coupling elements 13a, 13b are far away from conductive elements 1 and 2 so it is not clear how the coupling elements 13a, 13b are capacitively coupled to conductive elements 1 and 2 and para [0031] of the spec only mentions coupling elements capacitively coupled to conductive element 3. For the purpose of examination, Examiner would not consider this limitation.
Claims 2-9, 11-12 and 17-22 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " a middle portion thereof disposed on the bottom surface of the printed circuit board at a middle of a cruciform slot " in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this middle of a cruciform slot is the same or different to the center of the cruciform slit recited in claim 1 because fig. 4b show the conductive layer 23a-23d and the middle portion 20 are both disposed on the bottom surface of the PCB with the cruciform slit 22.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " wherein the coupling elements have a shape of strip lines with open ends" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It conflicts with claim 1 because the coupling elements of different configurations of different elements would have different functions and do not perform capacitively coupling, see para [0035]-[0036] which “coupling elements 26a and 26b and open-ended stubs 28a and 28b may form a filter suppressing radiation of electromagnetic waves of frequency band about two times higher than an operational frequency band”.
Similar rejection would be applied to claim 6
Claim 18 recites the limitation " wherein each of the strip conductors of the symmetrical lines is connected by one end to dipole arms and are connected by opposite end to the adjacent support elements" in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the strip conductors” in the claim. Moreover, it is not clear how these dipole arms relate to the four folded dipoles or the dipole square recited in claim 17. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " wherein arms of each folded dipole are disposed in a same plane with strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines" in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if these arms and strip conductors are the same or different to dipole arms and strip conductors recited in claim 18. Moreover, it is not clear if each folded dipole is related to the four folded dipole recited in claim 17. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " wherein the arms of the folded dipoles" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if these arms are the same or different to dipole arms recited in claim 18. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 22 recites the limitation " wherein the arms of the folded dipoles" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if these arms are the same or different to dipole arms recited in claim 18. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
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, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich et al, US-20180034165-A1 (hereinafter Aleksandrovich) and in view of Sun et al, US-20230361475-A1 (hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses the following:
a dual-polarized antenna, comprising a radiating unit consisting of four conductive elements (2a-2d, fig. 3), four support elements (3a,3b, 4a, 4b), a feeding unit (balun, coaxial cables, Abstract), and a reflective plate (1, fig. 2),
wherein the four conductive elements are separated from each other by a cruciform slit (fig. 3 below) at a middle of the radiating unit, top ends of the four support elements are directly connected to the conductive elements (fig. 3), and bottoms of the four support elements are fixed on the reflective plate (fig. 2);
two strip lines (51a, 51b, fig. 7) disposed on a top surface of the printed circuit board and forming two matching circuits matching the radiating unit with the two coaxial cables (para [0039]).
Aleksandrovich does not disclose wherein the feeding unit consists of a printed circuit board disposed at the middle of the radiating unit on top surfaces of the four conductive elements and two coaxial cables disposed along two of the four support elements and connected by their outer strip conductors to a conductive layer covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board and connected by its inner strip conductors to first ends of two strip lines;
wherein the conductive layer covering the bottom surface of the printed circuit board comprises the cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts disposed corresponding to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit; and
wherein the two strip lines cross the cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts at a center of the cruciform slit and second ends of the two strip lines are connected to coupling elements that are capacitively coupled to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit.
Sun suggests wherein the feeding unit consists of a printed circuit board (36c, para [0040]) disposed at the middle of the radiating unit on top surfaces of the four conductive elements (32a-32d, fig. 3A) and two coaxial cables (38, fig. 3C) disposed along two of the four support elements (40) and connected by their outer strip conductors (para [0042] outer jackets of the coaxial cables 38) to a conductive layer (36b) covering a bottom surface of the printed circuit board (para [0042]: ground plane segments 36b are also provided on a rear facing surface of the circuit board 36c) and connected by its inner strip conductors to first ends of two strip lines (36a, para [0041]);
wherein the conductive layer covering the bottom surface of the printed circuit board (36b, para [0042]) comprises the cruciform slit (fig. 3B) dividing the conductive layer into four parts (36b) disposed corresponding to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit (fig. 3B); and
wherein the two strip lines (36a) cross the cruciform slit dividing the conductive layer into four parts at a center of the cruciform slit (fig. 3B) and second ends of the two strip lines are connected to coupling elements (36f) that are capacitively coupled to the four conductive elements of the radiating unit (32a-32d, para [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the feeding unit as suggested in Sun to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich as claimed for the purpose of capacitively feeding the radiating unit in order to provide a high isolation feeding unit (Sun, para [0011]) to prevent interference of the signals in the coaxial cables to improve the antenna’s performance.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein the coupling elements have a shape of conductive plates (51c, fig. 7) formed on the top surface of the printed circuit board (para [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Aleksandrovich does not disclose wherein the coupling elements have a shape of metallized holes made in the printed circuit board.
Sun discloses wherein the coupling elements have a shape of metallized holes (36f, fig. 3B) made in the printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the metallized holes as suggested in Sun to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich as claimed for the purpose of capacitively coupling across the cruciform slit (para [0042]) in order to create an antenna feeding circuit to provide wireless communication to the application.
Regarding claim 8, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein four conductive elements of the radiating unit are four arms of two crossed dipoles (2a-2d, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each arm of the crossed dipoles consists of two side portions (22a-22d, fig. 3) connected to the support element (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 11, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein four conductive elements of the radiating unit are four dipoles arranged in a shape of a dipole square (2a-2d, fig. 3) and four symmetrical lines (22a-22d).
Regarding claim 12, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each of the four symmetrical lines is formed by two strip conductors (22a-22d, fig. 3) connected to adjacent support elements (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 17, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein four conductive elements of the radiating unit are four folded dipoles arranged in a shape of a dipole square (2a-2d, fig. 3) and four symmetrical lines (22a-22d).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein each of the strip conductors of the symmetrical lines (22a-22d, fig. 3) is connected by one end to dipole arms (2a-2d) and are connected by opposite end to the adjacent support elements (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Aleksandrovich discloses wherein arms of each folded dipole are disposed in a same plane with strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines (fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al, US-9905938-B2 (hereinafter So).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the two matching circuits matching the radiating unit with the two coaxial cables comprise open-ended stubs or short-ended stubs.
So suggests wherein the two matching circuits matching the radiating unit with the two coaxial cables comprise open-ended stubs or short-ended stubs (320, 370, fig. 3, col. 5, lines 29-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the short-ended stubs as suggested in So to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of performing fine tuning and impedance matching for the dual-polarized antenna (So, col. 5, lines 29-32) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasani et al, US-20200006861-A1 (hereinafter Kasani).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein one of the two strip lines comprises a middle portion thereof disposed on the bottom surface of the printed circuit board at a middle of a cruciform slot and connected to the strip line by metallized holes made in the printed circuit board.
Kasani suggests wherein one of the two strip lines (14a, 14b, figs. 6A-6B) comprises a middle portion (14b) thereof disposed on the bottom surface of the printed circuit board (para [0066]) at a middle of a cruciform slot (fig. 6a) and connected to the strip line (14a) by metallized holes (PTH) made in the printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a middle portion of the trip line disposed on a bottom surface of the printed circuit board as suggested in Kasani to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of maintain electrical isolation between different signals (Kasani, para [0066]) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al, CN-207602782-U (hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the coupling elements have a shape of strip lines with open ends.
Yu suggests wherein the coupling elements have a shape of strip lines with open ends (313, fig. 2, page 4, para 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the open ends as suggested in Yu to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of performing impedance matching for the dual-polarized antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varnoosfaderani et al, US-20230163486-A1 (hereinafter Varnoosfaderani).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the reflective plate contains a cruciform slot disposed between bottom ends of the support elements.
Varnoosfaderani suggests wherein the reflective plate (24, fig. 1B) contains a cruciform slot (26, fig. 7, para [0117]) disposed between bottom ends of the support elements (210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cruciform slot in the reflective plate as suggested in Varnoosfaderani to the antenna taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of facilitating forming or reworking electrical connections after the antenna assembly (Varnoosfaderani, para [0117]).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Feng et al, CN-111193099-A (hereinafter Feng).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein strip conductors connecting ends of the folded dipoles are tilted from a plane where the strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines are disposed to be directed towards the reflective plate.
Feng suggests wherein strip conductors connecting ends of the dipoles are tilted from a plane where the strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines are disposed (113, fig. 1).
Although Feng does not explicitly disclose the strip conductors connecting ends of the dipoles to be directed towards the reflective plate, the dipoles are disposed on the reflective plate in Aleksandrovich, so when the strip conductors connecting ends bent downward in fig. 1 of Feng, it is implied that it is directed towards the reflective plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the strip conductors connecting ends as suggested in Feng of the folded dipoles taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as claimed for the purpose of improving the radiation performance of the radiating unit (Feng, page 5, para 2).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the arms of the folded dipoles are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines are disposed to be directed towards the reflective plate.
Feng suggests wherein the arms of the folded dipoles are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines are disposed (113, fig. 1).
Although Feng does not explicitly disclose the arms of the dipoles to be directed towards the reflective plate, the dipoles are disposed on the reflective plate in Aleksandrovich, so when the arms of the dipoles bent downward in fig. 1 of Feng, it is implied that it is directed towards the reflective plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the arms of the dipoles taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as suggested in Feng as claimed for the purpose of improving the radiation performance of the radiating unit (Feng, page 5, para 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aleksandrovich in view of Sun as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Emormon, CN-1467874-A.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, the combination of Aleksandrovich and Sun does not disclose wherein the arms of the folded dipoles are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines are disposed to be directed away from the reflective plate.
Emormon suggests wherein the arms of the folded dipoles 21’, 22’, figs. 2, 3) are tilted at 30-90 degrees from a plane where the strip conductors forming the symmetrical lines (40, 44, fig. 1a) are disposed to be directed away from the reflective plate (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tilt the arms of the dipoles taught in Aleksandrovich and Sun as suggested in Emormon as claimed for the purpose of reducing the size of the antenna while still maintaining the antenna’s performance (Emormon, page 2, Technical Field section).
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights