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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Ai does not disclose "a straight-line portion and a meandering portion that act as an inductive portion of the inductive capacitive filter," because the interdigitated comb structures 143A, 143B of Ai form series capacitors 142 (Ai, Para. 82) and therefore do not act as an inductive portion. This argument is not persuasive.
Claim 1 now requires only "at least a portion of" the filters to have the recited structure, and requires only an interface "for the antenna assembly." Ai must therefore show the recited structure in at least one filter of each resonator arm, and Ai does so in each unit cell 150 of each EBG structure 140.
The current rejection identifies the narrow trace 146 of each unit cell 150 as the straight-line portion. Ai states that trace 146 has high inductance and functions as an inductor (Ai, Para. 82). Trace 146 is a straight trace joined to the dipole arm extension 160 from which comb structure 143B extends (Ai, FIG. 1B, Para. 82). Applicant's remarks do not address trace 146.
The teeth of comb structures 143A, 143B are interleaved conductors that together follow a winding course (Ai, FIG. 1B, Para. 82). Each tooth is a conductor of finite length and carries current in the propagation direction of the unit cell. That the structure is labeled a capacitor in Ai does not remove its series inductance which Foo evidences. Foo models each series capacitor 114 of a transmission line metamaterial unit cell, including an interdigital finger series capacitor, as a series capacitance 2CL together with a series inductance LR/2 within the same capacitor block (Foo, FIG. 7, element 114; FIGS. 4 and 8B). Foo explains that the right-hand inductance LR is inherent in the finite transmission line length of the unit cell (Foo, Para. 63), that the series resonance of the unit cell is set by LR together with CL (Foo, Para. 65), and that interdigital finger capacitors, having a longer effective length in the propagation direction, tend to have higher LR (Foo, Para. 69). Ai's EBG structure 140 is the same type of structure, namely a reactively loaded transmission line with series capacitors and shunt inductors that employs periodically arranged resonant circuits to suppress a selected frequency range (Ai, Para. 80-81). The inductance of the interleaved teeth therefore takes part in setting the filter response, and acts as part of the inductive portion of the filter together with trace 146.
The Examiner has thus provided a basis in fact and technical reasoning for the inherent characteristic, and the burden shifts to Applicant to show that the interleaved teeth of Ai do not act as recited. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977); MPEP § 2112(IV)-(V). Reliance on Foo as evidence of an inherent characteristic of Ai does not change the basis of the anticipation rejection. See MPEP §§ 2131.01(III) and 2124.
Further, the gap between the interleaved teeth of comb structures 143A, 143B lies within the meandering portion and forms series capacitor 142 (see Ai, Para. 82). This is the same structure Applicant identifies at page 6 of the Remarks as a capacitor, which is what claim 1 requires of the gap.
Finally, to the extent Applicant's position rests on the parallel LC arrangement of FIGS. 1C and 2D, or on a single continuous meandering conductor interrupted by the gap, those features are not recited in claim 1. See MPEP §§ 2111.01(II) and 2145(VI).
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 19 over Ai is therefore maintained, with the mapping restated below with greater specificity and with Foo cited as evidence.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, the amendment introducing "at least a portion of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters" leaves the later recitations of "the inductive capacitive filter" (twice) without a clear singular antecedent. In addition, the final clause "and a gap in the meandering portion acts as a capacitive portion" is grammatically incomplete. Claim 21 repeats "the inductive capacitive filter." The Examiner suggests, for example:
... at least one inductive capacitive filter of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters comprising a straight-line portion and a meandering portion that act as an inductive portion of the at least one inductive capacitive filter, and a gap in the meandering portion that acts as a capacitive portion of the at least one inductive capacitive filter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210305721 A1 (hereinafter “Li”), as at least evidenced by US 20230163486 A1 (hereinafter “Varnoosfaderani”).
