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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi Chemical Co Ltd (JPH05-80012, cited by the applicant, hereby referred as Hitachi) in view of Tayao et al. (US 2018/0198197, hereby referred as Tayao).
Regarding claim 1, Hitachi teaches the following:
a base station comprising:
an antenna substrate (element 7, figures 1-6) configured to emit radio waves;
a case (elements 1, 9, and 10, figures 1-6) provided with a window (element 5, figures 1-6);
a gasket (element 8, figures 1-6);
a radome (element 6, figures 1-6) made of an insulating material and provided at an outer surface of the case so as to cover the window,
wherein the antenna substrate has an antenna (element 7a, figures 1-6) formed on a front surface thereof,
the antenna is exposed on the outside of the case through the window (as shown in figures 1-6),
the gasket surrounds the window (as shown in figures 1-6),
the front surface of the antenna substrate and an inner surface of the case pinch the gasket (as shown in figures 1-6, the front surface of antenna substrate 7, a surface of a flange 14, and a stiffener 4 are on one side of the gasket, and the case is on other side of the gasket 8, and together they pinch the gasket to form the waterproofing seal of the window 5),
the base station further comprising a stiffener (element 4, figures 1-6) on a rear surface of the antenna substrate, the stiffener extending along the gasket (as shown in figures 1-6),
the radome has a top part facing the front surface of the antenna substrate, and a side part extending between the top part and the outer surface of the case (as shown in figures 1-6).
Hitachi does not teach the radome has a plurality of ducts on the side part of the radome.
Tayao suggests the teachings of base station antenna comprising a radome (element 103, figure 18) having a top part, and a side part extending between the top part and the outer surface of the case (element 106, figure 18), that has a plurality of ducts (elements 104, 105, and 410, figure 18) on the side part of the radome.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the radome of Hitachi to include a plurality of ducts on each side part of the radome as suggested by the teachings of Tayao in order to allow the intake of cooling air and exhaust of hot air, and to direct cooling air over certain areas of the base station (paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 2, Hitachi as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna substrate (element 7, figures 1-6) has a coating (element 17’, figures 1-6) formed on the front surface thereof, and
the coating serves to make the front surface of the antenna substrate, including the surface of the antenna, waterproof (the coating 17’ in conjunction with the gasket would make the surface of the antenna substrate waterproof).
Regarding claim 4, Hitachi as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the stiffener (element 4, figures 1-5) is integrally formed with the antenna substrate or is formed separate from the antenna substrate (as shown in figures 1-5, the stiffener is formed separate from the antenna substrate 7).
Regarding claim 5, Hitachi as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the case (elements 1, 9, and 10, figures 1-6) includes a box-shaped housing (element 1, figures 1-6) and a cover (elements 9 or 10, figures 1-6) that serves as a lid for the housing.
Hitachi does not explicitly teach the cover is provided with the window.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the window of Hitachi to be in the cover instead of the box-shaped housing as this is a design choice which may be used to ease the manufacturing process of creating the window since creating the cover with a window may be easier than creating a window in the box-shaped housing since the cover is just a single piece aluminum vs having to cut a window in a box-shaped housing, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, Hitachi as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
a method for emitting radio waves using the base station as claimed in claim 1 (as explained in claim 1), comprising emitting the radio waves from the antenna while having the surface of the antenna exposed to the outside air (as shown in figures 1-5, there is spaced filled with air above the antenna 7a which is covered by the radome 6).
Hitachi does not teach whereby heat generated due to emission of the radio waves is released from the surface of the antenna to the outside air.
Tayao suggests the teachings of whereby heat generated due to emission of the radio waves is released from the surface of the antenna to the outside air (using elements 104, 105, and 410, figure 18, paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have heat generated due to emission of the radio waves of Hitachi to be released from the surface of the antenna to the outside air as suggested by the teachings of Tayao in order exhaust the hot air created from the antennas and its components and cool the base station (paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hitachi and Tayao as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein, among the top part and the side part of the radome, the plurality of ducts (Tayao, elements 104, 105, and 410, figure 18) are only on the side part of the radome (as shown in figure 18).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hitachi and Tayao as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a plane of the side part intersects a plane of the top part such that an edge is defined between the top part and the side part (Tayao, as shown in figure 18).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hitachi and Tayao as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the side part comprises an upper side part (Tayao, where elements 105 are placed, figure 18), a lower side part (Tayao, where elements 104 are placed, figure 18), a left side part (Tayao, where elements 410 on the left are placed, figure 18), and a right side part (Tayao, where elements 410 on the right are placed, figure 18), each extending between a side of the top part and the outer surface of the case in a plane that intersects a plane of the top part such that an edge is defined between the top part and each side part (Tayao, as shown in figure 18), and wherein the upper side part, the lower side part, the left side part, and the right side part each comprise at least one duct (Tayao, elements 104, 105, and 410, figure 18).
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Toyao et al. (US 2018/0358710), Kosaka et al. (US 2021/0328335), Kosaka (US 2019/0036225), Kosaka et al. (US 2020/0021005), Touchet et al. (US 2022/0123459), Hoganson (US 2021/0313665), Lockwood et al. (US 2023/0058787), Gonsowski et al. (US 2018/0108978), all teach radomes with air ducts and may be used instead of Tayao to reject the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845