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
This office action is responsive to the applicant's amendment submitted on 11/17/2025. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 11-18 are newly added. Thus, claims 1-18 are currently pending in the instant application.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN 111541010 A, with English translation attached) in view of Xia (CN 214254715 U, with English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses an antenna vibrator (which is a 5G low profile dual polarization radiation unit comprises a radiator and a balun set at the bottom of the radiator comprising vibrators with orthogonal polarizations, see fig. 1-5), comprises:
a radiation board (31), wherein the radiation board (31) is polygonal (see fig. 2-4), a part of the radiation board (31) bends downwards to form a plurality of supporting portions (41) and a plurality of leaks (311), (each radiation arm 31 has a hollow hole 311, the hollow hole 311 is convenient to punch forming the supporting piece 41; and each supporting piece 41 corresponding to a radiating arm 31, each supporting piece 41 of the top end is connected to the corresponding radiating arm 31 of the hollow hole 311 close to the radiating centre of one end inner wall, see fig. 3, paragraph [0031]);
a plurality of corners of the radiation board (31) bend downwards to form a plurality of bending portions (32), (the outer side of each radiation arm 31, i.e., one side of the radiation arm 31 far away from the radiator center, is bent downwards to form a bending part 32, see fig. 2-3, paragraph [0036] and [0037]), and each of the bending portions extends to both sides to form two extending portions (which is the bending part 32 comprises a first rectangular part 32a, a second rectangular part 32c and connected between the first rectangular part 32a and the second rectangular part 32c of the inverted right part 32b, see fig. 2-3, paragraph [0037]).
Shen does not explicitly disclose wherein each extending portion is hollowed out at a distance from a corresponding bending portion to form a gap with the radiation board.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xia, on the other hand, discloses a radiation unit is integrally formed structure. In one embodiment, combined with fig. 4 or fig. 4 marked-up above, between two adjacent radiating arm 11 of the radiating unit 10 is provided with an isolation slot 18, the isolation slot 18 and the edge 13 of the two radiation arms 11 are arranged in parallel, the isolation slot 18 is set in the middle of two radiation arms 11. The isolation slot 18 is further provided with an opening on the corresponding edge 13, the opening is the same as the extending direction of the separation slot 17 between the two radiation arms 11, so that the isolation slot 18 to form an open structure (see fig. 4 or fig. 4 marked-up above, and paragraph [0058]).
The modification allows an isolation groove or isolation slot is provided between two adjacent radiation arms; the isolation groove or isolation slot is arranged parallel to the edge between the two radiating arms, and an opening communicating with the isolation groove or isolation slot is provided on the edge to form an open structure (see paragraph [0017] by Xia).
Regarding claims 2-4, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna vibrator according to claim 1, wherein the extending portion extends along the edge of the radiation board (see fig. 4 by Xia); and wherein the radiation board (10) is square (see fig. 4 by Xia).
Shen in view of Xia does not explicitly disclose the length of the extending portion is equal to or greater than 0.05 center frequency wavelengths and is equal to or less than 0.09 center frequency wavelengths, and the height of the extending portion is equal to or less than 0.06 center frequency wavelengths; the length of the gap is greater than or equal to 0.03 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.07 center frequency wavelengths; and the side length of the radiation board is greater than or equal to 0.3 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.4 center frequency wavelengths.
However, Shen in view of Xia discloses the section shape of the radiator is square, rectangular, circular or elliptical (see paragraph [0013]). Shen further discloses the height value of the support member is mainly determined by the size of the shape and size of the radiation surface of the radiator (see paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the dimensions of the antenna vibrator as taught by Shen in view of Xia having the length of the extending portion is equal to or greater than 0.05 center frequency wavelengths and is equal to or less than 0.09 center frequency wavelengths, and the height of the extending portion is equal to or less than 0.06 center frequency wavelengths; the length of the gap is greater than or equal to 0.03 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.07 center frequency wavelengths; and the side length of the radiation board is greater than or equal to 0.3 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.4 center frequency wavelengths, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that is modifying the antenna elements, are discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; therefore an obvious expedient, which is also considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied which depend on the size of the shape and size of the radiation surface of the antenna.
Furthermore, 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)”.
Regarding claim 5, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna vibrator according to claim 1, wherein the supporting portion (41) is bent downwards along the inner edge of the leak (311), (see fig. 3 by Shen).
Regarding claim 6, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna vibrator according to claim 1, wherein a lower end of the support portion is bent to form a connecting portion (Xia discloses the radiation unit 10 is provided with four feeding pins 14, the four feeding pins 14 corresponding respectively the radiation unit 10 of the four radiating arms 11 the end of the feeding pin 14 connected to the edge of the recessed groove 16 is bent into a feeding plate 141 parallel to the recessed groove 16 to facilitate electrical connection; the end of the feeding pin 14 connected to the external feeding end is bent into a mounting plate142 parallel to the radiation surface of the radiation unit 10 to facilitate the feeding pin 14 to be supported on the external feeding end (see fig. 2, paragraph [0059]). Xia further discloses The radiation unit 10 is electrically connected to the differential feeding network 20 through the mounting pieces142 of its four feeding pins 14 (see paragraph [0066] by Xia).
Regarding claim 7, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna vibrator according to claim 6, wherein the connecting portion is provided with a chamfer (see paragraph [0037] by Shen).
Regarding claim 8, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna vibrator according to claim 1, wherein the height of the supporting portion is greater than or equal to 0.06 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.12 center frequency wavelengths (see paragraph [0012], [0018] and [0035] by Shen).
Regarding claim 9, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna vibrator according to claim 1, wherein the leak (311) is rectangular (see fig. 2 and 3, paragraph [0039] by Shen).
Shen in view of Xia does not explicitly disclose the length of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.08 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.14 center frequency wavelengths, and the width of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.005 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.045 center frequency wavelengths.
However, Shen does further discloses that “the cross-sectional shape of the hollow hole 311 can be set according to actual conditions, see paragraph [0039]”. Also, both the Shen antenna vibrator and the antenna vibrator of the instant application are designed for use in a 5G base station (see title).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify antenna vibrator as taught by Shen in view of Xia having the length of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.08 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.14 center frequency wavelengths, and the width of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.005 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.045 center frequency wavelengths, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that is modifying the antenna elements, are discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; therefore an obvious expedient.
Furthermore, 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)”.
Regarding claim 10, Shen in view of Xia discloses an antenna, comprises: an antenna vibrator of claim 1 (see 1-5 by Shen); and a feeding piece (20), wherein the feeding piece (20) is electrically connected to the supporting portion (41) of the antenna vibrator (31), (which is the bottom end of each support member 41 is disposed on the front surface of the feeder 20 and connected to the feeding circuit of the feeder 20 , thereby feeding the corresponding radiation arm 31, see fig. 1-5, paragraph [0031] by Shen).
Regarding claims 11-13, Shen discloses the antenna according to claim 10, wherein the extending portion extends along the edge of the radiation board (see fig. 4 by Xia); and wherein the radiation board (10) is square (see fig. 4 by Xia).
Shen in view of Xia does not explicitly disclose the length of the extending portion is equal to or greater than 0.05 center frequency wavelengths and is equal to or less than 0.09 center frequency wavelengths, and the height of the extending portion is equal to or less than 0.06 center frequency wavelengths; the length of the gap is greater than or equal to 0.03 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.07 center frequency wavelengths; and the side length of the radiation board is greater than or equal to 0.3 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.4 center frequency wavelengths.
However, Shen in view of Xia discloses the section shape of the radiator is square, rectangular, circular or elliptical (see paragraph [0013]). Shen further discloses the height value of the support member is mainly determined by the size of the shape and size of the radiation surface of the radiator (see paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the dimensions of the antenna vibrator as taught by Shen in view of Xia having the length of the extending portion is equal to or greater than 0.05 center frequency wavelengths and is equal to or less than 0.09 center frequency wavelengths, and the height of the extending portion is equal to or less than 0.06 center frequency wavelengths; the length of the gap is greater than or equal to 0.03 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.07 center frequency wavelengths; and the side length of the radiation board is greater than or equal to 0.3 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.4 center frequency wavelengths, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that is modifying the antenna elements, are discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; therefore an obvious expedient, which is also considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied which depend on the size of the shape and size of the radiation surface of the antenna.
Furthermore, 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)”.
Regarding claim 14, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna according to claim 10, wherein the supporting portion (41) is bent downwards along the inner edge of the leak (311), (see fig. 3 by Shen).
Regarding claim 15, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna according to claim 10, wherein a lower end of the support portion is bent to form a connecting portion (Xia discloses the radiation unit 10 is provided with four feeding pins 14, the four feeding pins 14 corresponding respectively the radiation unit 10 of the four radiating arms 11 the end of the feeding pin 14 connected to the edge of the recessed groove 16 is bent into a feeding plate 141 parallel to the recessed groove 16 to facilitate electrical connection; the end of the feeding pin 14 connected to the external feeding end is bent into a mounting plate142 parallel to the radiation surface of the radiation unit 10 to facilitate the feeding pin 14 to be supported on the external feeding end (see fig. 2, paragraph [0059]). Xia further discloses The radiation unit 10 is electrically connected to the differential feeding network 20 through the mounting pieces142 of its four feeding pins 14 (see paragraph [0066] by Xia).
Regarding claim 16, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna according to claim 15, wherein the connecting portion is provided with a chamfer (see paragraph [0037] by Shen).
Regarding claim 17, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna according to claim 10, wherein the height of the supporting portion is greater than or equal to 0.06 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.12 center frequency wavelengths (see paragraph [0012], [0018] and [0035] by Shen).
Regarding claim 18, Shen in view of Xia discloses the antenna according to claim 10, wherein the leak (311) is rectangular (see fig. 2 and 3, paragraph [0039] by Shen).
Shen in view of Xia does not explicitly disclose the length of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.08 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.14 center frequency wavelengths, and the width of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.005 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.045 center frequency wavelengths.
However, Shen does further discloses that “the cross-sectional shape of the hollow hole 311 can be set according to actual conditions, see paragraph [0039]”. Also, both the Shen antenna vibrator and the antenna vibrator of the instant application are designed for use in a 5G base station (see title).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify antenna vibrator as taught by Shen in view of Xia having the length of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.08 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.14 center frequency wavelengths, and the width of the leak is greater than or equal to 0.005 center frequency wavelengths and is less than or equal to 0.045 center frequency wavelengths, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that is modifying the antenna elements, are discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; therefore an obvious expedient.
Furthermore, 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)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844 01/27/2026