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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JP on 02/05/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14: “a width of the vehicle” should read “the vehicle width” because “a vehicle width” was recited in claim 1.
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 1-17 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 recites the limitation "when a central region is defined as a region having widths equidistant to each other in a left-right vehicle width direction from the center line that bisects a vehicle width when viewed in a vertical direction of the vehicle" in lines 10-13 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, it is not clear the center line of what element the claim refers to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as "when a central region is defined as a region having widths equidistant to each other in a left-right vehicle width direction from [[the]] a center line of the central region that bisects a vehicle width when viewed in a vertical direction of the vehicle".
Claims 2-17 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the first antenna and the third antenna are arranged at positions apart by the same distance from the center line, and the second antenna and the fourth antenna are arranged at positions apart by the same distance from the center line” in lines 2-5 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, if the first and third antennas are arranged in the central region and the second antenna is arranged in the first peripheral region, and the fourth antenna is arranged in the second peripheral region as cited in claim 4, the distance between the first and third antennas would be different to the distance between the second and fourth antennas. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the MIMO antenna is arranged in the first region or the second region" in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “the MIMO antenna” includes all four antennas recited in claim 1 which includes the first and second antennas, therefore this limitation would conflict with the configuration (2) of claim 1 wherein one antenna is arranged in the first region and another one is arranged in the second region, not all of the MIMO antenna is arranged in one region as cited in claim 6. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claims 7-8 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 8 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " wherein the MIMO antenna is arranged on a windshield" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “the MIMO antenna” includes all four antennas recited in claim 1 which includes the first and second antennas, therefore this limitation would conflict with the configuration (2) of claim 1 wherein one antenna is arranged in the first region and another one is arranged in the second region, not all of the MIMO antenna is arranged in one region/the windshield as cited in claim 7. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " wherein the MIMO antenna is arranged a rear window" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “the MIMO antenna” includes all four antennas recited in claim 1 which includes the first and second antennas, therefore this limitation would conflict with the configuration (2) of claim 1 wherein one antenna is arranged in the first region and another one is arranged in the second region, not all of the MIMO antenna is arranged in one region/the rear window as cited in claim 8. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
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.
(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 1-6, 9, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kopelman, US-20190058248-A1.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kopelman discloses the following:
an antenna system for vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle (fig. 7B below); and
a MIMO antenna (para [0064]) that is mounted on the vehicle and transmits and receives radio waves of a predetermined frequency (para [0066]), wherein the MIMO antenna includes four antennas including a first antenna that mainly transmits and receives a first polarized wave and a second antenna that mainly transmits and receives a second polarized wave orthogonal to the first polarized wave (fig. 7B below, para [0064]: horizontal polarized antennas along the x-axis and vertical polarized antennas along the y-axis), the four antennas being dispersedly arranged on the vehicle (fig. 7B), and
when a central region is defined as a region having widths equidistant to each other in a left-right vehicle width direction from the center line that bisects a vehicle width when viewed in a vertical direction of the vehicle, a first peripheral region and a second peripheral region are defined as two regions with the central region interposed therebetween, a first region is defined as a front region of the vehicle using an arbitrary line extending in the vehicle width direction as a boundary, and a second region is defined as a rear region of the vehicle relative to the first region (fig. 7B),
the first antenna and the second antenna are arranged based on at least one of:
(1) a configuration in which one is arranged in the central region and another one is arranged in the first peripheral region or the second peripheral region; and
(2) a configuration in which one is arranged in the first region and another one is arranged in the second region (fig. 7B: plurality of antennas 710B in the first and second regions).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman discloses wherein the MIMO antenna includes a third antenna that mainly transmits and receives the first polarized wave and a fourth antenna that mainly transmits and receives the second polarized wave (fig. 7B above, para [0064]: horizontal polarized antennas along the x-axis and vertical polarized antennas along the y-axis).
Regarding claim 3, Kopelman discloses wherein one of a first antenna group including the first antenna and the third antenna and a second antenna group including the second antenna and the fourth antenna is arranged in the central region, and another one is arranged in at least one of the first peripheral region and the second peripheral region (fig. 7B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
263
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kopelman discloses wherein the first antenna and the third antenna are arranged in the central region (fig. 7B above: first group), the second antenna is arranged in the first peripheral region (fig. 7B above), and the fourth antenna is arranged in the second peripheral region (fig. 7B above), or the first antenna is arranged in the first peripheral region, the third antenna is arranged in the second peripheral region, and the second antenna and the fourth antenna are arranged in the central region.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Kopelman discloses wherein the first antenna and the third antenna are arranged at positions apart by the same distance from the center line, and the second antenna and the fourth antenna are arranged at positions apart by the same distance from the center line (fig. 7B below).
PNG
media_image3.png
277
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kopelman discloses wherein the arbitrary line is provided on a roof of the vehicle, and the MIMO antenna is arranged in the first region or the second region (fig. 7B above).
Regarding claim 9, Kopelman discloses wherein the arbitrary line is provided on a roof of the vehicle, and one of a first antenna group including the first antenna and the third antenna and a second antenna group including the second antenna and the fourth antenna is arranged in the first region, and another one is arranged in the second region (fig. 7B below).
PNG
media_image4.png
291
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kopelman discloses wherein the first polarized wave is a vertically polarized wave, and the second polarized wave is a horizontally polarized wave,
the first antenna is a vertically polarized wave antenna that mainly transmits and receives the vertically polarized wave, and
the second antenna is a horizontally polarized wave antenna that mainly transmits and receives the horizontally polarized wave (fig. 7B above, para [0064]: vertical polarized antennas along the y-axis and horizontal polarized antennas along the x-axis).
Regarding claim 13, Kopelman discloses wherein
the first polarized wave is a vertically polarized wave, and the second polarized wave is a horizontally polarized wave,
the first antenna and the third antenna are vertically polarized wave antennas that mainly transmit and receive the vertically polarized wave, and
the second antenna and the fourth antenna are horizontally polarized wave antennas that mainly transmit and receive the horizontally polarized wave (fig. 7B above, para [0064]: vertical polarized antennas along the y-axis and horizontal polarized antennas along the x-axis).
Regarding claim 16, Kopelman discloses wherein the predetermined frequency is 3.3 GHz or more (para [0066]: 3.1-10.6 GHz band).
Regarding claim 17, Kopelman discloses wherein the predetermined frequency is 6 GHz or less (para [0066]: 2.4/5.2/5.8 GHz bands).
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 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and in view of Sugimoto et al, US-20070097001-A1 (hereinafter Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Kopelman does not disclose wherein the MIMO antenna is arranged on a windshield.
Kopelman discloses the position of the antennas can be adjusted (para [0067]: Antennas can be selected and positioned to take into account board or other ground effects).
Sugimoto suggests the MIMO antenna is arranged on a windshield (1-1c, fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the MIMO antenna taught in Kopelman on a windshield as suggested in Sugimoto as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to keep the antenna hidden to improve the aesthetic look of the vehicle, provide protection to the antennas and improve signal stability.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kopelman does not disclose wherein the MIMO antenna is arranged on a rear window.
Kopelman discloses the position of the antennas can be adjusted (para [0067]: Antennas can be selected and positioned to take into account board or other ground effects).
Sugimoto suggests the MIMO antenna is arranged on a rear window (1d-1g, fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the MIMO antenna taught in Kopelman on a rear window as suggested in Sugimoto as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to keep the antenna hidden to improve the aesthetic look of the vehicle, provide protection to the antennas and improve signal stability.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kopelman does not disclose wherein one of the first antenna group and the second antenna group is arranged on a windshield, and another one is arranged on a rear window.
Kopelman discloses the position of the antennas can be adjusted (para [0067]: Antennas can be selected and positioned to take into account board or other ground effects).
Sugimoto suggests wherein one of the first antenna group and the second antenna group is arranged on a windshield (1-1a, fig. 8), and another one is arranged on a rear window (1d, 1e).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second antenna groups taught in Kopelman on a windshield and a rear window as suggested in Sugimoto as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).The motivation stems from the need to keep the antenna hidden to improve the aesthetic look of the vehicle, provide protection to the antennas and improve signal stability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Sugimoto et al, JP-2011250108-A (hereinafter Sugimoto’108).
Regarding claim 11, Kopelman does not disclose wherein when the predetermined frequency is defined as λ, a wavelength shortening rate of a dielectric to which the first antenna and the third antenna are attached is defined as k1, and a wavelength shortening rate of a dielectric to which the second antenna and the fourth antenna are attached is defined as k2, a distance between the first antenna and the third antenna is k1 x λ/2 or more, and a distance between the second antenna and the fourth antenna is k2 x λ/2 or more.
Kopelman discloses the position of the antennas can be adjusted (para [0067]: Antennas can be selected and positioned to take into account board or other ground effects), the distance between the antennas should be at least a quarter wavelength apart from each other (para [0063]) and the distance between the antennas should be moved far away from each other as possible to achieve adequate isolation (para [0064]).
Sugimoto’108 discloses the shortening effect/shortening rate of the dielectric 13 would increase the distance between the antennas 11 and 12 and when a dielectric having a relative dielectric constant εr is arranged between two antennas, the effective length between the antennas is √εr times the actual distance (page 4, para 6 – page 5, para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance between the first and third antennas and the second and fourth antennas taught in Kopelman to be k1 x λ/2 and k2 x λ/2 or more as suggested in Sugimoto’108 as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve enough isolation between the antennas in order to improve the antenna reliability and performance (Kopelman, para [0064]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, although Kopelman does not explicitly disclose wherein a width Wc of the central region satisfies the following relationship when a width of the vehicle is defined as W 0.1 x W ≤ Wc ≤ 0.5 x W, Kopelman discloses 0.1 x W ≤ Wc ≤ W (fig. 7B) and the position of the antennas can be adjusted (para [0067]: Antennas can be selected and positioned to take into account board or other ground effects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the central region of the antenna system taught in Kopelman to satisfy the relationship 0.1 x W ≤ Wc ≤ 0.5 x W as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve desired radiation characteristics in order to improve the antenna reliability and performance (para [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, although Kopelman does not explicitly disclose wherein an antenna, which is arranged in either the first peripheral region or the second peripheral region, in the MIMO antenna is arranged apart from a pillar of the vehicle by a distance of 100 mm or less, Kopelman discloses the antenna 710B arranged in the first peripheral region (fig. 7B below) arranged in either the first peripheral region arranged apart from a pillar of the vehicle by a distance (fig. 7B below) and the position of the antennas can be adjusted (para [0067]: Antennas can be selected and positioned to take into account board or other ground effects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance between the antenna and the pillar taught in Kopelman to be of 100 mm or less as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve desired radiation characteristics in order to improve the antenna reliability and performance (para [0067]).
PNG
media_image5.png
227
541
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Citation of Pertinent Art
Inomata et al, US-20210242578-A1, fig. 1 would read on claim 1
Smith et al, US-20180213355-A1, fig. 23 would read on claim 1
Kane et al, CN-1211833-A, fig. 52 would read on claim 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, 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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights