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 .
Miscellaneous
The Applicant has cancelled claim 4; therefore, only claims 1-3 and 5-10 remain for this Office Action.
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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terashita et al. (US 2019/0280372).
In regards to claim 1, Terashita discloses of an antenna device comprising: an antenna element (for example see 16 in Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0048-0049, 0052); a circuit board including a circuit portion (see Paragraphs 0052, 0054, circuit board/portion elements of antennas 15,16 mounted on back surface of 18 not shown); a conductive base (20, comprising 21, 22, 23) covering at least a part of the circuit portion and provided with a recessed portion (for example see 211, 212 in Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0054-0055); and a contact portion (for example 18) configured to bring the recessed portion (211,b 212) and the circuit board into contact with each other (see Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0052, 0053), wherein the recessed portion (211, 212), has a bottom surface forming a shield case (see Paragraph 0054) and is formed integrally with the conductive base, the conductive base is formed with a sheet metal (see Paragraphs 0053, 0104), and a wall (for example 213) of a protruding portion surrounding the recessed portion (211, 212) rises so as to be inclined from a bottom surface of the conductive base (see Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0043-0058).
In regards to claim 2, Terashita discloses of the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the contact portion (18) includes a screw hole provided in the recessed portion (211, 212) and a screw screwed into the screw hole (see Fig 2 and Paragraph 0055).
In regards to claim 3, Terashita discloses of the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the recessed portion (211, 212) in contact with the circuit board (see Paragraphs 0052, 0054) is a plane substantially parallel to the bottom surface of the recessed portion (211, 212, see Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0052, 0054).
In regards to claim 7, Terashita discloses of the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the conductive base (20, comprised of 21, 22, 23) is made of a resin subjected to die casting or plating (for example see 21, 23 and Paragraphs 0053, 0104; 23 is made of a resin and 21 may be formed via die-casting).
In regards to claim 8, Terashita discloses of the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the contact portion (18) is configured to bring the recessed portion (211, 212) and the circuit board (see Paragraphs 0052, 0054) into electrical contact with each other (see Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0052, 0054).
In regards to claim 9, Terashita discloses of the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit board (see Paragraphs 0052, 0054) directly opposes the recessed portion (211, 212, see Fig 2 and Paragraphs 0052, 0054).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashita (US 2019/0280372) in view of Panfil et al. (US 2016/0268790).
In regards to claim 6, Terashita discloses of the antenna device according to claim 1 as found within the explanation above.7
However, Terashita does not disclose of wherein the contact portion includes a conductive cushion provided in the recessed portion.
Panfil discloses of an antenna device comprising: an antenna element (12); an antenna base (12A); a conductive base (14) covering at least a part of the antenna base (12A) and provided with a recessed portion (see 14B); and a contact portion (see 14A) configured to bring the recessed portion (14B) and the antenna base (12A) into contact with each other (see Figs 2, 2A-B), wherein the contact portion includes a conductive cushion (conductive sealant assembly 16, including 18, 20, 22, 24, 24A-B, 26, 28) provided in the recess portion (14B, see Figs 2, 2A-B and Paragraphs 0026-0028, 0034-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a conductive cushion portion as taught by Panfil for delivering optimum performance of the antenna device by providing improved protection and conduction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regards to claim 10, the prior art does not disclose nor render the emphasized subject matter below, and including an antenna device comprising: an antenna element; a circuit board including a circuit portion; a base covering at least a part of the circuit portion and provided with a recessed portion; and a contact portion configured to bring the recessed portion and the circuit board into contact with each other, wherein the recessed portion has a bottom surface forming a shield case, and the contact portion includes a leaf spring provided in the recessed portion, nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
In regards to claim 5, the prior art does not disclose of the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the contact portion includes a leaf spring provided in the recessed portion, nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Jason M Crawford whose telephone number is (571)272-6004. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/JASON M CRAWFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights