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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the holding member as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of “a holding member that holds the radiation element, the holding member being positioned lower than the radiation element in a side view” as well as, “the at least one parasitic slot is provided in a position lower than the holding member in the side view”.
Independent claim 2 also recites the limitations of “a holding member that holds the radiation element, the holding member being positioned lower than the radiation element in a side view” as well as, “the at least one parasitic slot is provided in a position lower than the holding member in the side view”.
While there is no in haec verba requirement, it is asserted that, the examiner, upon examining
the disclosure extensively, determines that these recitations and limitations are not disclosed in the original disclosure in such a way that would be apparent that Applicant, at the time the invention was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Specification, throughout describes “a dielectric member 34”, as well as, a ground plane 20 that may be a “circular or plate shaped member”. As recited in independent claim 2, the claimed holding member is recited separately from the ground plane therein.
As such, there is no discernable recitation in the Specification, or, any element , structure, or feature shown in the Drawings or Abstract, that would apprise one of ordinary skill of the holding member as recited.
Claims 3, 5-11, 13-18 depend from independent claims 1 and 2 accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Dusseux et al US 5539420 A.
Regarding claim 1, Dusseux et al teaches an antenna device(Figs 1, 2), comprising:
an antenna including a radiation element(element 1,Fig 2) capable of receiving a signal of a predetermined frequency band, and a holding member(element 5,Fig 2) that holds the radiation element, the holding member being positioned lower than the radiation element in a side view(element 5 is positioned lower than element 1,Fig 2); and a metallic portion(element 8,Fig 2) that includes at least one parasitic slot(element 3,Fig 2) provided around the antenna, wherein the at least one parasitic slot is provided in a position lower than the holding member in the side view(element 3 positioned lower than element 5,Fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Dusseux et al teaches an antenna device(Figs 1, 2),comprising:
a ground plane(element 8,Fig 2); and an antenna (Fig 2) provided on the ground plane, the antenna including a radiation element(element 1,Fig 2), and a holding member(element 5,Fig 2) that holds the radiation element, the holding member being positioned lower than the radiation element in a side view(element 5 is positioned lower than element 1,Fig 2), wherein the ground plane includes at least one parasitic slot(element 3,Fig 2) formed around the antenna, and the at least one parasitic slot is provided in a position lower than the holding member in the side view(element 3 positioned lower than element 5,Fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Dusseex et al teaches wherein the at least one parasitic slot is provided within a predetermined range around the antenna(element 3,Figs 1, 2).
Regarding claim 8, Dusseux et al teaches wherein a plurality of the parasitic slots are provided around the antenna(elements 3, 17 Fig 10).
Regarding claim 11, Dusseux et al teaches wherein the at least one parasitic slot is provided within a predetermined range around the antenna(element 3,Figs 1, 2).
Regarding claim 16, Dusseux et al teaches wherein a plurality of the parasitic slots are provided around the antenna(elements 3, 17 Fig 10).
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseux et al US 5539420 A.
Regarding claim 5, Dusseux et al discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Dusseux et al does not explicitly disclose “wherein a shape of the at least one parasitic slot is a quadrangle having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction”.
However, Dusseux et al suggests wherein a shape of the at least one
parasitic slot is a quadrangle having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction (‘”these cut-outs 17 may be any shape, but they do affect the required performance.” Column 5, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have a shape of the slot being a quadrangle having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction as suggested by the teaching of Dusseux et al in order to achieve the required performance characteristics.
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 13, Dusseux et al does not explicitly disclose “wherein a shape of the at least one parasitic slot is a quadrangle having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction”.
However, Dusseux suggests wherein a shape of the at least one parasitic slot is a quadrangle having a longitudinal direction and a transverse (‘”these cut-outs 17 may be any shape, but they do affect the required performance.” Column 5, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have a shape of the slot being a quadrangle having a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction as suggested by the teaching of Dusseux et al in order to achieve the required performance characteristics.
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseux et al US 5539420 A in view of O’Brien et al (U.S. Publication number US 20180294567 A1 hereby referred to as O’Brien).
Regarding claim 6, Dusseux et al does not disclose “wherein a length in the longitudinal direction is substantially half a wavelength of a desired frequency band.”
However, O’Brien teaches of a length in the longitudinal direction is substantially half a wavelength of a desired frequency band (“The parasitic elements 120 are designed to be slightly greater than or less than half of a wavelength in length”, para. 0033 also “the lengths of the parasitic elements 120 are dictated by the intended operational frequency/wavelength of the patch antenna system 100, as well as the thickness and permittivity of the dielectric substrate 52”, para. 0033).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a length in the longitudinal direction be substantially half a wavelength of a desired frequency band as taught by O’Brien with the antenna device of Dusseux et al in order to design it for the intended operational frequency (para. 0033, O’Brien).
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Dusseux et al does not disclose “wherein a length in the longitudinal direction is substantially half a wavelength of a desired frequency band.”
However, O’Brien teaches of a length in the longitudinal direction is substantially half a wavelength of a desired frequency band (“The parasitic elements 120 are designed to be slightly greater than or less than half of a wavelength in length”, para. 0033 also “the lengths of the parasitic elements 120 are dictated by the intended operational frequency/wavelength of the patch antenna system 100, as well as the thickness and permittivity of the dielectric substrate 52”, para. 0033).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a length in the longitudinal direction be substantially half a wavelength of a desired frequency band as taught by O’Brien with the antenna device of Dusseux in order to design it for the intended operational frequency (para. 0033, O’Brien). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseux et al US 5539420 A in view of Obata et al (U.S. Publication number US 20190334246 A1 hereby referred to as Obata).
Regarding claim 7, Dusseux et al does not disclose “wherein the at least one parasitic slot is provided in a position separated from a center of the antenna by substantially one-fourth or more or substantially three fourths or less of a wavelength of a desired frequency band.” However, Obata suggests the teaching wherein the slot (not explicitly a slot but 150 is a parasitic element with a quadrangular shape around an antenna 130) (Fig. 170B, 170C) is provided in a position separated from a center of the antenna (the center of 130) by substantially one-fourth or more (the distance of 150 to the edge of 130 is approximately one-fourth of a wavelength and is therefore more than one-fourth of a wavelength to the center of 130) or substantially three-fourths or less of a wavelength (see Fig. 170C) of a desired frequency band.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slot be provided in a position separated from a center of the antenna by substantially one-fourth or more or substantially three-fourths or less of a wavelength of a desired frequency band as suggested by the teachings of Obata with the antenna device of Dusseux et al in order to adjust antenna gain increases (para. 0048 and 0049, Obata). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 15, Dusseux et al does not disclose “wherein the at least one parasitic slot is provided in a position separated from a center of the antenna by substantially one-fourth or more or substantially three fourths or less of a wavelength of a desired frequency band.”
However, Obata suggests the teaching wherein the slot (not explicitly a slot but 150 is a parasitic element with a quadrangular shape around an antenna 130) (Fig. 170B, 170C) is provided in a position separated from a center of the antenna (the center of 130) by substantially one-fourth or more (the distance of 150 to the edge of 130 is approximately one-fourth of a wavelength and is therefore more than one-fourth of a wavelength to the center of 130) or substantially three-fourths or less of a wavelength (see Fig. 170C) of a desired frequency band.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slot be provided in a position separated from a center of the antenna by substantially one-fourth or more or substantially three-fourths or less of a wavelength of a desired frequency band as suggested by the teachings of Obata with the antenna device of Dusseux in order to adjust antenna gain increases (para. 0048 and 0049, Obata). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 9,10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseux et al US 5539420 A in view of Rafi et al (U.S. Publication number US 20080204326 A1 hereby referred to as Rafi).
Regarding claim 9, Dusseux et al does not teach wherein the antenna is a satellite antenna that receives a satellite signal.
Rafi discloses: wherein the antenna (14) is a satellite antenna that receives a satellite signal (antenna can operate in GPS bands which are satellite signals, see para. 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide wherein the antenna is a satellite antenna that receives a satellite signal as taught by Rafi et al in the antenna assembly of Dusseux et al in order to achieve the desired operating frequency characteristics(see Rafi para 0006).
Regarding claim 10, Dusseux et al does not teach wherein the antenna is a patch antenna.
Rafi discloses: wherein the antenna (14) is a patch antenna (see para. 0021 and 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide wherein the antenna is a patch antenna as taught by Rafi et al in the antenna assembly of Dusseux et al in order to achieve the desired operating frequency characteristics(see Rafi para 0021, 0022).
Regarding claim 17, Dusseux et al does not teach wherein the antenna is a satellite antenna that receives a satellite signal.
Rafi discloses: wherein the antenna (14) is a satellite antenna that receives a satellite signal (antenna can operate in GPS bands which are satellite signals, see para. 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide wherein the antenna is a satellite antenna that receives a satellite signal as taught by Rafi et al in the antenna assembly of Dusseux et al in order to achieve the desired operating frequency characteristics(see Rafi para 0006).
Regarding claim 18, Dusseux et al does not teach wherein the antenna is a patch antenna.
Rafi discloses: wherein the antenna (14) is a patch antenna (see para. 0021 and 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide wherein the antenna is a patch antenna as taught by Rafi et al in the antenna assembly of Dusseux et al in order to achieve the desired operating frequency characteristics(see Rafipara 0021, 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed in the PTOl 892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights