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 .
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 1-8 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without “a first antenna module; a communication base configured for the first antenna module to be disposed; a heat dissipation structure disposed below the communication base; a second antenna module disposed below the first antenna module and disposed on one side of the heat dissipation structure, wherein a first distance is between the second antenna module and the first antenna module, and a second distance is between the second antenna module and the heat dissipation structure; and a connection structure having an extension direction, the connection structure being configured to detachably connect the second antenna module and the communication base along the extension direction”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The Applicant’s specification as filed always describes the “connection structure” within the context of connecting two “antenna modules” to each other within a “communication base” with “a heat dissipation structure”. The “connection structure” has no utility by itself without the elements to be connected and the specification describes it as such.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN107634308A).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses a connection structure (i.e. fixing block 40) having an extension direction, comprising:
a fitting part (i.e. second fixing frame 42) comprising two joint surfaces;
a fixing part (i.e. first fixing frame 41) comprising a surface; and
a turning part (i.e. connecting block 43) connected between the fitting part and the fixing part, and the turning part being inclined relative to the fitting part and the fixing part;
wherein one of the two joint surfaces of the fitting part faces a same direction as the surface of the fixing part, and an offset distance is between the one of the two joint surfaces and the surface along a direction vertical to the extension direction (i.e. as shown in Fig. 3) (Fig. 1-3 & 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0030-0042)
Regarding Claim 2, Huang discloses that the turning part (i.e. connecting block 43) is inclined at a first angle relative to the fitting part (i.e. second fixing frame 42) towards the fixing part (i.e. first fixing frame 41), and is inclined at a second angle relative to the fixing part towards the fitting part (Fig. 3). Connecting block 43 has a zigzag shape which has an angle relative to the second fixing frame 42 and another angle relative to the first fixing frame 41.
Regarding Claim 4, Huang discloses that the fixing part (i.e. first fixing frame 41) further comprises:
a fixing surface (i.e. central surface between holes as shown in Fig. 3) relative to the surface; and
two retaining walls (i.e. two opposing parts of first fixing frame 41 that are outward from the holes shown Fig. 3) respectively connected to two ends of the fixing surface, and respectively forming an accommodating groove (i.e. holes as shown in Fig. 3) with the fixing surface (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0032-0034).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang discloses that the fixing part further comprises:
at least one hook (i.e. snap-fit structure which attaches shielding cover 50) disposed on the fixing surface and between the two retaining walls (Fig. 3-4; Paragraphs 0018, 0041).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang discloses that the surface is parallel to the two joint surfaces (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0032-0034).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses that the fitting part further comprises:
two engagement portions (i.e. fixing holes 421) connected to an end of the two joint surfaces away from the turning part; and
at least one restrictive portion (i.e. surface between fixing holes 421) connected to at least one of the two joint surfaces, and adjacent to at least one of the two engagement portions (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses that the connection structure is in a shape of lightning (i.e. zigzag shape) (Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0010-0011, 0032-0033, 0039).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang discloses a connection structure (i.e. fixing block 40) having an extension direction, comprising:
a fitting part (i.e. second fixing frame 42) comprising two joint surfaces;
a fixing part (i.e. first fixing frame 41) comprising a surface; and
a turning part (i.e. connecting block 43) connected between the fitting part and the fixing part, and the turning part being inclined relative to the fitting part and the fixing part;
wherein one of the two joint surfaces of the fitting part faces a same direction as the surface of the fixing part, and an offset distance is between the one of the two joint surfaces and the surface along a direction vertical to the extension direction (i.e. as shown in Fig. 3);
wherein the fitting part further comprises:
two engagement portions (i.e. fixing holes 421) connected to an end of the two joint surfaces away from the turning part; and
at least one restrictive portion (i.e. surface between fixing holes 421) connected to at least one of the two joint surfaces, and adjacent to at least one of the two engagement portions (Fig. 1-3 & 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0030-0042).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN107634308A).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang does not explicitly disclose that the first angle is equal to the second angle.
Huang is silent on the specific angles of the zigzag shape of connecting block 43, but selecting these angles and making them equal is merely a design choice that is obvious to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first angle is equal to the second angle, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 contains all the limitations regarding the connection structure of Claim 1 and said limitations are anticipated by Huang. However, Huang fails to teach the limitations which require a first antenna module, a second antenna module, a communication base, and a heat dissipation structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Huang does not disclose the invention as claimed, specifically the limitation requiring that "an offset distance is between the one of the two joint surfaces and the surface along a direction vertical to the extension direction". The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has further addressed and rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as not including subject matter which is essential to the invention, but not included in the claims. Claims 9-19 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they do include said essential subject matter. The Examiner suggests that the claims are amended to include said essential subject matter in order to further prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
