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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 25 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner appreciates the time and effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case. However, the amendments have not placed this application in condition for allowance.
In addition to claim 15, the Applicant argues in page 4 that the Huang does not describe “a shield conductor that is connected to a support stalk…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. All coaxial cable must be provided with shield conductor acting as ground connection and surrounding the center conductor often separated by an insulator for maintaining the cable's characteristic impedance and protecting the signal from electromagnetic interference (EMI).
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollmer et al. (US 20230395998).
Vollmer et al. disclose;
Regarding claim 25:
(in Figs. 2A and 2B) a box dipole radiating element (1), comprising: first through fourth pairs of support stalks (9); and a box-shaped radiator (4) attached to the first through fourth pairs of support stalks (9), wherein each pair of support stalks (9) comprises a first support stalk (9a) and a second support stalk (9b), the first support stalk (9a) comprising two generally L-shaped bends (defined by e.g. along 9a2 and 7a; See Figs.), and the second support stalk (9b) comprising two generally L-shaped bends (defined by e.g. along 9a2 and 7a; See Figs.).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer et al. (US 20230395998) in view Hojjat et al. (US 20170358870).
Regarding claim 1:
Vollmer et al. disclose (in Figs. 2A-2B, 6A-6C and 7A-7B) a box dipole radiating element (1), comprising: first through fourth pair support stalk (9); and a box-shaped radiator (4) attached to the at least one support stalk (9), said box-shaped radiator (4) having first through fourth sides (4a-4d) comprising respective first through fourth radiating arms (defined by 4a-4d) wherein the first through fourth radiating arms (defined by 4a-4d) extend in respective first through fourth planes (See Figs.), where the first plane (along 4a) is parallel to the third plane (along 4c), the second plane (along 4b) is parallel to the fourth plane (along 4d), and the first plane (along 4a) is perpendicular to the second plane (along 4b), and a feed cable (12) mounted to the first pair of support stalks (9).
Vollmer et al. are silent on that the feed cable is coaxial cable such that a center conductor within the coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to a first one of the support stalks in the first pair and a shield conductor within the coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to a second one of the support stalks in the first pair.
Hojjat et al. disclose (in Fig. 8) the feed cable is coaxial cable such that a center conductor (defined by 50) within the coaxial feed cable (See Fig.) is electrically connected to a first one of the support stalks (along 40B) in the first pair (40A, 40B) and a shield conductor within the coaxial feed cable (See Fig.) is electrically connected to a second one of the support stalks (along 40B) in the first pair (40A, 40B).
PNG
media_image2.png
344
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feed cable is coaxial cable such that a center conductor within the coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to a first one of the support stalks in the first pair and a shield conductor within the coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to a second one of the support stalks in the first pairs as taught by Hojjat et at. Into the device of Vollmer et al. for the benefit of obtaining a dual omnidirectional antenna that is physically compact and can be used in small MIMO systems along with vertical omnidirectional antennas (See Abstract) for increased the data capacity of wireless networks (Para. 0004, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 8:
Vollmer et al. disclose the first radiating arm (4a) has a first end electrically coupled to a first one (9a) of the support stalks (9) in the first pair (9a, 9b), and a second end electrically coupled to a second one (9b) of the support stalks (9) in the second pair (9a, 9b); wherein the second radiating arm (4b) has a first end electrically coupled to a first one (9a) of the support stalks (9) in the second pair (9a, 9b), and a second end electrically coupled to a second one (9b) of the support stalks (9) in the third pair (9a, 9b); wherein the third radiating arm (4c) has a first end electrically coupled to a first one (9a) of the support stalks (9) in the third pair (9a, 9b), and a second end electrically coupled to a second one (9b) of the support stalks in the fourth pair (9a, 9b); and wherein the fourth radiating arm (4d) has a first end electrically coupled to a first one (9a) of the support stalks (9) in the fourth pair (9a, 9b), and a second end electrically coupled to a second one (9b) of the support stalks in the first pair (9a, 9b), and wherein the first through fourth pairs of support stalks (9) are integrally connected to an electrically conductive support stalk base (21).
Regarding claim 12:
Vollmer et al. disclose the first end of the first radiating arm (4a) is galvanically connected to the first one of the support stalks (9a) in the first pair (9; Para. 0112, Lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 13:
Vollmer et al. disclose the first end of the first radiating arm (4a) is capacitively coupled to the first one of the support stalks (9a) in the first pair (9; Para. 0112, Lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 14:
Vollmer et al. disclose an inner surface of the first radiating arm (4a) faces an inner surface of the third radiating arm (4c), and an inner surface of the second radiating arm (4b) faces an inner surface of the fourth radiating arm (4d).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer et al. (US 20230395998) in view Hojjat et al. (US 20170358870) as applied to claims 1, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20220376394).
Regarding claim 15:
Vollmer as modified are silent on that a second coaxial feed cable mounted to the second pair of support stalks, such that a center conductor within the second coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks within the second pair and a shield conductor within the second coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the second pair; a third coaxial feed cable mounted to the third pair of support stalks, such that a center conductor within the third coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks within the third pair and a shield conductor within the third coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the third pair; and a fourth coaxial feed cable mounted to the fourth pair of support stalks, such that a center conductor within the fourth coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks within the fourth pair and a shield conductor within the fourth coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the fourth pair.
Huang et al. disclose (in Figs. 2-4, and annotated Figure 2 below) a second coaxial feed cable (4) mounted to the second pair of support stalks (2), such that a center conductor (see annotated Fig. 2 below) within the second coaxial feed cable (4) is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks (accommodating the coax) within the second pair (2) and a shield conductor (see Fig. 3 shield in groove 10) within the second coaxial feed cable (4) is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the second pair; a third coaxial feed cable (4) mounted to the third pair of support stalks (2), such that a center conductor (see annotated Fig. 2 below) within the third coaxial feed cable (4) is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks (accommodating the coax) within the third pair (2) and a shield conductor (see Fig. 3 shield in groove 10) within the third coaxial feed cable (4) is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the third pair; and a fourth coaxial feed cable (4) mounted to the fourth pair of support stalks (2), such that a center conductor (see annotated Fig. 2 below) within the fourth coaxial feed cable (4) is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks (accommodating the coax) within the fourth pair (2) and a shield conductor (see Fig. 3 shield in groove 10) within the fourth coaxial feed cable (4) is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the fourth pair.
PNG
media_image3.png
208
345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a second coaxial feed cable mounted to the second pair of support stalks, such that a center conductor within the second coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks within the second pair and a shield conductor within the second coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the second pair; a third coaxial feed cable mounted to the third pair of support stalks, such that a center conductor within the third coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks within the third pair and a shield conductor within the third coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the third pair; and a fourth coaxial feed cable mounted to the fourth pair of support stalks, such that a center conductor within the fourth coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the first one of the support stalks within the fourth pair and a shield conductor within the fourth coaxial feed cable is electrically connected to the second one of the support stalks within the fourth pair as taught by Huang into the modified device of Sun for the benefit of achieving a pair of antennas composed of multiple dual-polarized radiation units, a large number of coaxial cables are reduced, so that the layout of the back side of the reflector is greatly optimized, and the back side of the reflector is more concise (Para. 0066, Lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 16:
Vollmer et al. are silent on that the first coaxial feed cable is mounted to the second one of the support stalks within the first pair, adjacent a generally L-shaped bend therein, wherein the generally L-shaped bend comprises a bend that is around 90°.
Hojjat et al. disclose the first coaxial feed cable (See Fig.) is mounted to the second one of the support stalks (along 40B) within the first pair (40A, 40B), adjacent a generally L-shaped bend therein (See Fig.), wherein the generally L-shaped bend comprises a bend that is around 90° (See Fig.; Para. 0042, Lines 2-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first coaxial feed cable is mounted to the second one of the support stalks within the first pair, adjacent a generally L-shaped bend therein, wherein the generally L-shaped bend comprises a bend that is around 90° as taught by Hojjat et at. Into the device of Vollmer et al. for the benefit of obtaining a dual omnidirectional antenna that is physically compact and can be used in small MIMO systems along with vertical omnidirectional antennas (See Abstract) for increased the data capacity of wireless networks (Para. 0004, Lines 1-3).
Claims 26-27 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer et al. (US 20230395998) in view Sun et al. (US 20230361475).
Regarding claim 26:
Vollmer et al. disclose the box-shaped radiator (4) has first through fourth sides (4a-4d) comprising respective first through fourth radiating arms (defined by 4a-4d).
Vollmer et al. are silent on that the first through fourth radiating arms are configured to provide generally serpentine-shaped paths for radiation currents.
Sun et al. disclose the first through fourth radiating arms (32a-32d) are configured to provide generally serpentine-shaped paths for radiation currents (See Figs. 3A and 3B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first through fourth radiating arms are configured to provide generally serpentine-shaped paths for radiation currents as taught by Sun et al. into the device of Vollmer et al. for the benefit of maintaining sufficient electrical length of the radiating arms, and further contribute to a reduction in overall size of the box dipole radiating element (Para. 0010, Lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 27:
Vollmer et al. disclose the first through fourth radiating arms (defined by 4a-4d) extend in respective first through fourth planes (See Figs.), where the first plane is parallel to the third plane, the second plane is parallel to the fourth plane, and the first plane is perpendicular to the second plane (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 31:
Vollmer et al. disclose (in Figs. 2A and 2B) a box dipole radiating element (1), comprising: at least one pair of support stalks (9); and a box-shaped radiator (4) attached to the at least one pair of support stalks (9), the box-shaped radiator (4) having first through fourth sides (4a-4d) comprising respective first through fourth radiating arms (defined by 4a-4d).
Vollmer et al. are silent on that the first through fourth radiating arms that are configured to provide generally serpentine-shaped paths for radiation currents in first through fourth planes, wherein the generally serpentine-shaped paths in the radiating arms have a repeating periodic shape, wherein the generally serpentine-shaped paths comprise a plurality of forward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs and a plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs.
Sun et al. disclose (in Figs. 3A and 3B) the first through fourth radiating arms (32a-32d) that are configured to provide generally serpentine-shaped paths (along 34a and 34b) for radiation currents in first through fourth planes (See Figs.), wherein the generally serpentine-shaped paths (along 34a and 34b) in the radiating arms (32a-32d) have a repeating periodic shape (See Figs.), wherein the generally serpentine-shaped paths (along 34a and 34b) comprise a plurality of forward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs (34a) and a plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs (34b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first through fourth radiating arms that are configured to provide generally serpentine-shaped paths for radiation currents in first through fourth planes, wherein the generally serpentine-shaped paths in the radiating arms have a repeating periodic shape, wherein the generally serpentine-shaped paths comprise a plurality of forward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs and a plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs as taught by Sun et al. into the device of Vollmer et al. for the benefit of maintaining sufficient electrical length of the radiating arms, and further contribute to a reduction in overall size of the box dipole radiating element (Para. 0010, Lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 32:
Vollmer et al. are silent on that the plurality of forward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs, and the plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs.
Sun et al. disclose the plurality of forward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs (34a) comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs, and the plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs (34b) comprises at least two generally T-shaped stubs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to implement the plurality of forward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs, and the plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs as taught by Sun et al. into the device of Vollmer et al. for the benefit of maintaining sufficient electrical length of the radiating arms, and further contribute to a reduction in overall size of the box dipole radiating element (Para. 0010, Lines 6-8).
Vollmer as modified are silent on that the plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement the the plurality of rearward-projecting generally T-shaped stubs comprises at least three generally T-shaped stubs to the benefit of maintaining sufficient electrical length of the radiating arms, and thereby contribute to a reduction in overall size of the box dipole radiating element especially since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component to achieve a targeted response and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 33:
Vollmer et al. disclose an inner surface of the first radiating arm (4a) faces an inner surface of the third radiating arm (4c), and an inner surface of the second radiating arm (4b) faces an inner surface of the fourth radiating arm (4d).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer et al. (US 20230395998) in view Sun et al. (US 20230361475), as applied to claim 25 and further in view of Varnoosfaderani (US 20220181795).
Regarding claim 28:
Vollmer as modified are silent on that the first and second support stalks in the first pair of support stalks each comprises a first portions extending in a fifth plane, a second portion extending in a sixth plane that is parallel to the fifth plane, and a third portion that extends in a seventh plane that is perpendicular to the fifth and sixth planes.
Varnoosfaderani discloses (in Figs. 3A-3C) the first and second support stalks in the first pair of support stalks (34, 35) each comprises a first portions (defined by the portion coupled to 32) extending in a fifth plane (horizontally; See Figs.), a second portion (34) extending in a sixth plane (horizontally; See Figs.) that is parallel to the fifth plane (see Figs.), and a third portion (35) that extends in a seventh plane (vertically; See Figs.) that is perpendicular to the fifth and sixth planes (horizontally).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first and second support stalks in the first pair of support stalks each comprises a first portions extending in a fifth plane, a second portion extending in a sixth plane that is parallel to the fifth plane, and a third portion that extends in a seventh plane that is perpendicular to the fifth and sixth planes as taught by Varnoosfaderani into modified device of Vollmer for the benefit of providing compact and reduced cost antennas (Para. 0004, Lines 4-8).
Regarding claims 29 and 30:
Vollmer as modified are silent on that the fifth and sixth planes intersects the first plane at a 45° angle as required by claim 29; and the fifth and sixth planes intersects the second plane at a -45° angle as required by claim 30.
Varnoosfaderani disclose the first and second support stalks in the first pair of support stalks are slanted to the box dipole radiating element (Para. 0010, Lines 5-10).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to set the slanting stalks having portions in the fifth and sixth planes intersects the first plane at a 45° or the second plane at a -45° to shape the antenna system as compact with reduced cost (Para. 0004, Lines 4-8).
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 BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights