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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeRudder (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0117369).
DeRudder, in figure 1, discloses:
Claims 1 and 16: A wireless communication system, wherein the wireless communication system comprises a radome (100; ¶[0139]), wherein: the radome comprises a substrate layer (120) and a reinforcement layer (130); the reinforcement layer is formed at least on an inner surface or an outer surface of the substrate layer (fig. 1); and the reinforcement layer comprises a fiber layer and thermoplastic resin attached to the fiber layer (¶[0135]), wherein the fiber layer comprises a first fiber, and a length of the first fiber is greater than or equal to 25 mm (¶[0135]); and the substrate layer comprises thermoplastic resin (¶[0095]), wherein the thermoplastic resin in the reinforcement layer is made of a same material as the thermoplastic resin in the substrate layer (¶[0097]).
DeRudder fails to disclose the radome being a radome of a base station antenna. The reference does, however, disclose the a wide variety of articles that may be made from the disclosed thermoplastic composition, which include exterior housings/enclosures. (¶[0139]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition of DeRudder for a radome of a base station antenna in order to have provided the weatherabilty necessary for exterior housing applications such as base station antenna radomes. (¶[0002])
Claims 2 and 17: wherein the reinforcement layer comprises at least one of a woven fiber prepreg, a unidirectional fiber prepreg, or a fiber felt prepreg (¶[0106]).
Claims 3 and 18: wherein the first fiber comprises at least one of an inorganic fiber and an organic fiber (¶[0106]).
Claims 4 and 19: wherein the inorganic fiber comprises at least one of a glass fiber, a basalt fiber, an andesite fiber, an aluminum silicate fiber, a boron nitride fiber, an alumina fiber, or a quartz fiber (¶[0106]).
Claim 5: wherein the organic fiber comprises at least one of a polypropylene fiber, a polybutylene terephthalate fiber, a polyethylene terephthalate fiber, a poly trimethylene terephthalate fiber, a polyamide fiber, a polyphenylene sulfide fiber, a liquid crystal polymer fiber, a poly-p-phenylene benzobisoxazole fiber, a polybenzimidazole fiber, a polypyridobisinudazole fiber, or a polyimide fiber (¶[0106]).
Claim 10: wherein the thermoplastic resin comprises at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyamide, polyphenyleneoxide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyetherimide, or poly(ether-ether-ketone) (¶[0097]).
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 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeRudder (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0117369).
Claims 6-8 and 15: DeRudder fails to explicitly disclose wherein a gram weight of the first fiber is 200 g/m2 to 1000 g/m2; wherein a thickness of the reinforcement layer is 0.2 mm to 1 mm; wherein a thickness of the substrate layer is 0.5 mm to 2 mm; and wherein a weight ratio of the radome to an antenna system is 1:(10 to 50). However, it was well known to the person of skill in the art that the claimed parameters affect the radiation performance of the antenna. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of DeRubber according to the claimed parameters in order to have optimized the radiation performance of the antenna.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July, 23, 2026, with respect to KUME and Yang have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
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 ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Robert Karacsony/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights