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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0280874.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a base station antenna sector (Figs. 1a, 1b, 5a-5e), comprising:
a first reflector comprising a first flat panel (42 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027) and a plurality of first radiating elements mounted thereon (43 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027);
a second reflector comprising a second flat panel (46 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027) and plurality of second radiating elements mounted thereon (47 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027); and
a radome surrounding the first and second reflectors (412 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0026);
wherein the second reflector is pivotally movable relative to the first reflector (through 44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. teaches wherein the first reflector is fixedly mounted to a mounting framework in the radome (Fig. 1b Par. 0043).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. teaches wherein the second reflector pivots relative to the first reflector via a hinge attached adjacent side edges of the first and second reflectors (44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. teaches wherein the second reflector pivots relative to the first reflector about a pivot axis located between the first and second flat panels (44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. teaches wherein the pivot axis is located adjacent a center of the radome (Fig. 1b).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. teaches further comprising a pivot-limiting structure to limit a pivot arc of the second reflector (493, 495 Fig. 1b Par. 0027, 0030).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim et al. teaches a base station antenna sector (Figs. 1a, 1b, 5a-5e), comprising:
a first reflector comprising a first flat panel (42 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027) and a plurality of first radiating elements mounted thereon (43 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027);
a second reflector comprising a second flat panel (46 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027) and plurality of second radiating elements mounted thereon (47 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027);
a radome surrounding the first and second reflectors (412 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0026); and
wherein the first reflector is fixed relative to the radome (Figs. 1b, 5a-5e), and the second reflector is pivotally movable relative to the first reflector (through 44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al. teaches wherein the second reflector pivots relative to the first reflector via a hinge attached adjacent side edges of the first and second reflectors (44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al. teaches wherein the second reflector pivots relative to the first reflector about a pivot axis located between the first and second flat panels (44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. teaches wherein the pivot axis is located adjacent a center of the radome (Fig. 1b).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim et al. teaches further comprising a pivot-limiting structure to limit a pivot arc of the second reflector (493, 495 Fig. 1b Par. 0027, 0030).
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.
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, 8, 10 & 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0280874 and Liu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0243951.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. teaches the base station antenna sector defined in claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Kim et al. is silent on wherein the radome is generally cylindrical.
However, Liu et al. teaches wherein the radome is generally cylindrical (102 Fig. 2A Par. 0008).
In this particular case, providing the radome to be generally cylindrical is common and well known in the art as evident by Liu et al. to provide a uniform appearance and blends with surroundings such as when mounted on a utility pole.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the radome of Kim et al. to be generally cylindrical based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to obtain a uniform appearance that blends with surroundings such as when mounted on a utility pole.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al. teaches wherein together the first and second reflectors are configured to support a MIMO arrangement (Par. 0004).
Kim et al. is silent on a four layer MIMO arrangement.
However, Liu et al. teaches a four layer MIMO arrangement (“a base station antenna that is designed to operate as a 4×MIMO antenna in a first frequency band will typically have two arrays of dual-polarized radiating elements, which allow the antenna to generate two antenna beams (i.e., one for each array) at each of two orthogonal polarizations, providing a total of four antenna beams for transmitting four separate data streams. As noted above, there is demand for small cell base station antennas that operate in two, three, four or more different frequency bands, where each frequency band implements 2×MIMO or 4×MIMO”).
In this particular case, configuring the first and second reflectors to support a four layer MIMO arrangement is common and well known in the art as evident by Liu et al. in order to obtain four antenna beams for four separate data streams.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first and second reflectors of Kim et al. to support a four layer MIMO arrangement based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to obtain four antenna beams for four separate data streams.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al. teaches The base station antenna sector defined in claim 9 as shown in the rejection above.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim et al. teaches wherein together the first and second reflectors are configured to support a MIMO arrangement (Par. 0004).
Kim et al. is silent on a four layer MIMO arrangement.
However, Liu et al. teaches a four layer MIMO arrangement (“a base station antenna that is designed to operate as a 4×MIMO antenna in a first frequency band will typically have two arrays of dual-polarized radiating elements, which allow the antenna to generate two antenna beams (i.e., one for each array) at each of two orthogonal polarizations, providing a total of four antenna beams for transmitting four separate data streams. As noted above, there is demand for small cell base station antennas that operate in two, three, four or more different frequency bands, where each frequency band implements 2×MIMO or 4×MIMO”).
In this particular case, configuring the first and second reflectors to support a four layer MIMO arrangement is common and well known in the art as evident by Liu et al. in order to obtain four antenna beams for four separate data streams.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first and second reflectors of Kim et al. to support a four layer MIMO arrangement based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to obtain four antenna beams for four separate data streams.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim et al. teaches a base station antenna sector (Figs. 1a, 1b, 5a-5e), comprising:
a first reflector comprising a first flat panel (42 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027) and a plurality of first radiating elements mounted thereon (43 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027);
a second reflector comprising a second flat panel (46 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027) and plurality of second radiating elements mounted thereon (47 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0027); and
a radome surrounding the first and second reflectors (412 Figs. 1a, 1b Par. 0026); and
wherein the second reflector is pivotally movable relative to the first reflector about a pivot axis (through 44, 45 Figs. 1b, 5a-5e Par. 0027, 0028), the pivot axis being located between the first and second reflectors (Fig. 1b).
Kim et al. is silent on a generally cylindrical radome.
However, Liu et al. teaches a generally cylindrical radome (102 Fig. 2A Par. 0008).
In this particular case, providing the radome to be generally cylindrical is common and well known in the art as evident by Liu et al. to provide a uniform appearance and blends with surroundings such as when mounted on a utility pole.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the radome of Kim et al. to be generally cylindrical based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to obtain a uniform appearance that blends with surroundings such as when mounted on a utility pole.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the first radiating elements and the second radiating elements are MIMO radiating elements (Par. 0004).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim et al. as modified teaches the base station antenna sector defined in claim 17 as shown in the rejection above.
Kim et al. is silent on wherein together the first and second reflectors provide a four layer or higher MIMO arrangement in different frequency ranges.
However, Liu et al. teaches a four layer or higher MIMO arrangement in different frequency ranges (“a base station antenna that is designed to operate as a 4×MIMO antenna in a first frequency band will typically have two arrays of dual-polarized radiating elements, which allow the antenna to generate two antenna beams (i.e., one for each array) at each of two orthogonal polarizations, providing a total of four antenna beams for transmitting four separate data streams. As noted above, there is demand for small cell base station antennas that operate in two, three, four or more different frequency bands, where each frequency band implements 2×MIMO or 4×MIMO”).
In this particular case, configuring the first and second reflectors to support a four layer MIMO arrangement is common and well known in the art as evident by Liu et al. in order to obtain four antenna beams for four separate data streams.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first and second reflectors of Kim et al. to support a four layer MIMO arrangement in different frequency ranges based on the teachings of Liu et al. as a result effect in order to obtain four antenna beams for four separate data streams in different frequency ranges.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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 (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights