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 correspondence is in response to Applicant’s Reply filed on 1/21/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN MADE FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent App. No. 2016/0312943 to Yang (Yang).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
545
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Yang discloses a bracket structure, comprising: a body (See Annotated Fig. A); two retaining walls (See Annotated Fig. A) respectively connected to two ends of the body and respectively forming an accommodating groove (See Annotated Fig. A) with the body, and a virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B) being extended between the two accommodating grooves; at least one first stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) disposed on the body and protruding from the body towards the virtual connection line; and at least one second stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) disposed on at least one of the two retaining walls, and protruding from the at least one of the two retaining walls towards the virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B), and the at least one first stop part and the at least one second stop part separated by a clamping space (See Annotated Fig. B) in a direction; wherein the direction is perpendicular to the virtual connection line, where the at least one first stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) and the at least one second stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) exert forces from opposite directions on a plate extending along the virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B).
Regarding Claim 6: Yang discloses a bracket structure according to claim 1, further comprising: a piece (See Annotated Fig. B) connected to the at least one first stop part (See Annotated Fig. B), and protruding from the at least one first stop part towards the virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B).
Regarding Claim 8: Yang discloses an antenna fixing device, comprising: an antenna module (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a substrate (See Annotated Fig. A) having a plate shape (See Annotated Fig. A) and extending along a virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B); and a bracket structure (See Annotated Fig. A) configured to fix the antenna module, comprising: a body (See Annotated Fig. A); two retaining walls (See Annotated Fig. A) respectively connected to two ends of the body and respectively forming an accommodating groove (See Annotated Fig. A) with the body to accommodate the antenna module, and the virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B) being extended between the two accommodating grooves; at least one first stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) disposed on the body and protruding from the body towards the virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B); and at least one second stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) disposed on at least one of the two retaining walls (See Annotated Fig. B) and protruding from the at least one of the two retaining walls towards the virtual connection line, and the at least one first stop part and the at least one second stop part separated by a clamping space (See Annotated Fig. B) in a direction; wherein the direction is perpendicular to the virtual connection line (See Annotated Fig. B), and the at least one first stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) and the at least one second stop part (See Annotated Fig. B) clamp the substrate (See Annotated Fig. A) from opposite directions towards the clamping space to tighten the antenna module.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding Claim 7: Yang discloses the piece and the retaining walls as both having different heights (See Annotated Fig. B) and therefore Yang discloses some unspecified height to height ratio. However, Yang is silent regarding the specific height to height ratio being between 0.2 and 0.8. Nonetheless, the specifically claimed ratio is not patentably distinct over the prior art and is an obvious matter of design choice. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”1 Here, Yang discloses a bracket that has some undefined height to height ratio. Applicant has not disclosed that having a specific ratio would perform differently than other ratios. Rather, many ratios would all perform essentially the same function.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yang by using a piece height to retaining wall height ratio between 0.2 and 0.8. Such modifications would not cause any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to easily mount and dismount an antenna module to the support.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 9-16 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches a bracket structure that includes at least one hook disposed on the top of the body, a hooking portion and an elastic arm connected to the hooking portion and the body. Nor does any of the prior art teach or disclose the antenna module having a notch and a connection cable connected to the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 2025/0079684.
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 ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Prosecution Insights