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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: 1. The election requirement fails to show that the identified species are independent and distinct; 2. A showing of serious burden has not been made; 3. The demarcation between species is arbitrary, without regard to common aspects between species.
Without concession to the validity of the arguments made, the restriction between species is withdrawn, and the pending claims are examined herein.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 21, 25-26, 36, and 43 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 1/24/25, 3/4/25, and 5/6/25 are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, in line 4, “extending support-extending support” should read –extending support–. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-17, 21, 25-26, and 43 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “at least some of which” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact the minimum quantity accounted for by the term “some”, thus rendering ambiguous the metes and bounds of the invention as claimed. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-6, 8-17, 21, and 25-26 are included for their dependency upon claim 1.
Further regarding each of claims 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, and 25, the limitation of “at least some” present in each claim is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact the minimum quantity accounted for by the term “some”, thus rendering ambiguous the metes and bounds of the invention as claimed. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 43, the limitation of “at least some of which” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact the minimum quantity accounted for by the term “some”, thus rendering ambiguous the metes and bounds of the invention as claimed. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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.
(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 1-5, 12, 21, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0395971).
Regarding claim 1, Yin et al. teaches (Figs. 7A-7B) a base station antenna, comprising: a longitudinally-extending support (624-1); a plurality of side support segments (650) that are longitudinally spaced apart and that extend forwardly from the longitudinally-extending support (see Fig. 7B); and a plurality of radiating elements (232, 242), at least some of which are mounted to one or more of the plurality of side support segments (see Fig. 7B, ¶126).
Regarding claim 2, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the longitudinally-extending support (624-1) is provided as a first longitudinally extending support positioned to extend along a first side wall of a housing enclosing the plurality of radiating elements (radome 112 not shown in Figs 7A-7B, demonstrated in analogous embodiment of Fig. 1A; it can be reasonably surmised from analysis of the reference that the embodiment of Figs. 7A-7B also is enclosed within a radome, such that 624-1 extends along a first side wall of the radome) and a second longitudinally extending support positioned to extend along a laterally spaced apart second side wall of the housing (624-2).
Regarding claim 3, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the plurality of side support segments each have a wall that is perpendicular to a reflector (see walls of 650 in vertical orientation, perpendicular to reflector plane of left portion of Fig. 7B, of reflector assembly 620) or frequency selective surface positioned behind the plurality of radiating elements (see left portion of 7B where reflective surface is positioned behind elements 232 and 242), wherein the plurality of side support segments are attached to the longitudinally-extending support (see Fig. 7A), and wherein the base station antenna further comprises a plurality of feed boards arranged so that at least one feed board of the plurality of feed boards is parallel to and mounted to at least one of the plurality of side support segments (660, 670 parallel to horizontal portion of 650).
Regarding claim 4, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radiating elements comprise a first vertically-extending column of radiating elements, at least some of which are mounted to one of the plurality of side support segments or to more than one but a subset of the plurality of side support segments (see elements 232, 242; Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 5, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 2, wherein the plurality of side support segments are provided as a plurality of first side support segments extending along the first side wall of the housing and a plurality of second side support segments extending along the second side wall of the housing (see first and second instances of 650, Fig. 7B, relative to first side wall and second side wall of 112 shown in Fig. 1A), wherein the plurality of radiating elements comprise a first vertically-extending column of first radiating elements, at least some of which are mounted to one or more of the first side support segments, and a second vertically-extending column of first radiating elements, at least some of which are mounted to one or more of the second side support segments (see first and second vertically extending columns of 232, Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 12, Yin teaches the base station of claim 1, further comprising: a substrate in the housing comprising a frequency selective surface residing behind at least some of the plurality of radiating elements (see ¶112 lines 1-9); and a primary reflector in the housing attached to the longitudinally-extending support (reflector portion of 620; see Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 21, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, further comprising a feed stalk that feeds first and second dual polarized radiating elements of the plurality of radiating elements (see ¶82 lines 1-5, 132 analogous to 232 of Fig. 7B, see feed stalk feeding 232 of Fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 43, Yin et al. teaches (Figs. 7A-7B) a base station antenna, comprising: a plurality of side support segments (650) that are longitudinally spaced apart and coupled to a longitudinally extending support (624-1); a reflector (see reflector portion on left of element 620 of Fig. 7B); a plurality of radiating elements (232, 242), at least some of which reside in front of the reflector (see Fig. 7B); and feed boards (660, 670) that are coupled to one or more of the side support segments and feed the plurality of radiating elements (see Fig. 7B0, wherein the feed boards are perpendicular to a primary surface of the reflector and/or a primary surface of a frequency selective surface behind the plurality of radiating elements (see walls of 650 in vertical orientation, perpendicular to reflector plane of left portion of Fig. 7B, of reflector assembly 620).
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.
Claims 6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0395971) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0305718).
Regarding claim 6, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radiating elements each comprise a feed stalk (see feed stalks of elements 232 in Fig. 7B; see also ¶100).
Yin does not teach wherein the feed stalk comprises a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg attaches to at least one of the side support segments and extends laterally inward from the at least one side support segment, wherein the second leg is orthogonal to the first leg and extends forward of the first leg to attach to dipole radiators of a corresponding radiating element at a position in the base station antenna that is forward of the first leg.
Li et al. teaches (Fig. 4C) a base station antenna, comprising: a plurality of radiating elements (122), at least some of which are mounted to one or more of a plurality of side support segments (112S), wherein the plurality of radiating elements each comprise a feed stalk (310), wherein the feed stalk comprises a first leg (311) and a second leg (312), wherein the first leg attaches to at least one of the side support elements and extends laterally inward from the at least one side support element (see Fig. 4C), wherein the second leg is orthogonal to the first leg and extends forward of the first leg to attach to dipole radiators of a corresponding radiating element at a position in the base station that is forward of the first leg (to 122; see ¶90).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base station antenna of Yin such that the feed stalk comprises a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg attaches to at least one of the side support segments and extends laterally inward from the at least one side support segment, wherein the second leg is orthogonal to the first leg and extends forward of the first leg to attach to dipole radiators of a corresponding radiating element at a position in the base station antenna that is forward of the first leg, employing the teachings of Li.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably locating the feed portion of the radiating element within the base station antenna (Li, ¶98 lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 15, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radiating elements comprise cross-dipole radiating elements (see ¶98), wherein each cross-dipole radiating element has first and second dipole radiators provided by a printed circuit board (see Figs. 7B, 6C), wherein a feed stalk is attached to the first and second dipole radiators and resides behind the printed circuit board (see Figs. 7B, 6C).
Yin does not teach wherein the feed stalk has a first leg that extends laterally inward from one or more of the side support segments, then turns 90 degrees to project forward from the first leg adjacent the printed circuit board.
Li et al. teaches (Fig. 4C) a base station antenna, comprising: a plurality of radiating elements (122), at least some of which are mounted to one or more of a plurality of side support segments (112S), wherein the plurality of radiating elements comprise cross-dipole radiating elements (see ¶90), wherein each cross-dipole radiating element has first and second dipole radiators provided by a circuit board (see ¶14), wherein a feed stalk is attached to the first and second dipole radiators and resides behind the printed circuit board (310, see ¶4, Fig. 4C), wherein the feed stalk has a first leg (311)that extends laterally inward from one or more of the side support segments, then turns 90 degrees to project forward from the first leg adjacent the printed circuit board (312).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base station antenna of Yin such that the feed stalk has a first leg that extends laterally inward from one or more of the side support segments, then turns 90 degrees to project forward from the first leg adjacent the printed circuit board, employing the teachings of Lin.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably locating the feed portion of the radiating element within the base station antenna (Lin, ¶98 lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 16, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 6, wherein the feed stalk is a single feed stalk body that provides both a ground path and microstrip transmission line (see Fig. 7B, element 232 is connected only by, and therefore both fed and grounded by, the single feed stalk).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0395971) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varnoosfaderani et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0104131).
Regarding claim 8, Yin teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the longitudinally-extending support has a channel that extends in a longitudinal direction (see channel between 6240 and 6241).
Yin does not explicitly teach wherein the base station antenna further comprises feed cables that extend in the channel.
Varnoosfaderani et al. teaches (Fig. 17F) a base station antenna, comprising: a longitudinally-extending support (1570s); and a plurality of radiating elements (130), wherein the longitudinally-extending support has a channel that extends in a longitudinal direction (see channel formed by side walls of 1570s, Fig. 17F), and wherein the base station antenna further comprises feed cables that extend in the channel (channel comprises feed boards 1200 which comprise feed cables).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base station antenna of Yin such that the base station antenna further comprises feed cables that extend in the channel, employing the teachings of Varnoosfaderani.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling an RF signal to be operably fed to the radiating elements (Varnoosfaderani, ¶167 lines 9-12).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0305718) in view of Deng et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0205952).
Regarding claim 36, Li et al. teaches (Fig. 4C) a base station antenna, comprising: a feed stalk (310) that comprises a first leg that projects laterally inward a first distance (311) and feeds first and second dipole radiators of a first radiating element (122).
Li does not teach the feed stalk also feeding third and fourth dipole radiators of a second radiating element.
Deng et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna comprising: a feed that comprises a first leg that projects laterally inward a first distance and feeds first and second dipole radiators of a first radiating element as well as third and fourth dipole radiators of a second radiating element (see legs of 11 of Fig. 1, feeding first through fourth dipole radiators 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base station antenna of Li such that the feed stalk also feeds third and fourth dipole radiators of a second radiating element, employing the teachings of Deng.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of forming components of a dipole array from a single feed, thus providing the benefits of an antenna array (Deng, ¶18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13-14, 17, and 25-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein at least one feed cable of the feed cables in the channel and is routed out of one of the plurality of apertures to extend forward of the longitudinally-extending support and connects to at least one radiating element of the plurality of radiating elements”.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the feed board is perpendicular to a primary reflector coupled to the longitudinally-extending support”.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the feed cables are coaxial feed cables, and wherein an outer conductor of the coaxial feed cables is electrically grounded to the longitudinally-extending support”.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the substrate comprises at least one matching layer or the substrate is adjacent at least one matching layer”.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein neighboring pairs of at least some of the side support segments are spaced apart a distance greater than a length of the side support segments, the length measured in a longitudinal direction of the base station antenna”.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “the first leg extends laterally inward and merges into first and second intermediate segments that extend longitudinally in opposing directions then merge into a respective second leg of the feed stalk, wherein the respective second leg of the feed stalk is orthogonal to the first leg and extends in a front to back direction of the base station antenna, forward of the first leg to attach to a respective radiating element forward of the first leg”.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “a third vertically-extending column of the second radiating elements, at least some of which are mounted to one or more of the first side support segments; and a fourth vertically-extending column of the second radiating elements, at least some of which are mounted to one or more of the second side support elements”.
Claim 26 is included for its dependency upon claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0190487) and Varnoosfaderani et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0052442) each teach embodiments of similar base station antennas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights