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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of the response filed on March 05, 2026, which has been entered in the file.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hershey et al. (US 2018/0063674, of the record).
Re claim 1: Hershey teaches an antenna system (10) for operating in an industrial environment comprising a plurality of industrial devices, each industrial device being connected to a user equipment (UE) (20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32), the antenna system comprising an antenna (12); and a support for supporting the antenna in an elevated position in relation to ground and facing towards the ground (figs. 1 and 2), wherein the antenna being adapted for generating beams towards the ground for communicating with the UE (paragraphs 0018, 0019) (see figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0017-0027).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey in view of Tran et al. (US 10694399, of the record).
The teachings of Hershey have been discussed above.
Although, Hershey teaches the antenna system having supports, he fairly suggests that the support is drone, air ballon, or floating tool.
However, Tran teaches a cellular antenna system comprising a tower (106) having an antenna mount (113), drones or air ballon, or floating tool (fig. 2K) and a beamformer (150) receiving a baseband symbol (s) serving as a baseband processing component being in communication with the antenna (154) using one of the anchored wires or an optical fiber, of the support or external to the support (fig. 2G) (see figs. 2F, 2G, and 2K; col. 40, lines 41-37; col. 44, lines 45-63; col. 58, lines 21-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Tran to the teachings of Hershey in order to provide improved communication by elevating antennas avoiding obstacles between the antenna and user devices. Also, such modification would improve communication capabilities by steering the beam patterns toward user device using the beamforming device.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey as modified by Crockett et al. (US 2024/0014549, of the record).
The teachings of Hershey have been discussed above.
Although, Hershey teaches the antenna system having supports, he fairly suggests that the support comprising a motion sensor.
However, Crockett teaches a positioning device (100) comprising a motion sensor (112) detecting motion of the antenna (102) (see figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0017-0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Crockett to the teachings of Hershey in order to calculate the composite motion of the antenna.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershey as modified by Tran as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tong et al. (US 2023/0420839, of the record).
The teachings of Hershey/Tran have been discussed above.
Although, Hershey/Tran teaches the antenna system having the baseband (BB) processing component, they fairly suggest that the support comprising an antenna rail.
However, Tong teaches an antenna assembly (20) also serving as a support comprising an antenna rail (22), an antenna (21) being slidable along the antenna rail for shifting the antenna from a first location (fig. 7) to a second location (fig. 8) within the premise (see figs. 3-8; paragraphs 0064-0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Tong to the teachings of Hershey/Tran in order to expand antenna coverage by shifting the antenna.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are allowed.
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of prior art teaches the antenna system further comprises a processor arranged to communicate with at least one motion sensor equipped with the antenna pole and to determine whether there is a motion of the antenna; and while it is determined that there is a motion of the antenna, receive an indication for moving the beams generated by the antenna as set forth in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) each industrial device being connected to a user equipment (UE). When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “UE associated with industrial devices” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “…Hershey fails to teach at least, for example, the feature of “a support for supporting the antenna in an elevated position in relation to ground and facing towards the ground, wherein the antenna being adapted for generating beams towards the ground for communicating with the UE.” as recited in independent claim 1” (see page 8, last paragraph of Remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant wherein Hershey teaches a controller (64) coupled to the antenna (12) and generating beams (16) toward stations (14) such as work desks where the wireless communication units (20) are located as shown in figures 1 and 2. Accordingly, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the teachings of Hershey meet the claimed limitations.
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 SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/SEUNG H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights