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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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, the “Fixed network of interconnect as recited in claim 17 and A downward angled conical shape as recited in claim 18” 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 1-19 and 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a substantially horizontal reference plane” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention How is a “substantially horizontal reference plane” different form a horizontal reference plane, would it be off by 1%, 3% or 5%? Based on figure 5 of the drawing it seems like the substantially horizontal reference plane RP is just a horizontal plane. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret claim 1 to mean “a horizontal reference plane” as taught by the drawing.
Claim 2-19 and 21 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the at least one radio” which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the at least one radio” lacks proper antecedent basis since claim 1 disclose at least two radios. Furthermore it is unclear as to whether this radio would be one of the two or a separate radio. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “at least one radio of the two or more radios”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a housing” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear exactly what housing is being referred to. Would the housing be for the multi-band antenna array or would it be a housing for another device external to the antenna. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “a housing of the multi-band antenna array”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an upper portion of a 5 GHz band…and a lower portion of the 5 GHz band” which renders the claim indefinite. The specifications and drawings fail to disclose what an upper and lower portion of a 5Ghz band would be. Based on the current disclosure we only know that the second and third radio only operate in a portion of the 5Ghz band. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “a portion of a 5Ghz band”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “5 GHz antenna arrays and 2.4 GHz antenna arrays” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to whether these 5ghz and 2.4ghz antenna arrays are part of the antenna arrays disclosed in claim 1 or different from them. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the claim to mean “wherein the vertical surfaces comprise the antenna arrays and the antenna arrays comprise 5 GHz antenna arrays and 2.4 GHz antenna arrays…”
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) 1-2, 7-8, 11, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 20040155819 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 20170062944 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, Martin et al. further discloses a multi-band antenna array (Multi beam antenna 20 as seen in figures 1-3 of Martin et al.), comprising:
a tubular body comprised of a plurality of ground plane substrates which have been arranged into a geometrical configuration (Antenna 20 comprise a tubular body which is built of up of panels serving as ground plate substrates wherein said panels are made from substrates 24 and ground backplanes 40; Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 of Martin et al.);
antenna arrays associated with the plurality of ground plane substrates (Four antenna elements 28 are disposed on each panel wherein each set of 4 elements would from an array disposed on the ground plane substrates; Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 of Martin et al.); and
two or more radios connected to the antenna arrays on the plurality of ground plane substrates via a feed network (Feed network in the form of feed lines 30 are connected to the antenna arrays 28 and connect them to two radio like those of 301 connected to the two circuit boards 32; Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 and 10 of Martin et al.).
Martin et al. fails to explicitly disclose antenna elements of the antenna arrays being arrayed together in-phase so that an electrical downtilt of an elevation beam-width is fixed relative to a substantially horizontal reference plane.
However, Zimmerman et al. does disclose antenna elements of the antenna arrays being arrayed together in-phase so that an electrical downtilt of an elevation beam-width is fixed relative to a substantially horizontal reference plane (Phased array antennas 100-400 comprise multiple columns, each having multiple radiating elements 120 which can be connected to two radios for each column wherein all of the radiating elements of a column can be provide a +/- 5 degree beam tilt to the elevation beam wherein said tilt can be done relative to a horizontal reference plane in the form of angle α; Paragraph 71-95 and figure 1-5 of Zimmerman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have the antenna arrays being arrayed together in-phase so that an electrical downtilt of an elevation beam-width is fixed relative to a substantially horizontal reference plane as being taught by Zimmerman et al. to tilt the antenna beams to cover more range while also providing better radiation characteristics (Pg. 71-72 of Zimmerman et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
497
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
639
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Martin et al. further discloses wherein the electrical downtilt is selectively adjustable using a downtilt circuit (Downtilt of the beams may be done electronically by electronic control which would constitute an downtilt circuit; Paragraph 125 of Martin et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Martin et al. further discloses a chassis, wherein the antenna arrays are mounted onto the chassis (Panels 22 form a chassis and the antenna arrays are mounted onto these panels and thus the chassis Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 of Martin et al.).
Regarding Claim 8 as best understood, Martin et al. further disclose a radio board that comprises the at least one radio, the radio board being disposed inside the chassis (Radio used for antenna 20 may be an internal circuitry 23 or electronics 301 which may be a radio card that can be housed inside the antenna structure which would be inside the chassis; Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 of Martin et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Martin et al. further discloses wherein the geometric configuration comprises vertical surfaces (Geometric configuration of antenna 20 is made by panels 22 which serve as vertical surfaces that are associated with the ground plane substrates; Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 of Martin et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Martin et al. further discloses wherein the vertical surfaces are each associated with one of the plurality of ground plane substrates (Geometric configuration of antenna 20 is made by panels 22 which serve as vertical surfaces that are associated with the ground plane substrates; Paragraph 97-127 and figure 1-3 of Martin et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Martin et al. further discloses wherein the antenna elements of the antenna arrays are arrayed through the feed network in such a way that antenna gain is increased while elevation beam-width is reduced (Antenna elements 24 are chosen and arrayed with feed lines 30 that are arranged to improve performance and reduce substrate thickness such that antenna properties like gain can be increased and beam width can be controlled which would include reducing it; Paragraph 100 of Martin et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Martin et al. further discloses wherein each pair of adjacent antenna elements in the antenna arrays have an element-to-element spacing (Antenna elements 28 are disposed such that they have a certain element to element spacing as seen in figure 1; Paragraph 99-100 and figure 1 of Martin et al.).
Martin et al. fails to disclose an element-to-element spacing equal to a portion of a wavelength, the portion of the wavelength being 0.7 to 0.85 of a wavelength matching an operating band frequency.
However, Zimmerman et al. does disclose an element-to-element spacing equal to a portion of a wavelength, the portion of the wavelength being 0.7 to 0.85 of a wavelength matching an operating band frequency (Array 100 comprises multiple columns 110 with radiating elements 120 that can be spaced apart from each other by 0.6-0.9 of the wavelength of the operating frequency band; Paragraph 49-51 and figure 1 of Zimmerman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have disclose an element-to-element spacing equal to a portion of a wavelength, the portion of the wavelength being 0.7 to 0.85 of a wavelength matching an operating band frequency as taught by Zimmerman et al. since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from wanting to transmit signals without crating significant grating lobes (Paragraph 49 of Zimmerman et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Martin et al. fails to disclose wherein a corporate feed portion of the feed network comprises a fixed network of interconnect configured for eliminating a phase misalignment over frequency.
However, Zimmerman et al. does disclose wherein a corporate feed portion of the feed network comprises a fixed network of interconnect configured for eliminating a phase misalignment over frequency (Array 100 comprises multiple columns 110 with radiating elements 120 wherein a corporate feed portion can be used to connect the radiating elements wherein the corporate feed network supplies radio signals to the radiating elements wherein each signal can have the same phase thus preventing phase misalignment; Paragraph 50-86 of Zimmerman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have wherein a corporate feed portion of the feed network comprises a fixed network of interconnect configured for eliminating a phase misalignment over frequency as taught by Zimmerman et al. to reduce cost and to transmit signals to the radiating elements to different coverage areas that need coverage (Paragraph 50 and 55 of Zimmerman et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Martin et al. further discloses wherein at least one substrate of the plurality of ground plane substrates of the multi-band antenna array is configured in a downward angled conical shape (Ground plane substrates can be formed in conical shape and placed on a ceiling such that they would be angled downward and substrates can be made flexible thus allowing other different arrangements; Paragraph 125 of Martin et al.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 20040155819 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 20170062944 A1) and Browne et al. (WO 2008017725 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. fail to disclose wherein the downtilt circuit comprises a switched capacitor filter that induces any of a phase shift and phase delay, which are selectable.
However, Browne et al. does disclose wherein the downtilt circuit comprises a switched capacitor filter that induces any of a phase shift and phase delay, which are selectable (Antenna array as seen in figure 3 comprises phase shifters to electrically downtilt the antenna and beams wherein said phase shifters serve as downtilt circuits that comprises capacitors like 83 that can be controlled by switches to provide different amount of phase shifts; Pg. 5-8 and figure 6-9 of Browne et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have wherein the downtilt circuit comprises a switched capacitor filter that induces any of a phase shift and phase delay, which are selectable as taught by Browne et al. to block DC but permit RF signals that have been phase shifted to control the beams (Pg. 7 of Browne et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
456
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 20040155819 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 20170062944 A1) and Ming et al. (US 20190123456 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Martin et al. fails to disclose the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a 5 GHz band.
Although, Zimmerman et al. does disclose the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a GHz band (Antenna array 100 comprises a column of radiating elements 120 that can be fed by two radios wherein said two radios feed signals of 1.7-2.7ghz and .79-.96Ghz; Paragraph 60-61 and 85-86 of Zimmerman et al.). Zimmerman et al. fail to a 5 GHz band.
However, Ming et al. does disclose a 5 GHz band (Antenna array 300 can comprise multiple columns 302 of radiating elements wherein the columns/elements can be fed four signals including a signal in a 4.9ghz-6.1ghz range which includes the 5ghz band and they would be fed by radios/transceivers through the 4 ports; Paragraph 53-68 and figures 1-3 of Ming et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a 5 GHz band as taught by Ming et al. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from wanting to increase the amount of data being sent and to increase the range of coverage (Paragraph 6-10 of Ming et al.).
PNG
media_image5.png
742
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Martin et al. fails to disclose the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a 3.5 GHz band.
Although, Zimmerman et al. does disclose the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a GHz band (Antenna array 100 comprises a column of radiating elements 120 that can be fed by two radios wherein said two radios feed signals of 1.7-2.7ghz and .79-.96Ghz; Paragraph 60-61 and 85-86 of Zimmerman et al.). Zimmerman et al. fail to a 3.5 GHz band.
However, Ming et al. does disclose a 3.5 GHz band (Antenna array 300 can comprise multiple columns 302 of radiating elements wherein the columns/elements can be fed four signals including a signal in a 3.3Ghz-3.8Ghz range which includes the 5ghz band and they would be fed by radios/transceivers through the 4 ports; Paragraph 53-68 and figures 1-3 of Ming et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a GHz band as taught by Zimmerman et al. to allow the antenna to operate in multiple frequency bands (Paragraph 60 of Zimmerman et al.). It would have further been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a 3.5 GHz band as taught by Ming et al. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from wanting to increase the amount of data being sent and to increase the range of coverage (Paragraph 6-10 of Ming et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. fail to disclose a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays.
However, Ming et al. does disclose a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays (Radome 306 serves as a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays formed on columns 302; Paragraph 59-63 of Ming et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a GHz band as taught by Zimmerman et al. to allow the antenna to operate in multiple frequency bands (Paragraph 60 of Zimmerman et al.). It would have further been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays as taught by Ming et al. to make the antenna less of an eyesore when deployed in public (Pg. 59 of Ming et al.) and to offer protection for the antenna arrays.
Regarding Claim 10 as best understood, Martin et al. fails to disclose the two or more radios comprises a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band, a second radio that operates on an upper portion of a 5 GHz band, and a third radio that operates on a lower portion of the 5 GHz band.
Although, Zimmerman et al. does disclose the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a GHz band, and a third radio that operates on a GHz band (Antenna array 100 comprises a column of radiating elements 120 that can be fed by two radios wherein said two radios feed signals of 1.7-2.7ghz and .79-.96Ghz and another column of the array may be connected to a third and fourth radio wherein the third radio can also operate in the Ghz range; Paragraph 60-61 and 85-86 of Zimmerman et al.). Zimmerman et al. fails to an upper portion 5 GHz band and a lower portion of the 5 GHz band.
However, Ming et al. does disclose an upper portion 5 GHz band and a lower portion of the 5 GHz band (Antenna array 300 can comprise multiple columns 302 of radiating elements wherein the columns/elements can be fed four signals including a signal in a 4.9ghz-6.1ghz range which would include upper and lower portions of 5GHz band; Paragraph 53-68 and figures 1-3 of Ming et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have the two or more radios comprise a first radio that operates on a 2.4 GHz band and a second radio that operates on a GHz band, and a third radio that operates on a GHz band as taught by Zimmerman et al. to allow the antenna to operate in multiple frequency bands (Paragraph 60 of Zimmerman et al.). It would have further been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have an upper portion 5 GHz band and a lower portion of the 5 GHz band as taught by Ming et al. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from wanting to increase the amount of data being sent and to increase the range of coverage (Paragraph 6-10 of Ming et al.).
Regarding Claim 12 as best understood, Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. fails to disclose wherein the vertical surfaces comprise 5 GHz antenna arrays and 2.4 GHz antenna arrays, the 2.4 GHz antenna arrays being placed in alternating fashion between the 5 GHz antenna arrays.
However Ming et al. does disclose wherein the vertical surfaces comprise 5 GHz antenna arrays and 2.4 GHz antenna arrays, the 2.4 GHz antenna arrays being placed in alternating fashion between the 5 GHz antenna arrays (Antenna array 300 comprises columns 302A,C,E which are connected to a first port fed first signals like a 2.4ghz, 1.7-2.6Ghz, band and columns 302B,D,F which are connected to a second port fed 5ghz, 4.9-6.1ghz, signals such these columns would be 2.4 and 5ghz antenna arrays that are alternatively arranged; Paragraph 55-68 and figure 3 of Ming et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have the vertical surfaces comprise 5 GHz antenna arrays and 2.4 GHz antenna arrays, the 2.4 GHz antenna arrays being placed in alternating fashion between the 5 GHz antenna arrays as taught by Ming et al. to control the radiation pattern of the array and provide coverage for different areas (Paragraph 60 of Ming et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Martin et al. fails to disclose wherein a portion of the antenna arrays include a 5 GHz antenna array, and where an elevation beam-width of the 5 GHz antenna array is within +/- 5 degrees relative to a reference plane that is zero degrees.
Although, Zimmerman et al. wherein a portion of the antenna arrays include a GHz antenna array, and where an elevation beam-width of the GHz antenna array is within +/- 5 degrees relative to a reference plane that is zero degrees (Antenna array 100 comprises columns of radiating elements 120 which may operate in 1.7-2.7Ghz wherein said beams may have an elevation beam-width within 0-10 degrees relative to a horizontal reference plane α; Paragraph 60-73 and figure 1-3 of Zimmerman et al.). Zimmerman et al. fails to disclose a 5 GHz antenna array.
However, Ming et al. does disclose a 5 GHz antenna array. (Antenna array 300 can comprise multiple columns 302 of radiating elements wherein the columns/elements can be fed four signals including a signal in a 4.9ghz-6.1ghz range which would include upper and lower portions of 5GHz band; Paragraph 53-68 and figures 1-3 of Ming et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. to have wherein a portion of the antenna arrays include a GHz antenna array, and where an elevation beam-width of the GHz antenna array is within +/- 5 degrees relative to a reference plane that is zero degrees as taught by Zimmerman et al. to allow the antenna to operate in multiple frequency bands (Paragraph 60 of Zimmerman et al.). It would have further been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a 5 GHz antenna array as taught by Ming et al. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from wanting to increase the amount of data being sent and to increase the range of coverage (Paragraph 6-10 of Ming et al.).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 20040155819 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 20170062944 A1) and Korte et al. (US 20060187113 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 as best understood, Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. fail to disclose a lighting ring coupled with a housing, the lighting ring displaying activated when the multi-band antenna array is functioning.
However, Korte does disclose a lighting ring coupled with a housing, the lighting ring displaying activated when the multi-band antenna array is functioning (Radar antenna 1 comprises a cylindrical housing 3 to which a lighting ring in the form of illumination device 6 is coupled to wherein said device 6 would have portions that light up depending on in which area of coverage the antenna is operation in; Paragraph 32-40 and figure 1-3 of Korte).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a lighting ring coupled with a housing, the lighting ring displaying activated when the multi-band antenna array is functioning as taught by Korte to provide a scanner style visual indication of the radio transmission operation and blanking (Pg. 36 of Korte).
PNG
media_image6.png
608
509
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. fail to disclose a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays and a lighting ring coupled with the cylindrical housing, the lighting ring displaying activated when the multi-band antenna array is functioning.
However, Korte does disclose a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays and a lighting ring coupled with the cylindrical housing, the lighting ring displaying activated when the multi-band antenna array is functioning (Radar antenna 1 comprises a cylindrical housing 3 to which a lighting ring in the form of illumination device 6 is coupled to wherein said device 6 would have portions that light up depending on in which area of coverage the antenna is operation in; Paragraph 32-40 and figure 1-3 of Korte).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a cylindrical housing that surrounds the antenna arrays and a lighting ring coupled with the cylindrical housing, the lighting ring displaying activated when the multi-band antenna array is functioning as taught by Korte to provide a scanner style visual indication of the radio transmission operation and blanking (Pg. 36 of Korte).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 20040155819 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 20170062944 A1) and Elson et al. (US 20160380349 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Ming et al. and Zimmerman et al. fail to disclose a cooling assembly comprising a cylindrical heat sink having a plurality of fins.
However, Elson does disclose a cooling assembly comprising a cylindrical heat sink having a plurality of fins (Antenna assembly 100 comprises a heating sink 130 with a plurality of fins serving as a cooling assembly; Paragraph 50-62 and figure 3-4 of Elson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Martin et al. and Zimmerman et al. to have a cooling assembly comprising a cylindrical heat sink having a plurality of fins as taught by Elson et al. to dissipate heat (Paragraph 53-55 of Elson).
PNG
media_image7.png
608
371
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additional Comments Regarding the Claim Rejections
Examiner’s note – Regarding claim 17-18, the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20150256213 A1 (Jan; Cheng-Geng et al.) discloses multiple arrays of 2.4ghz and 5ghz arrays disposed in an alternating pattern around a circumference wherein said antennas can also operate in a third frequency.
US 20050012665 A1 (Runyon, Donald L. et al.) discloses an vertical array of antenna elements that can be in-phase and have an predetermined electrical tilt applied to their elevation beams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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 E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights