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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification in Para. 0020, 0026 and 0077 recite “… the first frequency selective service…” and “… the second frequency selective service…” instead of “…the first frequency selective surface…” and “… the second frequency selective surface…” previously recited in the paragraphs. In addition, in Para. 0077, item 328 was previously called a first frequency selective surface, but later the first frequency selective service.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “… the first frequency selective service…” instead of “…the first frequency selective surface…”. 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the first frequency selective service", however, there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims.
In addition, claim 21 recites the limitation "the first frequency selective service" and "the second frequency selective service", however, there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Patel et al. (US 20210195687).
Patel et al. disclose;
Regarding claim 1:
(in Figs. 1-6) a passive/active antenna system (100), comprising: a first passive base station antenna (200) that has a first radome (212); a second passive base station antenna (300) that has a second radome (312), the second passive base station antenna (300) mounted adjacent the first passive base station antenna (200); and an active antenna module (302) mounted behind both the first passive base station antenna (200) and the second passive base station antenna (300) and configured to transmit radio frequency (“RF”) signals through both the first passive base station antenna (200) and the second passive base station antenna (300).
Regarding claim 6:
the active antenna module (302) and the first and second passive base station antennas (200 and 300) are mounted on a mounting structure (defined the post) using shared mounting hardware (216 and 316).
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 20210195687) in view of Shun et al. (CN108886399B).
Regarding claim 2:
Patel et al. are silent on that the first passive base station antenna is horizontally spaced apart from the second passive base station antenna by a gap.
Shun et al. disclose (in Figs. 2-1 to 2-6) the first passive base station antenna (201) is horizontally spaced apart from the second passive base station antenna (202) by a gap (See Figs.), and wherein the active antenna module (e.g., 203) is also configured to transmit RF signals through the gap (See Figs.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first passive base station antenna is horizontally spaced apart from the second passive base station antenna by a gap as taught by Shun et al. into the device of Patel et al. for the benefit of reducing the overall weight of the active antenna unit and the complexity of field installation and production and manufacturing of the active antenna unit (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 3:
Patel et al. disclose a minimum width of the gap is at least 40 millimeters (Para. 0068, Lines 6-11).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 20210195687) in view of Lv et al. (US 20200259248).
Regarding claim 8:
Patel et al. are silent on that the active antenna module overlaps the first passive base station antenna in a forward direction that is perpendicular to a plane defined by a main reflector of the first passive base station antenna, and the active antenna module overlaps the second passive base station antenna in the forward direction.
Lv et al. disclose the active antenna module (180, 280) overlaps the first passive base station antenna (disposed in 11) in a forward direction that is perpendicular to a plane defined by a main reflector (12) of the first passive base station antenna (disposed in 11), and the active antenna module (180, 280) overlaps the second passive base station antenna (disposed in 21) in the forward direction (See Fig. 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the active antenna module overlaps the first passive base station antenna in a forward direction that is perpendicular to a plane defined by a main reflector of the first passive base station antenna, and the active antenna module overlaps the second passive base station antenna in the forward direction as taught by Lv et al. into the device of Patel et al. for the benefit of reducing design complexity of the antenna, and improving manufacturability (Para. 0005, Lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 9:
Patel et al. are silent on that the first passive base station antenna comprises: a first reflector; a first frequency selective surface mounted above the first reflector; a first plurality of lower-band radiating elements that form a first lower-band array, where a first subset of the first plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the first reflector and a second subset of the first plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the first frequency selective surface, and wherein the second passive base station antenna comprises: a second reflector; a second frequency selective surface mounted above the second reflector; a second plurality of lower-band radiating elements that form a second lower-band array, where a first subset of the second plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the second reflector and a second subset of the second plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the second frequency selective surface.
Lv et al. disclose (in Fig. 6) the first passive base station antenna (10) comprises: a first reflector (12); a first frequency selective surface (defined by surface accommodating A and B) mounted above the first reflector (12); a first plurality of lower-band radiating elements (A) that form a first lower-band array (See Fig.), where a first subset of the first plurality of lower-band radiating elements (defined by A) extend forwardly of the first reflector (12) and a second subset of the first plurality of lower-band radiating elements (defined by B) extend forwardly of the first frequency selective surface (defined by surface accommodating A and B), and wherein the second passive base station antenna (20) comprises: a second reflector (22); a second frequency selective surface (defined by A and C) mounted above the second reflector (22); a second plurality of lower-band radiating elements (A) that form a second lower-band array, where a first subset of the second plurality of lower-band radiating elements (defined by A) extend forwardly of the second reflector (22) and a second subset of the second plurality of lower-band radiating elements (defined by C) extend forwardly of the second frequency selective surface (defined by A and C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first passive base station antenna comprises: a first reflector; a first frequency selective surface mounted above the first reflector; a first plurality of lower-band radiating elements that form a first lower-band array, where a first subset of the first plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the first reflector and a second subset of the first plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the first frequency selective surface, and wherein the second passive base station antenna comprises: a second reflector; a second frequency selective surface mounted above the second reflector; a second plurality of lower-band radiating elements that form a second lower-band array, where a first subset of the second plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the second reflector and a second subset of the second plurality of lower-band radiating elements extend forwardly of the second frequency selective surface as taught by Lv et al. into the device of Patel et al. for the benefit of reducing design complexity of the antenna, and improving manufacturability (Para. 0005, Lines 20-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19, 22-25, 27 and 29 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 16-22, a combination of limitations that “a second passive base station antenna that has a second housing that includes a second radome mounted adjacent the first passive base station antenna and spaced apart from the first passive base station antenna in a horizontal direction by a gap; and an active antenna module having a multi-column array of radiating elements mounted so that a first column of radiating elements of the multi-column array is behind the first passive base station antenna, a second column of radiating elements of the multi-column array is behind the second passive base station antenna, and a third column of radiating elements of the multi-column array is at least partly behind the gap.” None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combining with other limitations recited in claims 24-25, 27 and 29, a combination of limitations that “a second passive base station antenna that has a second radome that has a second inner side and a second outer side opposite the second inner side, the second base station antenna mounted adjacent the first passive base station antenna in a horizontal direction so that the second inner side is adjacent the first inner side; and an active antenna module having a multi-column array of radiating elements mounted behind both the first passive base station antenna and the second passive base station antenna, wherein the first passive base station antenna includes a first frequency selective surface that extends closer to the first inner side than it does to the first outer side, and the second passive base station antenna includes a second frequency selective surface that extends closer to the second inner side than it does to the second outer side.” None of the reference art of record discloses or renders obvious such a combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights