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 Amendment
Applicants Amendment submitted 9/9/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/a2) as being anticipated by Iino US 10819000 B2 .
Regarding claim 1, Iino teaches: A vehicular antenna device comprising:
a first antenna(element 20, Figs 5A-5C) configured to support radio waves in a first frequency band; and a second antenna(element 30, Figs 5A-5C) configured to support radio waves in a second frequency band different from the first frequency band(see Abstract), wherein an element included in the second antenna resonates in the second frequency band and a part( middle element 33, Figs 5A-5C) of the element includes a plurality of turns and resonates in the first frequency band(Figs 5A-5C, column 7, lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 2, Iino teaches: wherein the part of the element is formed to have an electrical length to resonate in the first frequency band(Figs 5A-5C, column 7, lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 3, Iino teaches: wherein an electrical length of the part of the element is 1/2 of a wavelength of the first frequency band(column 4, lines 25-39).
Regarding claim 5, Iino teaches: wherein the part of the element has a gap formed therein the gap extending in at least either a horizontal direction or a vertical direction(slits in middle element 33, Figs 5A-5C).
Regarding claim 6, Iino teaches: wherein the part of the element is formed by repeating a turn in the horizontal direction( middle element 33, Figs 5A-5C).
Regarding claim 7, Iino teaches: wherein in a top view and a side view, the first antenna and the part of the element are nonoverlapping(Figs 5A-5C, elements 20 and middle element 33 are nonoverlapping in top view Fig 5A and side view Fig 5B).
Regarding claim 8, Iino teaches: wherein in a top view or a side view, the first antenna and the part of the element are nonoverlapping(Figs 5A-5C, elements 20 and middle element 33 are nonoverlapping in top view Fig 5A or side view Fig 5B)..
Regarding claim 9, Iino teaches: wherein the first antenna and the part of the element are separated by a predetermined distance in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction(Figs 5A-5C, elements 20 and middle element 33 are vertically separated in top view Fig 5A and horizontally separated, side view Fig 5B).
Regarding claim 10, Iino teaches: wherein the predetermined distance is equal to or more than 1/4 of a wavelength of the first frequency band(column 4, lines 25-39).
Regarding claim 11, Iino teaches: wherein the second frequency band is lower than the first frequency band(see Abstract, column 4, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, Iino teaches: wherein the part of the element is formed into mountain shape(see mountain shape, Fig 5C).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sone EP 4178038 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Iino does not teach wherein the second antenna includes a plurality of metal bodies and a plurality of filters, the plurality of metal bodies being arranged with a gap and the plurality of filters electrically connecting the plurality of metal bodies.
Sone teaches wherein a second antenna(element 30 Fig 15) includes a plurality of metal bodies(element 99a, 99b Fig 15) and a plurality of filters(elements 60 Fig 15), the plurality of metal bodies being arranged with a gap(element 100 Fig 15) and the plurality of filters electrically connecting the plurality of metal bodies(para 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have provided a plurality of metal bodies and a plurality of filters, the plurality of metal bodies being arranged with a gap and the plurality of filters electrically connecting the plurality of metal bodies as taught by Sone in the antenna of Iino for the purpose of facilitating high impedance operation therein(para 0051)
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 PTO-892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Applicants’ 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 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