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 .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on January 14, 2026. The Remarks of January 14, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 1-9 are considered. The respective amendment to claim 1 is accepted and the 112 rejections are withdrawn. There are no further 112 rejections.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of claims 1-9 are considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 (line 1): “The in-vehicle antenna according to claim 1” should be amended to “The in-vehicle antenna device according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20240178554 A1, hereinafter Hara) in view of Mizoguchi et al. (US 20130307745 A1, hereinafter Mizoguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Hara (Figure 18; [0152-0157]) teaches an in-vehicle antenna device (13) which is installed in a vehicle, comprising:
a metal base (500);
a plurality of TEL (telematics) antennas (514a, b) in which an antenna unit is a plate antenna (regarding the plate antenna, see the annotated Fig. 18 in Hara below), and in which the antenna unit is installed at a position separated by a predetermined length (regarding the predetermined length, see length H1 in the annotated Fig. 18 in Hara below) in a first direction (Z) that is a direction perpendicular to a plane of the metal base, in such a way as to be parallel to the plane of the metal base; and
a GNSS (global navigation satellite system) antenna (511) installed on the metal base such that a distance between an upper surface of the GNSS antenna and the metal base (regarding the distance between an upper surface of the GNSS antenna and the metal base, see distance H2 in the annotated Fig. 18 in Hara below) is shorter than the predetermined length in the first direction,
wherein the plurality of TEL antennas include a first TEL antenna (514a) and a second TEL antenna (514b),
wherein the first TEL antenna is installed apart from the second TEL antenna by a predetermined distance (regarding the predetermined distance, see distance D in the annotated Fig. 18 in Hara below) in a second direction (Y) that is parallel to the plane of the metal base, and
PNG
media_image1.png
552
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first TEL antenna is symmetrical to the second TEL antenna about an axis that is parallel to the substrate plane and orthogonal to the second direction (regarding the symmetry axis, see the annotated Fig. 18 in Hara below).
Hara does not disclose an antenna substrate and TEL (telematics) antennas in which an antenna unit is a plate antenna which is electrically connected to the antenna substrate via a feeding unit and a GND ground unit.
Mizoguchi (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna substrate (20) and a plurality of antennas (30, 40) in which an antenna unit is a plate antenna (34, 44) which is electrically connected to the antenna substrate via a feeding unit (36, 46 – 46 not shown in Fig. 1; for reference to 46 see paragraph [0027]) and a GND ground unit (32, 42). Furthermore, Hara ([0154]) discloses: “The metal base 500 is a substantially quadrilateral metal plate used as a ground common to the antennas 510 to 514, …”. It is well-known in the art that an antenna ground can be disposed on and be a part of an antenna substrate and, therefore, one skilled in the art recognizes that the metal plate in Hara can be replaced by an antenna substrate having a conductive layer which serves as a common ground for antennas installed on the antenna substrate.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara by substituting the metal plate and the TEL antennas in Hara with the antenna substrate and the antennas in Mizoguchi, so that:
a plate antenna is electrically connected to the antenna substrate via a feeding unit and a GND ground unit, and the antenna unit is installed at a position separated by a predetermined length in a first direction that is a direction perpendicular to a substrate plane of the antenna substrate, in such a way as to be parallel to the substrate plane of the antenna substrate; and
a GNSS (global navigation satellite system) antenna is installed on the antenna substrate such that a distance between an upper surface of the GNSS antenna and the antenna substrate is shorter than the predetermined length in the first direction,
wherein the first TEL antenna is installed apart from the second TEL antenna by a predetermined distance in a second direction that is parallel to the substrate plane of the antenna substrate, and
wherein the first TEL antenna is symmetrical to the second TEL antenna about an axis that is parallel to the substrate plane and orthogonal to the second direction.
This modification would provide an antenna device having TEL antennas and a GNSS antenna which can be directly connected to feeding and matching circuits disposed on the antenna substrate as opposed to being fed by cables, which would be the case when the antennas are installed on a metal base. As a result of this modification, the antenna device would be more compact and would be easier to install in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hara teaches the in-vehicle antenna device of claim 1.
The modified Hara (Fig. 18) further teaches, by the virtue of substituting the metal base (500) with the antenna substrate of Mizoguchi, that the plurality of TEL antennas (514a, b) are installed apart from each other by a predetermined distance in a direction parallel to the substrate plane of the antenna substrate (regarding the predetermined distance, see distance D in the annotated Fig. 18 in Hara above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hara teaches the in-vehicle antenna device of claim 1.
The modified Hara (Fig. 18) further teaches, by the virtue of substituting the metal base (500) with the antenna substrate of Mizoguchi, there is no metal shield at a position on the antenna substrate where an elevation angle from a feed point of the GNSS antenna (regarding the feed point of the GNSS antenna, see annotated Fig. 18 in Hara above) ranges from 10 degrees to 90 degrees with the feed point as a center thereof, which is a position corresponding to a traveling direction of the vehicle (positive X (FRONT)) and a direction opposite to the traveling direction of the vehicle (negative X – opposite to (FRONT)) with respect to the GNSS antenna.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hara teaches the in-vehicle antenna device of claim 1.
The modified Hara (Fig. 18) further teaches the GNSS antenna (511) is between the first TEL antenna (514a) and the second TEL antenna (514b).
The modified Hara (Fig. 18) further teaches, by the virtue of substituting respectively the metal base (500) and the TEL antennas (514a, b) with the antenna substrate and the antennas of Mizoguchi, the limitation wherein the first TEL antenna and the second TEL antenna are directly connected to the antenna substrate.
The modified Hara does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the GNSS antenna is directly connected to the antenna substrate.
However, Hara (Fig. 1; [0061]) teaches a GNSS antenna (32) directly connected to an antenna substrate (42).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara so that the GNSS antenna is directly connected to the antenna substrate. This modification would make the antenna device in Hara more compact and would eliminate the need for a coaxial feed cable for the GNSS antenna by providing a direct antenna feed and grounding via the appropriate structures disposed on the substrate.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hara as applied to claim 1 in view of Yamashita et al. (US 20210359405 A1, hereinafter Yamashita).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Hara teaches the in-vehicle antenna device of claim 1.
The modified Hara does not teach the limitation wherein each TEL antenna includes a plurality of antenna elements corresponding to a plurality of frequency bands.
Yamashita (Fig. 8) teaches an antenna (53) which includes a plurality of antenna elements (53b and 53c). Further, Yamashita ([0035] recites: “The antenna element 53 includes a connecting conductive plate 53a, a first radiating conductor plate 53b, a second radiating conductive plate 53c, and a feeding pin 53d.” A person of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the radiating conductive plates 53a and 53b radiate electromagnetic waves in different frequency bands. Thus, the antenna taught by Yamashita includes a plurality of antenna elements corresponding to a plurality of frequency bands.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara so that each TEL antenna includes a plurality of antenna elements corresponding to a plurality of frequency bands as taught by Yamashita. This modification achieves the predictable result of providing TEL antennas operating in a plurality of frequency bands, thus, enabling communications with other devices in different bands.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hara as applied to claim 1 in view of Li et al. (US 11271691 B2, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Hara teaches the in-vehicle antenna device of claim 1.
The modified Hara does not teach the antenna device further comprising a backup battery, wherein the backup battery has a shorter length in the first direction than the predetermined length, and an uppermost part of the backup battery in the first direction is positioned lower in the first direction than an uppermost part of the TEL antenna in the first direction.
Li (Fig. 5) teaches a battery (550) for a wireless communication device (500). Furthermore, one skilled in the art recognizes that there are many types of batteries (see Li - paragraph 115) and would be able to select a battery with the appropriate dimensions, so that the backup battery has a shorter length in the first direction than the predetermined length, and an uppermost part of the backup battery in the first direction is positioned lower in the first direction than an uppermost part of the TEL antenna in the first direction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara to add a backup battery, wherein the backup battery has a shorter length in the first direction than the predetermined length, and an uppermost part of the backup battery in the first direction is positioned lower in the first direction than an uppermost part of the TEL antenna in the first direction. This modification would achieve the predictable result of providing the antenna device with a secondary power source in case the primary power source is not operational. In addition, selecting a battery with the appropriate dimensions would ensure that the battery installed in the antenna device in proximity with an antenna(s) will not degrade the performance of the antenna(s).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Hara as applied to claim 1 in view of Riley et al. (US 20100304709 A1, hereinafter Riley).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Hara teaches the in-vehicle antenna device of claim 1.
The modified Hara does not teach an in-vehicle communication system including the in-vehicle antenna device according to claim 1, an emergency call speaker, a microphone, and an emergency call switch.
Riley (Fig. 1, paragraph [0024]) teaches a communication system (10) including an emergency call speaker (18), a microphone (16), and an emergency call switch (22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara to combine the in-vehicle antenna device according to claim 1 with an emergency call speaker, a microphone, and an emergency call switch using appropriate interfaces known to one skilled in the art. This modification achieves the predictable result of providing a communication system, which has all of the elements claimed here and which has the capacity of communicating with external devices for providing help in case of emergency.
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights