DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 7/20/26 are fully considered and are entered. The claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the non-final office action mailed 4/21/26, and these objections and rejections are withdrawn herein.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In detail, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 differentiate the claimed invention from the previously applied prior art, and in view of the newly added limitations not previously considered, a new ground of rejection is made relying on a new prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, in line 2, “side surfaces of radome” should read –side surfaces of the radome–.
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 15-16 and 19 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 15, the limitation of “from a direction other than a direction parallel to the streamlined cross section” is indefinite in that it is not made evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art in clear, concise, and exact terms to which aspect of the “streamlined cross section” the considered direction is intended to be “parallel”, rendering ambiguous the metes and bounds of the limitation of “a direction other than a direction parallel to the streamlined cross section”, thus rendering the scope of the claim as a whole indefinite. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 16 and 19 are included for their dependency upon claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Proshold et al. (US PG Pub. No. 10,454,162).
Regarding claim 1, Proshold et al. teaches (Figs. 7-9, 14) an antenna apparatus comprising: an interference structure comprising a rough surface (dimple profile, ridge, and ridge taper angle 705, 710, 720, see Fig. 7); and a radome (700), wherein four corners of a streamlined cross section of the radome are arc-shaped corners (see arc-shaped corners of cross-section, Fig. 7), wherein the streamlined cross-section of the radome is configured to generate a lift force for an airflow having a deviation angle (see deviation of airflow between 810 and 850, Fig. 8), and wherein the interference structure disposed on a surface of the radome (see Fig. 7) is configured to change airflow at a surface boundary layer of the radome such that the lift force acting on the radome is reduced and to reduce windload on the antenna apparatus (see Fig. 9; Col 6 lines 56-67 and Col 7 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rough surface is a set of circular points (Col 5 lines 18-21, dimples may be construed as a set of circular points).
Regarding claim 3, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the set of circular points is a set of circular convex points or circular concave surfaces (Col 5 lines 18-21, dimples may be construed as a set of circular convex points or circular concave surfaces).
Regarding claim 6, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rough surface is disposed on side surfaces of the radome (ridge taper angle 720 which comprises a portion of the rough surface is disposed on two side surfaces of the radome; see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rough surface is disposed on three surfaces of the radome (see Fig. 7; 705 and 710 are disposed on the front surface, ridge tapers are disposed on side surfaces of the radome).
Regarding claim 8, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the interference structure further comprises at least four flow disturbing tripwires (705, and 710 with 720 comprise four flow disturbing tripwires), and two flow disturbing tripwires of the at least four flow disturbing tripwires are disposed on two opposite side surfaces of the radome (ridge tapers being disposed on two opposite side surfaces of the radome), wherein each of the two flow disturbing tripwires that are disposed on each of two opposite side surfaces of the radome comprises a straight flow disturbing tripwire (710 forms a straight flow disturbing tripwire).
Similarly, in an alternative embodiment, Proshold discloses a similar antenna apparatus, wherein the interference structure further comprises at least four flow disturbing tripwires (see Fig. 14, at least four ridges 1450).
Regarding claim 9, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 8, wherein at least one flow disturbing tripwire is a convex flow disturbing tripwire or is a concave flow disturbing tripwire (710 is a convex ridge, 705 is a concave shape).
Regarding claim 10, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 8, wherein each side surface comprises two arc-shaped corners and a side plane, and each of the two flow disturbing tripwires is disposed in a region of each arc-shaped corner adjacent to the side plane (see cross-section of Fig. 7, side planes of region 2 are adjacent to arc-shaped corners of region 1 which comprise each of the two flow disturbing tripwires 710).
Regarding claim 14, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the number of flow disturbing tripwires is four (either side of the antenna comprising each of a ridge 710 and a dimple profile 705 constitutes the teaching of the number of flow disturbing tripwires being four).
Regarding claim 15, Proshold et al. teaches (Figs. 5, 7-9, 14) an antenna apparatus comprising: an interference structure comprising a rough surface (dimple profile, ridge, and ridge taper angle 705, 710, 720, see Fig. 7); and a radome (700), wherein four corners of a streamlined cross section of the radome are arc-shaped corners (see arc-shaped corners of cross-section, Fig. 7), wherein the streamlined cross-section of the radome is configured to generate a lift force when airflow passes along the surface of the radome from a direction other than a direction parallel to the streamlined cross section (see airflow vectors, Fig. 9), wherein the rough surface comprises a plurality of rough points (dimple profile 705), each rough point being selected from the group consisting of a circular convex point, a circular concave point, a polygonal convex point, and a polygonal concave point (Col 5 lines 18-21; Col 4 lines 37-39, Fig. 5), and wherein the interference structure is disposed on the surface of the radome and is configured to decrease the lift force by changing airflow at a surface boundary layer of the radome (see Fig. 9; Col 6 lines 56-67 and Col 7 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the rough points are disposed on the arc-shaped corners of the radome (in region 735; see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, Proshold et al. teaches (Figs. 5, 7-9, 14) an antenna apparatus comprising: a radome (700) having opposite side surfaces (see Fig. 7), each side surface comprising two arc-shaped corners and a side plane (regions 735, 755, and region 750); and an interference structure comprising a plurality of rough points disposed on the arc-shaped corners of the radome (ridge 710 and dimple 705 comprise rough points), wherein the rough points comprise convex rough points, concave rough points, or a combination thereof (705 is concave, 710 is convex), and wherein the rough points are configured to change airflow at a surface boundary layer of the radome to reduce windload on the antenna apparatus (see Fig. 9; Col 6 lines 56-67 and Col 7 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the interference structure is configured to generate a turbulent wake on the surface of the radome (see Fig. 8, 860).
Regarding claim 19, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the interference structure is configured to generate a turbulent wake on the surface of the radome (see Fig. 8, 860).
Regarding claim 20, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the interference structure is configured to generate a turbulent wake on the surface of the radome (see Fig. 8, 860).
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 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proshold et al. (US PG Pub. No. 10,454,162) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (US Patent No. 11,394,102).
Regarding claim 4, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 1.
Proshold does not teach wherein the rough surface is a set of polygonal points.
Weber et al. teaches an antenna apparatus, comprising: an interference structure comprising a rough surface (see Figs. 2b-13; interference structure comprising a rough surface 10; see Col 6 lines 43-45); and a radome (100), wherein the interference structure is disposed on a surface of the radome (see Fig. 13), to reduce windload on the antenna apparatus (see Col 7 lines 29-47; flow changing from laminar to turbulent flow dissipates energy imposed in one direction by the wind, thus reducing windload on the antenna apparatus), wherein the rough surface is a set of polygonal points (see Fig. 11; Col 8 lines 22-26 and lines 39-40; an elevation in the shape of a rectangle constitutes a polygonal point).
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 antenna apparatus of Proshold such that the rough surface is a set of polygonal points, employing the teachings of Weber.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of dissipating energy imposed in one direction by the wind (Weber, Col 7 lines 29-47).
Regarding claim 5, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 4.
Proshold does not teach wherein the set of polygonal points is a set of polygonal convex points or polygonal concave surfaces.
Weber et al. teaches an antenna apparatus, comprising: an interference structure comprising a rough surface (see Figs. 2b-13; interference structure comprising a rough surface 10; see Col 6 lines 43-45); and a radome (100), wherein the interference structure is disposed on a surface of the radome (see Fig. 13), to reduce windload on the antenna apparatus (see Col 7 lines 29-47; flow changing from laminar to turbulent flow dissipates energy imposed in one direction by the wind, thus reducing windload on the antenna apparatus), wherein the rough surface is a set of polygonal points (see Fig. 11; Col 8 lines 22-26 and lines 39-40; an elevation in the shape of a rectangle constitutes a polygonal point), wherein the set of polygonal points is a set of polygonal convex points or polygonal concave surfaces (see Fig. 11; Col 8 lines 22-26 and lines 39-40; an elevation in the shape of a rectangle constitutes a polygonal convex point).
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 antenna apparatus of Proshold such that the set of polygonal points is a set of polygonal convex points or polygonal concave surfaces, employing the teachings of Weber.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of dissipating energy imposed in one direction by the wind (Weber, Col 7 lines 29-47).
Regarding claim 11, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 8, wherein each side surface comprises two arc-shaped corners and a side plane (see regions 735 and 755, and region 750, Fig. 7).
Proshold does not teach wherein each of the two flow disturbing tripwires is disposed in a joint region between each arc-shaped corner and the side plane.
Weber et al. teaches an antenna apparatus, comprising: an interference structure comprising a rough surface (see Figs. 2b-13; interference structure comprising a rough surface 10; see Col 6 lines 43-45); and a radome (100), wherein the interference structure is disposed on a surface of the radome (see Fig. 13), to reduce windload on the antenna apparatus (see Col 7 lines 29-47; flow changing from laminar to turbulent flow dissipates energy imposed in one direction by the wind, thus reducing windload on the antenna apparatus), wherein each side surface comprises two arc-shaped corners and a side plane (see profile of radome 100 in Figs. 2b, 12), and each of the two flow disturbing tripwires is disposed in a joint region between each arc-shaped corner and the side plane (see disposition of far-left instance of 10 in Fig. 9).
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 antenna apparatus of Proshold such that each of the two flow disturbing tripwires is disposed in a joint region between each arc-shaped corner and the side plane, employing the teachings of Weber.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of dissipating energy imposed in one direction by the wind (Weber, Col 7 lines 29-47).
Similarly, in an alternative embodiment, Proshold discloses a similar antenna apparatus, wherein each of two flow disturbing tripwires is disposed in a joint region between each arc-shaped corner and the side plane (see Fig. 14, ridges 1450 in joint region between region 1470 and region 1480).
Regarding claim 12, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the joint region is a tangent line between one of the two arc-shaped corners and the side plane (see Fig. 7; any point disposed on a continuous curve is inherently disposed at a tangent point of the curve, thus this limitation is inherent to the structure taught).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proshold et al. (US PG Pub. No. 10,454,162) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ming et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0277921).
Regarding claim 13, Proshold teaches the antenna apparatus according to claim 8.
Proshold does not teach wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises: an antenna body, wherein the antenna body is disposed in the radome; and the radome is connected to a pole.
Ming et al. teaches (Figs. 3-10) teaches an antenna apparatus comprising: a radome (304), wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises: an antenna body (700), wherein the antenna body is disposed in the radome; and the radome is connected to a pole (302).
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 antenna apparatus of Proshold such that the antenna apparatus further comprises: an antenna body, wherein the antenna body is disposed in the radome; and the radome is connected to a pole, employing the teachings of Ming.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of providing the airflow disrupting benefits of the apparatus to an outdoor antenna, enabling its use as a component of a data network infrastructure (Ming, ¶6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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