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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, (1) the “base portion functioning as an interface between the antenna assembly and a reflector” (claim 1), i.e., the reflector and the interface relationship, and (2) the shape or layout of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters different between each of the plurality of resonator arms (claim 14, 16, 18-20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 3, 5, 7, 9, and 13-20 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.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 recite “at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what is intended by the language ‘removable and replaceable’ because the Specification does not discuss the limitation and a skilled artisan would understand the limitation to mean a part or element adapted or configured to be individually removable and replaceable whereas the filter is a part of the entire antenna conductor which is not easily and/or individually removable and replaceable. For example, the inductive filter is disclosed to be part of the entire conductor of the resonator arm in the Figures and Specification however there is no discussion of any filter being removed and/or replaced in the description of the invention other than a generic restatement of the claims in the Summary. There is no discussion on adapting and/or configuring the filter for removal and/or replacement or being modular. Further there is no discussion in the Specification on what an “unfiltered conductor” may constitute nor is the term utilized in the description of the invention other than a generic restatement of the claims in the Summary. Therefore a skilled artisan would not be apprised of the meaning of the limitation. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the limitation as the filter is capable of or able to be reconfigured as a routine design choice into an unfiltered conductor or any regular resonator arm.
Claim 14, 16, and 18-20 recites limitations regarding the shape or layout of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters differs between each of the plurality of resonator arms and/or each inductive capacitive filter differs on the same resonator arm. The limitations are indefinite because it is unclear how the shape and layout of the inductive capacitive layout differs and the Specification does not make clear the issue. For example, the Specification does not discuss any variance in shape or layout of the capacitive inductive filter with regard to different ones on each of the resonator arm or the plurality of resonator arms. A skilled artisan would not be apprised of how the layout or shape of the capacitive inductive filter may vary or be different from other layout or shapes of the filter. For purposes of examination, the Examiner presumes that the layout or shape differs if it is flipped or reversed, e.g., as shown in FIG. 2D, or that the size may different between each filter.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20250125540 A1 (hereinafter “Ai”).
Claim 1: Ai teaches an antenna assembly comprising: a base portion (e.g., see 180 in FIG. 1A) functioning as an interface between the antenna assembly and a reflector (e.g., see reflector in FIG. 7, Para. 113; see reflector 510 in FIG. 8, Para. 120); a base portion to radiator feed structure (e.g., see 110-1, 110-2, Para. 76); and a radiator (e.g., see 120, 130, 140, Para. 89), the radiator comprising: a plurality of resonator arms (e.g., see 132), each of the resonator arms comprising a plurality of inductive capacitive filters (e.g., see 140, 160, wherein each EBG structure 140 operates as a band-stop filter that blocks propagation of RF signals in a selected frequency band while permitting RF energy flow at other frequencies, see Paras. 81-82, 84), the plurality of inductive capacitive filters comprising a straight-line portion and a meandering portion that act as an inductive portion of the inductive capacitive filter and a gap in the meandering portion (e.g., the straight line portions and meandering interleaved portions of 140, 160 form capacitors and inductors, Id.), wherein the gap in the meandering portion acts as a capacitive portion of the inductive capacitive filter (e.g., at least the interdigitated finger structures 143A, 143B are formed by interleaved meandering conductive fingers separated by gaps having an electric field).
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 Para. 77, 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 a pair of feed stalks 110-1, 110-2, Para. 76).
Claim 18: as best understood, Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 1, wherein a shape or layout of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters differs between each of the plurality of resonator arms (e.g., see 140 on each resonator arm 132 having a vertical layout and a horizontal layout, wherein further if necessary, the plurality of resonator arms is limited to two resonator arms).
Claim 19: as best understood 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., see 140 on each resonator arm 132 having a vertical layout and a horizontal layout, wherein further if necessary, the plurality of resonator arms is limited to two resonator arms).
Claim 20: as best understood, Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 19, wherein a shape or layout of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters differs between each of the plurality of resonator arms (e.g., see 140 on each resonator arm 132 having a vertical layout different from a horizontal layout on another resonator arm, wherein further if necessary, the plurality of resonator arms is limited to two resonator arms).
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) 3-10, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, and 17: as best understood, Ai does not explicitly teach wherein at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor.
However Ai teaches that each EBG structure 140 consists of multiple unit cells 150 along the arm extension, and that the number and configuration of unit cells can be varied to adjust performance (e.g., see Para. 84) or that the inductive capacitive filter may be optimized for additional inductance (e.g., see 146 in FIG. 3B, Para. 96) or different capacitance patterns (e.g., see 148’ in FIG. 3C, Para. 97).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the unit cells so as to meet wherein at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor, for example, by omitting one or more unit cells, i.e., LC sections, or short across them effectively replacing that LC section with an unfiltered conductor to tailor bandwidth, stopband depth, or to implement single band or reduced band variants. Such selective inclusion/omission of LC sections on different arms is a routine tuning practice in EBG loaded antennas and represents an obvious modification of Ai et al.’s structure.
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.
However AI discloses that the feed stalk 110 may be implemented as a printed circuit board but also contemplates alternative mounting substrates (e.g., see Paras. 76, 86). Furthermore, AI’s radiating element 200 (e.g., see FIGS. 4A, 4B) discloses a feed board 280 with a different structural configuration. Accordingly, Ai discloses implementation using metal stems for feed structures in related contexts (e.g., metallic support/feed structures) and emphasizes that radiating elements and feed networks may be implemented using various mechanical supports.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to implement the PCB based feed stalks of Ai as metal stems with embedded coaxial or stripline feed paths, a well-known alternative in base station antenna construction to improve robustness, thermal performance, or weather resistance. Substituting a diecast stem with internal transmission lines for PCB stalks or vice-versa is thus an obvious design variation.
