DETAILED ACTION
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)(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, 3, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al (US 2020/0321700 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al disclose an antenna array (fig2) comprising: a reflector 214; a plurality of first dipoles disposed on the reflector, the plurality of first dipoles arranged in a plurality of columns (250, fig2B, para51); a plurality of second dipoles 230 disposed on the reflector, the plurality of second dipoles arranged in a plurality of clusters (fig2A, para46), wherein each of the plurality of first dipoles is configured to radiate in a first frequency band, and each of the plurality of second dipoles is configured to radiate in a second frequency band, wherein the first frequency band is higher in frequency than the second frequency band (para51), wherein the plurality of columns comprises two inner columns 250-2C, 250-3C and two outer columns 250-1C, 250-4C, wherein the two inner columns have more first dipoles than the two outer columns (para61), wherein the two inner columns are spaced apart along a horizontal axis by a first distance and wherein the two outer columns are respectively spaced apart along the horizontal axis from an adjacent one of the two inner columns by a second distance, the second distance being greater than the first distance (fig2B, the outer column distance between 250-1C to 250-4C is greater than inner column distance between 250-2C to 250-3C along the horizontal axis of 204 which is the feed board, para47).
Wu et al also disclose the plurality of clusters comprises two and four clusters (fig2A, para46), wherein the plurality of first dipoles is configured to operate as an 8T8R (Eight Transmit Eight Receive) array (250, fig2A, para46), wherein the plurality of second dipoles is configured to operate as a 4x4 MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) array (230, fig2B, para46), wherein the first frequency band comprises a C-band (para35,78) and wherein the second frequency band comprises a Midband (230 can have a mid-range of 694-960 mhz, para78).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu et al in view of Durham et al (US 2005/0099354 A1) [both cited by applicant].
Wu et al had been discussed but fail to teach each of the inner columns comprises seven first dipoles and each of the outer columns comprises four dipoles. However, Durham et al teach each of the inner columns comprises seven first dipoles and each of the outer columns comprises four dipoles (para70, fig8, any of them can be any number as required). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skilled in the art to provide Wu et al with each of the inner columns comprises seven first dipoles and each of the outer columns comprises four dipoles for the purpose of providing required beamwidth and pattern control.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu et al in view of Hojjat et al (US 2022/0109237 A1) [both cited by applicant].
Regarding claim 11, Wu et al disclose an antenna array (fig2) comprising: a reflector 214; a plurality of first dipoles disposed on the reflector, the plurality of first dipoles arranged in a plurality of columns (250, fig2B, para51); a plurality of second dipoles 230 disposed on the reflector, the plurality of second dipoles arranged in a plurality of clusters (fig2A, para46), wherein each of the plurality of first dipoles is configured to radiate in a first frequency band, and each of the plurality of second dipoles is configured to radiate in a second frequency band, wherein the first frequency band is higher in frequency than the second frequency band (para51), wherein the plurality of columns comprises two inner columns 250-2C, 250-3C and two outer columns 250-1C, 250-4C, wherein the two inner columns have more first dipoles than the two outer columns (para61), wherein the two inner columns are spaced apart along a horizontal axis by a first distance and wherein the two outer columns are respectively spaced apart along the horizontal axis from an adjacent one of the two inner columns by a second distance, the second distance being greater than the first distance (fig2B, the outer column distance between 250-1C to 250-4C is greater than inner column distance between 250-2C to 250-3C along the horizontal axis of 204 which is the feed board, para47). Wu et al had been discussed but fail to teach a quasi-omni antenna comprising each array face of the plurality of array faces is offset in azimuth from each of two adjacent array faces by a same fixed angle. However, Hojjat et al disclose a quasi-omni antenna (figs5-6) comprising each array face of the plurality of array faces is offset in azimuth from each of two adjacent array faces by a same fixed angle (fig5, multiple faces offset from each other, para49). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skilled in the art to provide Wu et al with a quasi-omni antenna comprising each array face of the plurality of array faces is offset in azimuth from each of two adjacent array faces by a same fixed angle for the purpose of improving isolation and beamwidth pattern control.
Claims 12, 14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu et al in view of Hojjat et al and further in view of Shen et al (US 2022/0255236 A1) [all cited by applicant].
Wu et al in view of Hojjat et al had been discussed but fail to teach the plurality of array faces is three and the fixed angle is 120 degrees. However, Shen et al disclose the plurality of array faces is three and the fixed angle is 120 degrees (fig3, para38). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skilled in the art to provide Wu et al with a quasi-omni antenna comprising the plurality of array faces is three and the fixed angle is 120 degrees for the purpose of providing multiple number of channels.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu et al in view of Hojjat et al and Shen et al and further in view of Durham et al (US 2005/0099354 A1) [all cited by applicant].
Wu et al in view of Hojjat et al and Shen et al had been discussed but fail to teach each of the inner columns comprises seven first dipoles and each of the outer columns comprises four dipoles. However, Durham et al teach each of the inner columns comprises seven first dipoles and each of the outer columns comprises four dipoles (para70, fig8, any of them can be any number as required). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skilled in the art to provide Wu et al with each of the inner columns comprises seven first dipoles and each of the outer columns comprises four dipoles for the purpose of providing required beamwidth and pattern control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The patents to Zhu, Wu, Li, Hojjat, Tang and Zimmerman are cited as of interested and illustrated a similar structure to an antenna array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO GIA PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1826. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8-430).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THO G PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845