Claim 1: Li teaches an antenna assembly comprising: a base portion (e.g., see reflector 318 of base station antenna 300 and the feed network to which feed stalks 410 connect, FIGS. 4A-4B, Para. 91) functioning as an interface for the antenna assembly (e.g., wherein feed stalks 410 mount dipole radiators 420 in front of reflector 318 and pass RF signals between dipole radiators 420 and the feed network of base station antenna 300, Para. 91); a base portion to radiator feed structure (e.g., see feed stalks 410-1, 410-2 having RF transmission lines 412, FIG. 5A, Para. 89, 91); and a radiator (e.g., see dipole radiators 420-1, 420-2 on printed circuit board 422, FIGS. 5A-5B, Para. 89-90), the radiator comprising: a plurality of resonator arms (e.g., see dipole arms 430-1 through 430-4, FIG. 5B, Para. 89, 93), each of the resonator arms comprising a plurality of inductive capacitive filters (e.g., see the plurality of narrowed meandered trace sections 426 of each dipole arm 430, each connecting a pair of adjacent widened conductive members 424, FIG. 5B, Para. 95-96; wherein sections 426 act as high impedance sections that interrupt high-band currents without significantly impacting low-band currents, Para. 99), at least a portion of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters comprising a straight-line portion (e.g., see the straight narrow trace segments of each section 426, FIG. 5B) and a meandering portion (e.g., see the hairpin turns of each meandered trace section 426, FIG. 5B, Para. 95) that act as an inductive portion of the inductive capacitive filter (e.g., narrowed trace sections 426 create high impedance for high-band currents, Para. 99-100) and a gap in the meandering portion (e.g., see the gap between the adjacent legs of each hairpin turn of section 426, FIG. 5B) acts as a capacitive portion of the inductive capacitive filter.
Li does not use the word "capacitive" for the gap between the adjacent legs of each hairpin. The capacitive function of that gap is inherent, as evidenced by Varnoosfaderani. Varnoosfaderani, in the same field of cloaked base station dipole arms, teaches a U-shaped meandered trace segment 193 in a dipole arm whose narrowed arms 194 act as inductors and whose arms are capacitively coupled across the gap between them, so that each U-shaped segment forms a shunt L-C circuit with the capacitance determined by the gap between the arms (Varnoosfaderani, FIG. 5C, Para. 89). Varnoosfaderani explains that such circuits form a band stop filter along the dipole arm that passes the operating band and blocks the band of nearby radiating elements (Varnoosfaderani, Para. 57, 90). Each hairpin turn of Li's sections 426 has the same geometry, namely narrow parallel legs separated by a gap, and Li describes the same function, namely high impedance to high-band currents with low impedance to low-band currents (Li, Para. 99). See MPEP §§ 2112 and 2131.01(III).
Claim 4: Li teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base portion to radiator feed structure is manufactured from a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs) (e.g., see feed stalks 410-1, 410-2, which may be feed stalk printed circuit boards, Para. 97; FIG. 5A).
Claim 19: Li teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein a shape or layout of at least one of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters on each resonator arm differs from the shape or layout of another inductive capacitive filter on the same resonator arm (e.g., see, on dipole arm 430-2, the single-turn hairpin sections 426 along segment 434-1 and the multi-turn meandered sections 426 along segment 434-2, which also extend in different orientations, FIG. 5B).
Claim 27: Li teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the portion of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters comprising the straight-line portion and the meandering portion comprises a first inductive capacitive filter and a second inductive capacitive filter (e.g., see a section 426 along segment 434-1 and a section 426 along segment 434-2 of dipole arm 430-2, FIG. 5B), wherein a length of the meandering portion of the first inductive capacitive filter differs in length from the meandering portion of the second inductive capacitive filter (e.g., wherein the single-turn hairpin section and the multi-turn meandered section have meandering portions of different lengths, FIG. 5B).
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)(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, 19, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20250125540 A1 (hereinafter “Ai”), as at least evidenced by US 20200028254 A1 (hereinafter “Foo”).
Claim 1: Ai teaches an antenna assembly comprising: a base portion (e.g., see feed board printed circuit board 180 in FIG. 1A, Para. 76, 86) functioning as an interface for the antenna assembly (e.g., wherein radiating element 100 is mounted on feed board 180 of a base station antenna, and feed stalks 110 are physically mounted on feed board 180, Para. 76, 86); a base portion to radiator feed structure (e.g., see feed stalks 110-1, 110-2 in FIG. 1A, Para. 76, 86); and a radiator (e.g., see dipole radiator printed circuit board 120 including dipole radiators 130-1, 130-2 and EBG structures 140 in FIGS. 1A-1B, Para. 76-78), the radiator comprising: a plurality of resonator arms (e.g., see dipole arms 132-1 through 132-4 together with dipole arm extensions 160 in FIG. 1B, Para. 79-81), each of the resonator arms comprising a plurality of inductive capacitive filters (e.g., see the six unit cells 150 of each EBG structure 140, each unit cell 150 including an interdigitated finger capacitor 142, a projection 144, an inductor 146 and a dipole arm extension 160, FIG. 1B, Para. 84; wherein EBG structure 140 employs periodically arranged resonant circuits and suppresses power transmission over a selected frequency range while allowing power transfer in other frequency ranges, Para. 80-81), at least a portion of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters comprising a straight-line portion (e.g., see narrow straight trace 146 in FIG. 1B, Para. 82) and a meandering portion (e.g., see the interleaved teeth of comb structures 143A, 143B, which together follow a winding course, FIG. 1B, Para. 82) that act as an inductive portion of the inductive capacitive filter (e.g., trace 146 has high inductance and functions as an inductor, Para. 82; the interleaved teeth of 143A, 143B are finite-length conductors that inherently contribute series inductance to the unit cell, as evidenced by Foo, FIGS. 4, 7 and 8B, Para. 63, 65, 69) and a gap in the meandering portion (e.g., see the gap between the interleaved teeth of 143A, 143B in FIG. 1B) acts as a capacitive portion of the inductive capacitive filter (e.g., the interleaved teeth form series capacitor 142, Para. 82).
Regarding the inherent inductance of the meandering portion, see the Response to Arguments above, which is incorporated here. Foo models the series capacitor block 114 of a transmission line metamaterial unit cell, including an interdigital finger series capacitor, as a series capacitance 2CL and a series inductance LR/2 within the same block (Foo, FIG. 7), attributes LR to the finite length of the structure (Foo, Para. 63), relates the series resonance of the unit cell to LR and CL (Foo, Para. 65), and states that interdigital finger capacitors tend to have higher LR (Foo, Para. 69).
Claim 2: Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base portion is manufactured from a printed circuit board (PCB) material (e.g., see feed board printed circuit board 180, Para. 76, 86).
Claim 4: Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base portion to radiator feed structure is manufactured from a plurality of printed circuit boards (PCBs) (e.g., see feed stalks 110-1, 110-2, each implemented using a printed circuit board, Para. 76, 86; FIGS. 1E-1F).
Claim 19: Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein a shape or layout of at least one of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters on each resonator arm differs from the shape or layout of another inductive capacitive filter on the same resonator arm (e.g., wherein the unit cells 150 of a given EBG structure 140 need not all be oriented the same, Para. 84, and wherein the unit cells 150 along each dipole arm extension 160 include both vertically and horizontally oriented cells and interdigitated finger capacitors 142 having different numbers of teeth, FIG. 1B).
Claim 21: Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the meandering portion of the inductive capacitive filter comprises a first continuous series of turns (e.g., see the continuous series of teeth of first comb structure 143A, FIG. 1B, Para. 82) and a second continuous series of turns (e.g., see the continuous series of teeth of second comb structure 143B, FIG. 1B, Para. 82), wherein the first continuous series of turns is separated from the second continuous series of turns by the gap (e.g., see the gap between the interleaved teeth of 143A and 143B, which separates comb structure 143A from comb structure 143B along its entire length, FIG. 1B).
Claim 27: Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the portion of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters comprising the straight-line portion and the meandering portion comprises a first inductive capacitive filter and a second inductive capacitive filter (e.g., see two unit cells 150 on the same dipole arm extension 160, FIG. 1B, Para. 84), wherein a length of the meandering portion of the first inductive capacitive filter differs in length from the meandering portion of the second inductive capacitive filter (e.g., wherein the interdigitated finger capacitors 142 of adjacent unit cells 150 have different numbers of interleaved teeth and therefore meandering portions of different length, FIG. 1B).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of US 20230163486 A1 (hereinafter “Varnoosfaderani”).
Claim 6: Ai does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base portion to radiator feed structure is manufactured from a diecast metal stem with embedded transmission lines. Ai teaches feed stalks 110-1, 110-2 implemented as printed circuit boards (Ai, Para. 76, 86).
However, Varnoosfaderani teaches a feed stalk for a base station radiating element that is manufactured from a diecast metal stem (e.g., see stalk members 120-1 through 120-3, which may be die cast parts, Para. 68; FIGS. 3A-3E) with embedded transmission lines (e.g., see feed lines 150-1, 150-2 disposed within channels 140-1, 140-2 in the interior of feed stalk 110, the metal sheets 124 and feed line arms 152 forming stripline segments 164-1 through 164-4 that extend forwardly from the reflector to the radiator, Para. 77; FIGS. 3E-3G).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement the feed structure of Ai as a diecast metal stem with embedded transmission lines as taught by Varnoosfaderani, because doing so substitutes one known feed stalk construction for base station radiating elements for another, with the predictable result of feeding the dipole radiators through a rigid metal stalk whose walls serve as the ground conductors of the embedded stripline feed lines (Varnoosfaderani, Para. 77). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 8, 11, 22, 24, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of US 20230395995 A1 (hereinafter “Sissoev”).
Claim 8: Ai does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the radiator comprises a curved radiator.
However Ai teaches a planar dipole radiator printed circuit board 120 (Ai, FIG. 1A, Para. 77). Further, Sissoev teaches a cross dipole radiator comprising a curved radiator (e.g., see cross dipole antenna 100 printed on flexible substrate 130 and bent into a domed or mushroom shape, FIGS. 1 and 4-6, Para. 21-22).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the radiator of Ai as a curved radiator as taught by Sissoev in order to shape the radiation pattern of the cross dipole radiator, including directing gain away from boresight (Sissoev, Para. 22), for example in the omnidirectional base station antennas with cylindrical radomes that Ai describes (Ai, Para. 102-103), and to adapt the radiator to the shape of the structure on which it is mounted (Sissoev, Para. 21).
Claim 11: Ai in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 8, wherein the curved radiator is curved spherically (e.g., see the domed or mushroom shape of cross dipole antenna 100, Sissoev, FIGS. 5-6, Para. 21-22).
Claim 22: Ai in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of resonator arms are disposed on a substrate (e.g., see dipole arms 132 and EBG structures 140 on dielectric substrate 124 of printed circuit board 120, Ai, Para. 77-79; see dipole arms 110, 120 printed on flexible substrate 130, Sissoev, FIG. 1, Para. 16, 21), wherein the substrate is curved by being connected to a curved radiator support structure (e.g., wherein flexible substrate 130 takes the shape of a curved or domed mounting structure to which it is mounted, Sissoev, Para. 21; see also metallic plate 300 with slots 310 and dielectric spacer 200, which together hold substrate 130 in a domed shape, Sissoev, FIGS. 4-6, Para. 21).
The rationale set forth for claim 8 applies. It would further have been obvious to form the substrate of Ai from a flexible substrate as taught by Sissoev so that the substrate carrying the resonator arms takes the curvature of the support structure (Sissoev, Para. 21).
Claim 24: Ai in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 22, wherein the curved substrate is curved into a portion of a sphere (e.g., see the dome or mushroom shape, Sissoev, FIGS. 5-6, Para. 21-22).
Claim 25: Ai in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 22, wherein the curved radiator support structure connects to corners of the substrate. Ai teaches a square substrate whose dipole arms and dipole arm extensions extend to its four corners (e.g., see dipole arm extensions 160-1 through 160-4 at the four corners of printed circuit board 120, Ai, FIG. 1B, Para. 81). Sissoev teaches that the support structure connects to the distal ends of the substrate carrying the dipole arms (e.g., distal ends of substrate 130 inserted into slots 310 of metallic plate 300 and soldered, Sissoev, FIG. 4, Para. 21). Applying the mounting of Sissoev to the substrate of Ai places the connections of the support structure at the distal ends of the dipole arms, which are the corners of Ai's substrate.
Claim 26: Ai in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 25, wherein the curved radiator support structure connects to middle portions of the substrate (e.g., see dielectric spacer 200 supporting the center portion of substrate 130, Sissoev, FIGS. 3 and 5-6, Para. 21).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of US 20210036436 A1 (hereinafter “Chamberland”).
Claim 10: Ai does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 8, wherein the radiator comprises a curved radiator, wherein the curved radiator is curved cylindrically around a central axis.
However, Chamberland teaches dipole radiators printed on a flexible printed circuit board that is wound into a cylindrical shape around a central antenna axis (e.g., see radiative component 27 with dipoles 26 rolled into a cylinder about antenna axis 104 and around matching network 50 of PCB 21, FIGS. 1, 4 and 5, Para. 87, 93-94).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the radiator of Ai as a radiator curved cylindrically around a central axis as taught by Chamberland in order to reduce the volume occupied by the radiator (Chamberland, Para. 64) and to fit the radiator within the cylindrical radome of an omnidirectional base station antenna (Ai, Para. 102-103).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of Sissoev, and further in view of Chamberland.
Claim 23: Ai in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 22, but does not explicitly teach wherein the curved substrate is curved around a single axis.
However, Chamberland teaches a flexible substrate carrying dipole radiators that is curved around a single axis by being connected to a curved support (e.g., substrate 327 of radiative component 27 rolled into a cylinder about antenna axis 104, the internal diameter of the cylinder adapted to receive the circular PCB 21, FIGS. 1 and 5, Para. 87, 93-94).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to curve the substrate of Ai in view of Sissoev around a single axis as taught by Chamberland for the reasons given for claim 10. Sissoev further teaches that the curvature follows whatever curved mounting structure is used (Sissoev, Para. 21), and a curvature about a single axis is one of a small number of predictable options.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of US 7271775 B1 (hereinafter “Rossman”).
Claim 12: Ai does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the radiator comprises a plurality of segments, with each segment inclined separately from a central axis.
However, Rossman teaches a radiator comprising a plurality of segments (e.g., see leaves 535 and dipole 515 in FIG. 5), with each segment inclined separately from a central axis (e.g., see leaves 535 extending downward from lagoon 540 at the central axis of the hemispherical structure, FIG. 5; Col. 6-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the radiator of Ai with a plurality of segments each inclined separately from a central axis as taught by Rossman in order to adapt the radiator to a hemispherical or curved surface and provide coverage around the horizon (Rossman, Col. 7), and to reduce the length and width of the radiator and the size of the antenna assembly.
Claim 14: Ai in view of Rossman teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 12, wherein a shape or layout of at least one of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters on each resonator arm differs from the shape or layout of another inductive capacitive filter on other ones of the resonator arms (e.g., wherein the unit cells 150 need not all be oriented the same, Ai, Para. 84, and wherein a vertically oriented unit cell 150 on one dipole arm extension 160 differs in layout from a horizontally oriented unit cell 150 on another dipole arm extension 160, Ai, FIG. 1B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as evidenced by Varnoosfaderani, in view of Ai.
Claim 2: Li does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base portion is manufactured from a printed circuit board (PCB) material. Li shows conventional cloaked low-band radiating elements mounted on a feed board 102 (Li, FIG. 2A, Para. 63), but does not state its material.
However, Ai teaches mounting the feed stalks of a base station radiating element on a feed board printed circuit board (e.g., see feed board printed circuit board 180, Ai, Para. 76, 86).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to mount the feed stalks 410 of Li on a base portion manufactured from printed circuit board material as taught by Ai in order to physically mount the radiating element and route RF signals between the feed network and the feed stalks (Ai, Para. 86, 105), which is a conventional arrangement in base station antennas.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Varnoosfaderani.
Claim 6: Li does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the base portion to radiator feed structure is manufactured from a diecast metal stem with embedded transmission lines.
However, Varnoosfaderani teaches this feature (e.g., see die cast stalk members 120 with feed lines 150 disposed within channels 140 to form stripline segments 164, Para. 68, 77; FIGS. 3A-3G), for the reasons and with the rationale set forth in above in the rejection of Ai in view of Varnoosfaderani, which apply equally to the feed stalks 410 of Li.
Claims 8, 11, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Sissoev.
Claim 8: Li does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the radiator comprises a curved radiator. Li teaches that dipole radiators 420 extend in a plane but may be rotated to other angles (Li, Para. 91).
However, Sissoev teaches a curved cross dipole radiator (Sissoev, FIGS. 1 and 4-6, Para. 21-22), as set forth for claim 8 in the rejection over Ai in view of Sissoev above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the radiator of Li as a curved radiator as taught by Sissoev in order to shape the radiation pattern, including directing gain away from boresight (Sissoev, Para. 22), and to adapt the radiator to the shape of its mounting structure (Sissoev, Para. 21).
Claim 11: Li in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 8, wherein the curved radiator is curved spherically (Sissoev, FIGS. 5-6, Para. 21-22).
Claim 22: Li in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of resonator arms are disposed on a substrate (e.g., see dipole arms 430 formed as metal patterns on printed circuit board 422, Li, Para. 90, 95), wherein the substrate is curved by being connected to a curved radiator support structure (Sissoev, FIGS. 4-6, Para. 21), with the rationale set forth for claims 8 and 22 in the rejection over Ai in view of Sissoev above.
Claim 24: Li in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 22, wherein the curved substrate is curved into a portion of a sphere (Sissoev, FIGS. 5-6, Para. 21-22).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chamberland.
Claim 10: Li does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 8, wherein the radiator comprises a curved radiator, wherein the curved radiator is curved cylindrically around a central axis.
However, Chamberland teaches this feature (Chamberland, FIGS. 1, 4 and 5, Para. 87, 93-94), as set forth in the rejection over Ai in view of Chamberland above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the radiator of Li as a radiator curved cylindrically around a central axis as taught by Chamberland in order to reduce the volume occupied by the radiator (Chamberland, Para. 64).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Sissoev, and further in view of Chamberland.
Claim 23: Li in view of Sissoev teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 22, but does not explicitly teach wherein the curved substrate is curved around a single axis. Chamberland teaches this feature (Chamberland, FIGS. 1 and 5, Para. 87, 93-94), and it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for the reasons set forth in the rejections over Ai in view of Ssisoev and Chamberland above.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Rossman.
Claim 12: Li does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein the radiator comprises a plurality of segments, with each segment inclined separately from a central axis.
However, Rossman teaches this feature (e.g., see leaves 535 inclined from lagoon 540 at the central axis, FIG. 5; col. 6-7), with the rationale set forth in the rejection over Ai in view of Rossman above, which applies equally to the radiator of Li.
Claim 14: Li in view of Rossman teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 12, wherein a shape or layout of at least one of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters on each resonator arm differs from the shape or layout of another inductive capacitive filter on other ones of the resonator arms (e.g., see the sections 426 of vertically extending dipole arms 430-1, 430-3 compared with the sections 426 of horizontally extending dipole arms 430-2, 430-4, which differ in orientation and in number of turns, Li, FIG. 5B, Para. 89, 93).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner notes, without making a determination of allowability, that the specification describes each filter as a loop in which a straight-line portion 138 and a meandering portion 140 of a single continuous conductive trace together form the inductive path, and in which gap 142 interrupts that trace so that the loop is completed only capacitively across the gap (Spec. Para. 39-41; FIG. 2D). None of Ai, Li or Varnoosfaderani shows a single continuous meandering trace that is severed by the capacitive gap into two separate conductive runs connected in a loop with a straight-line portion. Applicant may wish to consider claim language directed to that structure, with care to remain within the original disclosure. Any such amendment would require further search and consideration.
Finality
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (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 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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