Claim 8 and 10: Ai does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the radiator comprises a curved radiator, wherein the curved radiator is curved cylindrically around a central axis.
However Ai teaches a modified version of base station antenna 300 including tubular reflector assembly 310 (e.g., see FIG. 5A, 6A) which is a tubular, cylindrical base station antenna housings (e.g., see Para. 102-103; Figs. 5A–5B, 6A–6B). Thus AI contemplates cylindrical omnidirectional antenna configurations in which the radiating elements are arranged around a central axis.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the dipole radiator of AI as a curved radiator curved cylindrically around a central axis in order to fit within a cylindrical or pole-mounted antenna housing, as is well known in the base station antenna art. The motivation to use a curved radiator in a cylindrical housing is expressly recognized in AI (e.g., see AI Para. 109 describing small cell base station antennas 300, 300ʹ in cylindrical radome housings 302). The results of such a modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim(s) 11-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of US 7271775 B1 (hereinafter “Rossman”).
Claim 11: Ai does not explicitly teach the antenna assembly of Claim 8, wherein the curved radiator is curved spherically.
However Rossman teaches curved dipoles antenna radiators (e.g., see at least FIG. 4-5) having which is curved spherically.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the curved radiator is curved spherically as taught by Rossman in order to adapt the radiators to a spherical surface or in order to further reduce the length and width of the curved radiators and the size of the antenna assembly.
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 comprises a plurality of segments (e.g., see 535, 515), with each segment inclined separately from a central axis (e.g., see 540).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the radiator comprises a plurality of segments, with each segment inclined separately from a central axis as taught by Rossman in order to adapt the radiators to a spherical surface or in order to further reduce the length and width of the curved radiators and the size of the antenna assembly.
Claim 13: as best understood, Ai does not explicitly teach wherein at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor.
However Ai teaches that each EBG structure 140 consists of multiple unit cells 150 along the arm extension, and that the number and configuration of unit cells can be varied to adjust performance (e.g., see Para. 84) or that the inductive capacitive filter may be optimized for additional inductance (e.g., see 146 in FIG. 3B, Para. 96) or different capacitance patterns (e.g., see 148’ in FIG. 3C, Para. 97).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the unit cells so as to meet wherein at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor, for example, by omitting one or more unit cells, i.e., LC sections, or short across them effectively replacing that LC section with an unfiltered conductor to tailor bandwidth, stopband depth, or to implement single band or reduced band variants. Such selective inclusion/omission of LC sections on different arms is a routine tuning practice in EBG loaded antennas and represents an obvious modification of Ai et al.’s structure.
Claim 14: as best understood, Ai 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 layout of 140 on each resonator arm 132 is horizontal and vertical, wherein each horizontal layout is different from another resonator arm’s vertical layout and vice-versa).
Claim 16: as best understood, Ai teaches the antenna assembly of Claim 14, wherein a shape or layout of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters differs between each of the plurality of resonator arms (e.g., wherein the layout of 140 on each resonator arm 132 is horizontal and vertical, wherein each horizontal layout is different from another resonator arm’s vertical layout and vice-versa, wherein the plurality of arms are further limited to two resonator arms)
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai in view of US 20210305721 A1 (hereinafter “Li”).
Claim 14 and 16: as best understood, Ai does not explicitly teach 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, wherein a shape or layout of the plurality of inductive capacitive filters differs between each of the plurality of resonator arms.
However Ai teaches that each EBG structure 140 consists of multiple unit cells 150 along the arm extension, and that the number and configuration of unit cells can be varied to adjust performance (e.g., see Para. 84) or that the inductive capacitive filter may add inductance lines for additional inductance (e.g., see 146 in FIG. 3B, Para. 96) or different capacitance patterns (e.g., see 148’ in FIG. 3C, Para. 97).
Li further teaches 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 430-1 and 430-3 in FIG. 5-6 vs. 430-2 and 430-4).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize 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 in order to adapt the antenna assembly for various different polarizations or different sectors for increased diversity of signal transmission and reception (e.g., see Para. 4, 66 of Li) or for reduced physically smaller size than the conventional cross dipole radiating element (e.g., see Para. 67 of Li). Accordingly the modification is such that the layout of the inductive capacitive filters is different between the plurality of arms.
Claim 15: as best understood, Ai does not explicitly teach wherein at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor.
However Ai teaches that each EBG structure 140 consists of multiple unit cells 150 along the arm extension, and that the number and configuration of unit cells can be varied to adjust performance (e.g., see Para. 84) or that the inductive capacitive filter may be optimized for additional inductance (e.g., see 146 in FIG. 3B, Para. 96) or different capacitance patterns (e.g., see 148’ in FIG. 3C, Para. 97).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the unit cells so as to meet wherein at least one inductive capacitive filter is removable and replaceable with an unfiltered conductor, for example, by omitting one or more unit cells, i.e., LC sections, or short across them effectively replacing that LC section with an unfiltered conductor to tailor bandwidth, stopband depth, or to implement single band or reduced band variants. Such selective inclusion/omission of LC sections on different arms is a routine tuning practice in EBG loaded antennas and represents an obvious modification of Ai et al.’s structure.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights