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 statements (IDS) filed on 8/8/25 and 10/1/25 are considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendments to claims have been considered and are entered.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 27-28, 30, 33, 35, and 37 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 28, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 3, “element” should read –elements–;
Claim 28, line 3, “element” should read –elements–;
Claim 30, line 10, “element” should read –elements–.
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 14-15 and 37 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 14, the limitation of “at least some” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make explicit to a person having ordinary skill in the art the bounds of quantity of the parasitic monopole elements that are intended to be claimed as cloaked to be substantially transparent to RF energy in an operating frequency band of higher frequency band radiating elements that is included in the base station antenna; further, the limitation of “an array of higher frequency band radiating elements” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make explicit to a person having ordinary skill in the art the relation of the claimed “higher frequency band” aspect of the claimed second array to the established claimed first array of cross-dipole radiating elements, as no operating frequency band is previously established with which to compare the claimed higher frequency band. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation of “at least some” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make explicit to a person having ordinary skill in the art the bounds of quantity of the parasitic monopole elements that are intended to be claimed as including at least a section that is spiraled. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 37, the limitation of “at least some” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make explicit to a person having ordinary skill in the art the bounds of quantity of the parasitic monopole elements that are intended to be claimed as cloaked to be substantially transparent to RF energy in an operating frequency band of higher frequency band radiating elements that is included in the base station antenna; further, the limitation of “an array of higher frequency band radiating elements” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make explicit to a person having ordinary skill in the art the relation of the claimed “higher frequency band” aspect of the claimed second array to the established claimed first array of cross-dipole radiating elements, as no operating frequency band is previously established with which to compare the claimed higher frequency band. 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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16-17, 19, 30, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farzaneh et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0166782).
Regarding claim 1, Farzaneh et al. teaches (Figs. 3D, 6) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (see annotated Fig. 6 below); a first plurality of cross-dipole radiating elements that are arranged as a first array of cross-dipole radiating elements (see Fig. 6), each cross-dipole radiating element comprising a first dipole radiator having a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm and a second dipole radiator having a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (see annotated Fig. 3D; see ¶26, ¶36, ¶50; crossed-dipole radiating element of 3D may be implemented in a plurality as an array as shown in Fig. 6); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (see Fig. 3D) that are associated with a
PNG
media_image1.png
702
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
first of the cross-dipole radiating elements (cross-dipole radiating element displayed in Fig. 6 is suggestive of the form of parasitic monopole elements shown in Fig. 3A, however is understood to be representative of the invention as a whole, thus encompassing the aspect demonstrated in Fig. 3D; see ¶37, ¶50), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (¶37), wherein at least half of each monopole radiator is positioned within a footprint of the first and second dipole radiators of the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements when the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements is viewed from the front (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 6, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the entirety of each monopole radiator is positioned within a footprint of the first and second dipole radiators when the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements is viewed from the front (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 9, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein a base of each monopole radiator is mounted to extend forwardly from the reflector, and a distal end of each monopole radiator is bent (see shape of monopole radiators, Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 11, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements includes a total of four associated parasitic monopole elements (see ¶37).
Regarding claim 14, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein at least some of the parasitic monopole elements are cloaked to be substantially transparent to RF energy in an operating frequency band of an array of higher frequency band radiating elements that is included in the base station antenna (see Fig. 7, elements 310 may be construed as an array of higher band radiating elements in the absence of comparison to other operating frequency bands; parasitic monopole elements of elements 300; see ¶53, parasitic monopole elements of antennas 300 are inoperable with respect to antennas 310).
Regarding claim 16, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein a base of each monopole radiator is positioned closer to a center of the footprint of the first of the cross-dipole radiating element than is a distal end of each monopole radiator (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 17, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein at least one of the monopole radiators includes at least two capacitively coupled conductive segments (vertical segments) and at least one meandered inductive segment (meander segment creating meander shape between vertical segments; see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 19, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1, wherein the monopole radiators are capacitively coupled to the reflector (see Fig. 3D, no contact between parasitic monopole radiators and ground reflector, teaching capacitive coupling).
Regarding claim 30, Farzaneh et al. teaches (Figs. 3D, 6) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (see annotated Fig. 6 below); a first plurality of cross-dipole radiating elements that are arranged as a first array of cross-dipole radiating elements (see Fig. 6), each cross-dipole radiating element comprising a first dipole radiator having a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm and a second dipole radiator having a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (see annotated Fig. 3D; see ¶26, ¶36, ¶50; crossed-dipole radiating element of 3D may be implemented in a plurality as an array as shown in Fig. 6); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (see Fig. 3D) that are associated with a first of the cross-dipole radiating elements (cross-dipole radiating element displayed in Fig. 6 is suggestive of the form of parasitic monopole elements shown in Fig. 3A, however is understood to be representative of the invention as a whole, thus encompassing the aspect demonstrated in Fig. 3D; see ¶37, ¶50), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (¶37), wherein a base of each monopole radiator (end toward reflector) is positioned closer to a center of the footprint of the first of the cross-dipole radiating element than is a distal end of each monopole radiator (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 33, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 30, wherein the base of each monopole radiator is positioned within a footprint of the first and second dipole radiators when the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements is viewed from the front (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 35, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 30, wherein the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements includes a total of four associated parasitic monopole elements (see ¶37).
Regarding claim 37, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 30, wherein at least some of the parasitic monopole elements are cloaked to be substantially transparent to RF energy in an operating frequency band of an array of higher frequency band radiating elements that is included in the base station antenna (see Fig. 7, elements 310 may be construed as an array of higher band radiating elements in the absence of comparison to other operating frequency bands; parasitic monopole elements of elements 300; see ¶53, parasitic monopole elements of antennas 300 are inoperable with respect to antennas 310).
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farzaneh et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0166782) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0140481).
Regarding claim 2, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1.
Farzaneh does not explicitly teach wherein each monopole radiator has an electrical length of between 0.2 and 0.4 of a wavelength within an operating frequency band of the first array.
Lin et al. teaches (Fig. 5) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (22); a first cross-dipole radiating element comprising a first dipole radiator having a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm and a second dipole radiator having a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (22D); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (24A) that are associated with the first cross-dipole radiating element (see Fig. 5), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (see Fig. 5), wherein each monopole radiator has an electrical length of between 0.2 and 0.4 of a wavelength within an operating frequency band of the array (¶14 lines 12-16).
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 Farzaneh such that each monopole radiator has an electrical length of between 0.2 and 0.4 of a wavelength within an operating frequency band of the first array, employing the teachings of Lin.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably broadening the beamwidth of the antenna (Lin, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1.
Farzaneh does not teach wherein at least some of the monopole radiators extend forwardly from the reflector at an angle of between 20° and 50°.
Lin et al. teaches (Fig. 5) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (22); a first cross-dipole radiating element comprising a first dipole radiator having a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm and a second dipole radiator having a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (22D); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (24A) that are associated with the first cross-dipole radiating element (see Fig. 5), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (see Fig. 5), wherein at least some of the monopole radiators extend forwardly from the reflector at an angle between 20° and 50° (¶14).
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 Farzaneh such that at least some of the monopole radiators extend forwardly from the reflector at an angle between 20° and 50°, employing the teachings of Lin.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably broadening the beamwidth of the antenna (Lin, Abstract).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farzaneh et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0166782) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grandfield et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0171517).
Regarding claim 15, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 1.
Farzaneh does not teach wherein at least some of the monopole radiators include at least a section that is spiraled.
Grandfield et al. teaches (Fig. 2) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (210); a first radiating element comprising a first radiator (212); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (202, 204, 206, 208) that are associated with the first radiating element (see Fig. 2), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (see Fig. 2), wherein at least some of the monopole radiators include at least a section that is spiraled (see Fig. 2, ¶38).
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 Farzaneh such that at least some of the monopole radiators include at least a section that is spiraled, employing the teachings of Grandfield.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna to operate as an open-ended quadrifilar helical antenna, to desirably direct power towards a zenith (Grandfield, ¶38).
Claims 20, 22-23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farzaneh et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0166782) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0140481).
Regarding claim 20, Farzaneh et al. teaches (Figs. 3D, 6) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (see annotated Fig. 6 below); a first plurality of cross-dipole radiating elements that are arranged as a first array of cross-dipole radiating elements (see Fig. 6), each cross-dipole radiating element comprising a first dipole radiator having a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm and a second dipole radiator having a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (see annotated Fig. 3D; see ¶26, ¶36, ¶50; crossed-dipole radiating element of 3D may be implemented in a plurality as an array as shown in Fig. 6); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (see Fig. 3D) that are associated with a first of the cross-dipole radiating elements (cross-dipole radiating element displayed in Fig. 6 is suggestive of the form of parasitic monopole elements shown in Fig. 3A, however is understood to be representative of the invention as a whole, thus encompassing the aspect demonstrated in Fig. 3D; see ¶37, ¶50), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (¶37), wherein each monopole radiator is positioned at least partly within a footprint of the first and second dipole radiators of the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements when the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements is viewed from the front (see Fig. 3D).
Farzaneh does not teach wherein at least some of the monopole radiators extend forwardly from the reflector at an angle between 10° and 80°.
Lin et al. teaches (Fig. 5) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (22); a first cross-dipole radiating element comprising a first dipole radiator having a first dipole arm and a second dipole arm and a second dipole radiator having a third dipole arm and a fourth dipole arm (22D); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (24A) that are associated with the first cross-dipole radiating element (see Fig. 5), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (see Fig. 5), wherein at least some of the monopole radiators extend forwardly from the reflector at an angle between 10° and 80° (¶14).
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 Farzaneh such that at least some of the monopole radiators extend forwardly from the reflector at an angle between 10° and 80°, employing the teachings of Lin.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably broadening the beamwidth of the antenna (Lin, Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 20, wherein the monopole radiators are capacitively coupled to the reflector (see Fig. 3D, no contact between parasitic monopole radiators and ground reflector, teaching capacitive coupling).
Regarding claim 23, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 20, wherein at least half of each monopole radiator is positioned within a footprint of the first and second dipole radiators when the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements is viewed from the front (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 25, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 20, wherein a distal end of each monopole radiator is positioned adjacent a distal end of a respective one of the first through fourth dipole arms of the first of the cross-dipole radiating elements (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 28, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 20, wherein a base of each monopole radiator is positioned closer to a center of the footprint of the first of the cross-dipole radiating element than is a distal end of each monopole radiator (see Fig. 3D).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farzaneh et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0166782) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0140481) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Grandfield et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0171517).
Regarding claim 27, Farzaneh teaches the base station antenna of claim 20.
Farzaneh does not teach wherein at least one of the monopole radiators includes at least a section that is spiraled.
Grandfield et al. teaches (Fig. 2) a base station antenna, comprising: a reflector (210); a first radiating element comprising a first radiator (212); and a plurality of parasitic monopole elements (202, 204, 206, 208) that are associated with the first radiating element (see Fig. 2), each parasitic monopole element including a monopole radiator (see Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the monopole radiators includes at least a section that is spiraled (see Fig. 2, ¶38).
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 Farzaneh such that at least one of the monopole radiators includes at least a section that is spiraled, employing the teachings of Grandfield.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna to operate as an open-ended quadrifilar helical antenna, to desirably direct power towards a zenith (Grandfield, ¶38).
Conclusion
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