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 .
The Office Action is responsive to the communication filed on 02/21/2025.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
]Claims 2-21 have been newly added.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/17/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, of U.S. Patent No. US 12212976 (Domino et al), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant claim 1 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject of conflicting claim 1. Instant claim 2 doesn’t require the ‘transmit beam having a disc-shaped pattern of conflicting claim 1, but nevertheless encompasses the conflicting claim because the instant claim is open to include a beam having a disc-shaped pattern.
Regarding claim 2, the table below shows that claim 1 of the patent contains the elements of claim 2 of the instant application, and therefore, is an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12212976 (Domino et al), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant Application 18/984,104
Patent No. 12212976
2. An antenna assembly for distributing millimeter wave cellular service, the antenna assembly comprising:
an antenna upper unit configured to extend from a roof of a building, the antenna upper unit including a first linear antenna array including a row of patch antennas configured to radiate a transmit beam downward from the roof along a side of the building; and
a first antenna lower unit configured to extend from the side of the building beneath the antenna upper unit, the first antenna lower unit including a second linear antenna array configured to receive the transmit beam.
1. An antenna assembly for distributing millimeter wave cellular service, the antenna assembly comprising:
an antenna upper unit configured to extend from a top of a building, the antenna upper unit including a first linear antenna array configured to radiate a transmit beam having a disc-shaped pattern; and
a first antenna lower unit configured to extend from the building beneath the antenna upper unit, the first antenna lower unit including a second linear antenna array configured to receive the transmit beam.
Instant claim 3 and patent claim 2 correspond.
Instant claim 4 and patent claim 3 correspond.
Instant claim 5 and patent claim 5 correspond.
Instant claim 6 and patent claim 6 correspond.
Instant claim 7 and patent claim 7 correspond.
Instant claim 8 and patent claim 8 correspond.
Instant claim 9 and patent claim 9 correspond.
Instant claim 10 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject of conflicting claim 10. Instant claim 10 doesn’t require the ‘transmit beam having a disc-shaped pattern of conflicting claim 10, but nevertheless encompasses the conflicting claim because the instant claim is open to include a beam having a disc-shaped pattern.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, of U.S. Patent No. US 12212976 (Domino et al), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant claim 11 and patent claim 11 correspond.
Instant claim 12 and patent claim 12 correspond.
Instant claim 13 and patent claim 13 correspond.
Instant claim 14 and patent claim 14 correspond.
Instant claim 15 and patent claim 15 correspond.
Instant claim 16 and patent claim 16 correspond.
Instant claim 17 and patent claim 17 correspond.
Instant claim 18 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject of conflicting claim 18. Instant claim 18 doesn’t require the ‘transmit beam having a disc-shaped pattern of conflicting claim 18, but nevertheless encompasses the conflicting claim because the instant claim is open to include a beam having a disc-shaped pattern.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, of U.S. Patent No. US 12212976 (Domino et al), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Instant claim 19 and patent claim 19 correspond.
Instant claim 20 and patent claim 20 correspond.
Instant claim 21 and patent claim 15 correspond.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunel et al (US 20180227034) in view of Freni et al (EP 1881557).
Regarding claim 2, Brunel discloses an antenna assembly for distributing millimeter wave cellular service (communications are supported using 5G NR technology over one or more frequency bands that are less than 6 Gigahertz (GHz) and/or over one or more frequency bands that are greater than 6 GHz, … see [0178]), the antenna assembly (transmitting a signal beam using an antenna array of a respective cellular communication assembly, [0282]) comprising:
an antenna upper unit configured [to extend from a roof of a building] (Figure 1, shows antenna mounted on a structure, e.g., tower), the antenna upper unit including a first linear antenna array ([0018] The method includes receiving a plurality of receive signals on a plurality of antenna elements of an antenna array, each of the plurality of receive signals received by a corresponding one of the plurality of antenna elements, …) including a row of patch antennas ([0011] the plurality of antenna elements includes at least one of a plurality of patch antenna elements) configured to radiate a transmit beam downward ([0281] When transmitting from an antenna array using beamforming, individual signals from antenna elements of the array combine using constructive and destructive interference to generate an aggregate transmit signal exhibiting beam-like qualities with more signal strength propagating in a given direction away from the antenna array) [from the roof along a side of the building]; and
a first antenna lower unit configured to [extend from the side of the building beneath] the antenna upper unit ([0191] A signal conditioning circuit can be used to condition a transmit signal for transmission via an antenna element and/or to condition a received signal from the antenna element), the first antenna lower unit including a second linear antenna array configured to receive the transmit beam ([0194] Antenna arrays can be used in a wide variety of applications. In one example, an antenna array is included on a module of a communication device. For instance, antenna arrays can be used to transmit and/or RF signals in base stations and user equipment. Moreover, in certain implementations, separate antenna arrays are deployed for transmission and reception).
Brunel does not expressly disclose the antenna upper unit configured to extend from a roof of a building and the antenna patch configured to radiate the beam from the roof along a side of the building.
However, Freni discloses antenna mounted to a wall 102 of a building. The fixed surface can comprise a part of a building, in particular a part of at least one of a roof, a wall and a window of the building.
The teachings of Brunel and Freni are related as both teach the concept of radiating elements arranged in at least one plane being parallel to a fixed surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Brunel to include Freni 's teachings of configuring an antenna to extend from a roof of a building and the antenna patch configured to radiate the beam from the roof along a side of the building for the purpose of to accomplish along-the-street wireless coverage while reducing interference due to structural obstacles.
Regarding claim 3, in the obvious combination, Freni discloses the antenna assembly of claim 2 wherein the first linear antenna array is configured to extend cantilever from the roof of the building (Fig. 1 shows a schematic perspective view of an antenna 100 according to the state of the art. The antenna 100 comprises a parabolic reflector 101 which is typically mounted to a wall 102 of a building).
Regarding claim 4, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the antenna assembly of claim 2 wherein the antenna upper unit further includes a plurality of power amplifiers configured to drive the first linear antenna array ([0003] he front end can include low noise amplifier(s) for amplifying relatively weak signals received via the antenna(s) and power amplifier(s) for boosting signals for transmission via the antenna(s)).
Regarding claim 5, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the antenna assembly of claim 2 wherein each patch antenna in the row of patch antennas is configured to receive a common radio frequency transmit signal of equal amplitude and equal phase ([0178] The communication links can operate over a wide variety of frequencies. In certain implementations, communications are supported using 5G NR technology over one or more frequency bands that are less than 6 Gigahertz (GHz) and/or over one or more frequency bands that are greater than 6 GHz).
Regarding claim 6, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the antenna assembly of claim 5 wherein a pitch of the row of patch antennas is about equal to half a fundamental wavelength of the common radio frequency transmit signal ([0217] In certain implementations, the distance d is implemented to be about ½λ, where λ is the wavelength of the fundamental component of the transmit signal).
Regarding claim 7, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the antenna assembly of claim 5 wherein the common radio frequency transmit signal is a millimeter wave signal ([0187] Communication devices that utilize millimeter wave carriers (for instance, 30 GHz to 300 GHz), centimeter wave carriers (for instance, 3 GHz to 30 GHz), and/or other carrier frequencies can employ an antenna array to provide beam formation and directivity for transmission and/or reception of signals).
Regarding claim 8, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the antenna assembly of claim 2 wherein the first linear antenna array and the second linear antenna array each include a single row of patch antennas ([0099] In some embodiments, the plurality of antenna elements includes a plurality of patch antenna elements, a plurality of dipole antenna elements, a plurality of ceramic resonators, a plurality of stamped metal antennas, or a plurality of laser direct structuring antennas).
Regarding claim 8, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the antenna assembly of claim 2 further comprising a second antenna lower unit configured to extend from the side of the building beneath the antenna upper unit, the first antenna lower unit and the second antenna lower unit configured to operate using different resource block allocations of the transmit beam ([0182] Other examples of shared access include, but are not limited to, time division multiple access (TDMA) in which a user is allocated particular time slots for using a frequency resource, code division multiple access (CDMA) in which a frequency resource is shared amongst different users by assigning each user a unique code, space-divisional multiple access (SDMA) in which beamforming is used to provide shared access by spatial division, and non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) in which the power domain is used for multiple access).
Claim 10 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Brunel, Abstract, “Apparatus and methods related to beamforming”).
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, in the obvious combination, Brunel discloses the building of claim 10 wherein the first linear antenna array points downward and the second linear antenna array points upward toward the first linear antenna array ([0194] Antenna arrays can be used in a wide variety of applications. In one example, an antenna array is included on a module of a communication device. For instance, antenna arrays can be used to transmit and/or RF signals in base stations and user equipment. Moreover, in certain implementations, separate antenna arrays are deployed for transmission and reception).
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Brunel, Abstract, “Apparatus and methods related to beamforming”).
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights