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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8-11 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Original claims 1-11 are directed to a dipole antenna.
Amended claims 8-11 are directed to a dual-polarized antenna, and antenna array.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The invention corresponding to group II lacks a dipole antenna comprising, a pseudo coaxial line.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: The term “first antenna elements” should be changed to “first antenna element.”
Claim 6: The term “high frequency current” should be changed to “high frequency voltage.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s claim amendments filed June 24, 2025 replaced the term “pseudo coaxial line” with “coaxial line.” The term “coaxial line” is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 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 1: The meaning of the term “coaxial line,” as used in the claim, is unclear thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. The specification only describes the invention using the term “pseudo coaxial line” which is also unclear as stated in the previous Office action. While the meaning of “coaxial line” is understood by a person of skill in the art, as it is a well-known electrical element; the conventional meaning of this term is apparently not being used in the claim, as nowhere in the specification is the invention described as including a coaxial line. Accordingly, any electrical line/connection is interpreted to meet the claim limitation.
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)(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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XIANG et al. (CN 211655058 U).
XIANG, figure 2, discloses:
Claim 1: A dipole antenna comprising: an antenna unit (1) provided on a dielectric layer (2); and a coaxial line (11, 171, 15) formed on the dielectric layer and connected to the antenna unit, wherein the coaxial line comprises an outer conductor (15) and a signal line (11, 171); the signal line (11) is arranged through a gap between two antenna elements (101-104) of the antenna unit, the signal line excites the antenna unit (pg. 18, last 3 paragraphs).
Claim 2: wherein each of the outer conductor and the signal line is formed as a through hole (fig, 2).
Claim 3: wherein the signal line is arranged and surrounded by three or more of outer conductors (fig. 3).
Claim 4: the signal line faces a first antenna elements (101) of the two antenna elements at a predetermined distance (fig. 3), and the signal line is connected to a second antenna element (104) of the two antenna elements, and the second antenna element is grounded by the coaxial line (fig.3).
Claim 5: the signal line facing the two antenna elements of the antenna unit with predetermined distances therebetween (fig. 3), and the end opposite to the side to which the high frequency current or the high frequency current is supplied is open (fig. 3).
Claim 6: wherein the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer (5) and a second dielectric layer (2), the antenna unit is provided on the second dielectric layer (fig. 1), and at least part of the signal line (11) is provided on the first dielectric layer and forms a line that traverses the gap (fig. 3).
Claim 7: wherein a transmission layer (16) having a transmission line is provided on the side of the dielectric layer opposite to the side on which the antenna unit is provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant submits that XIANG fails to disclose or render obvious at least "the coaxial line comprises an outer conductor and a signal line, the signal line is arranged through a gap between two antenna elements of the antenna unit, and the signal line excites the antenna unit," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
In response, XIANG, in figure 2, discloses a coaxial line comprises an outer conductor (15) and a signal line (11, 171); the signal line (11) is arranged through a gap between two antenna elements (101-104) of the antenna unit, the signal line excites the antenna unit (pg. 18, last 3 paragraphs).
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 ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Robert Karacsony/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights