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 Interpretation
In order to ensure clarity of the record the following an explanation of the interpretation scope of a specific limitation present in claims 12, 33 and 34.
Claim 12 recites in part “at least one antenna window, wherein the at least one antenna window comprises as least one of a window portion, … and an electrically insulating connecting portion of the housing component…” (emphasis added).
Per MPEP 2111.01 and Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Superguide decision stating in part: “A common treatise on grammar teaches that "an article of a preposition applying to all the members of the series must either be used only before the first term or else be repeated before each term." William Strunk, Jr. & E.B.White, The Elements of Style 27 (4th ed. 2000). Thus, "[i]n spring, summer, or winter" means "in spring, in summer, or in winter." Id. Applying this grammatical principle here, the phrase "at least one of" modifies each member of the list, i.e., each category in the list.”
Per this guidance the plain meaning of the phrase “at least one of x, y, and z”, absent evidence to the contrary from the specification or prosecution history, is “at least one of x, and at least one of y, and at least one of z”.
In consideration of claims 12, 33 and 34, this means that the scope of the claims is ‘at least one of A (a window portion)’ and ‘at least one of B (an electrically insulating connecting portion)’. Therefore, for each of claims 12, 33 and 34 the scope of the claims includes a design actively comprising both of at least one window portion, and at least one electrically insulating connecting portion (specifically, these limitations are not claimed in the alternative).
Claims 12, 33 and 34 each recite the limitation ‘to substantially prevent’, while ‘substantially’ is a relative term, it has been sufficiently defined by the specification at Paragraph 38 of the PG Pub associated with this application: “When referred to herein substantially preventing the passage of electromagnetic radiation means the radiation that passes through does not interfere with the operation of circuitry in the terminal housing.”
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 13-26 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 13 recites the limitation "a window portion” and “an electrically insulating connecting portion" in lines 2-3. Each of these elements was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "a window portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "an electrically insulating connecting portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "an electrically insulating connecting portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "an electrically insulating connecting portion” in line 2. This element was established in the dependent claim using the same wording, and thus creates an indefinite scope based on antecedent confusion between the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 27-34 are allowed.
Claims 13-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 12, 33 and 34 the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specific antenna window composition comprising each of the claimed window portion specifics and insulating portion specifics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior arts are relevant to the scope of the claimed invention but fail to anticipate or render obvious each of the claimed limitations.
Tanenbaum (US Pub 20190036564)
Byler (US Pub 20160212893)
Chung (US Pub 20150198981)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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 R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights