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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicants use the phrase “the radiation beam generated by the array has a second squint angle in the azimuth plane that is less than the first squint angle” (claim 17, lines 13-14) but the metes and bounds of this language are unclear. It is vague and indefinite to the examiner, that is, the beam is generated by the column having a first squint angle (claim 17, lines 7-8) wherein the column having first radiating elements (claim 17, line 4) and a second radiating element (claim 17, line 9), and the beam is also generated by the array (claim 17, line 12) wherein the array comprising the column formed by first radiating elements (claim 17, line 4) and the second radiating element (claim 17, line 9). Therefore, it is unclear how the beam generated by the array or the column both having same radiating elements (i.e., first second radiating elements and the second radiating element) can have different squint angle in the azimuth plane?
Appropriate correction and/or clarification are required.
Claims 18-20 are also rejected because claims 18-20 are depended on the rejected claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Wu et al. (US 12438279), Wan et al. (US 11417944), Kasani et al. (US 11056773), Barker et al. (US 10651568), and Bryce (US 10270159) teach base station antenna having radiators arranged in column.
However, none of prior art teaches a base station antenna comprising
wherein a first radiating element in the second column of radiating elements is coupled to the first RF port via the power coupling circuit, and the phase of the RF signal fed to the first radiating element in the second column of radiating elements is not advanced as compared to the phase of the RF signal fed to the first radiating element in the first column of radiating elements, and wherein a second radiating element in the first column of radiating elements is coupled to the second RF port via the power coupling circuit, and the phase of the RF signal fed to the second radiating element in the first column of radiating elements is not advanced as compared to the phase of the RF signal fed to the second radiating element in the second column of radiating elements as set forth in the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Additional Remarks
The lack of an art rejection with this Office action is not an indication of allowable subject matter (i.e., even though the claim 17 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed above). The disclosure/claimed language is such that it is impractical to conduct a reasonable search of the prior art by the Examiner.
Conclusion
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