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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13, 15-21 are currently pending. Applicant’s cancellations of claims 10-12 have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant argued that “Noro discloses an antenna apparatus but fails to disclose the configuration where a first antenna (monopole or patch) and a second antenna (collinear antenna array) both support "radio waves in the same frequency band." In Noro, the antennas (51 and 52) are explicitly intended for use in different frequency bands. Furthermore, Noro does not disclose a "collinear antenna array" as defined in amended claim 1.
Martinez Ortigosa fails to disclose the specific combination of a first antenna (monopole/patch), a second antenna (collinear array), and a third antenna (satellite patch) as recited in claim 1.
Nakano may disclose an antenna positioned between two other antennas; however, it fails to disclose that this intermediate antenna is a "patch antenna... that receives satellite signals."
Instead, the intermediate antenna in Nakano is a plate-shaped antenna corresponding to vertical polarization.
Finally, Noro is fundamentally premised on antennas used in different frequency bands. In contrast, the claimed subject matter is directed to a specific arrangement where the first and second antennas correspond to radio waves in the same frequency band.
As noted in KSR, there must be an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to support a conclusion of obviousness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the disparate antenna types and bands of Noro with the mechanical spacing of Nakano to arrive at the specific layout of claim 1.
Accordingly, the applied references fail to disclose and would not have rendered obvious the combinations of features recited by independent claim 1. Therefore, independent claim 1 is patentable. New claim 20 is patentable for similar reasons. The dependent claims are also patentable at least by virtue of their respective dependencies from a patentable independent claim, as well as for the additional features they recite.”
The arguments are moot because claim 1 is now being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun, US-20200112101-A1 in view of NPL “Everything You Need To Know About GPS L1, L2, and L5 Frequencies” from GIS Resources Website (hereinafter GIS Resources) applied as a teaching reference, and further in view of Sone et al, US-20200091615-A1 as explained below.
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, 15-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun, US-20200112101-A1 in view of NPL “Everything You Need To Know About GPS L1, L2, and L5 Frequencies” from GIS Resources Website (hereinafter GIS Resources) applied as a teaching reference, and further in view of Sone et al, US-20200091615-A1 (hereinafter Sone).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses the following:
a vehicular antenna device comprising:
a base (111, fig. 1);
a case (110) forming an accommodation space with the base;
a first antenna (105) accommodated in the accommodation space, the first antenna supporting radio waves in a desired frequency band (LTE, para [0047]);
a second antenna accommodated in the accommodation space, the second antenna supporting radio waves in the same frequency band as the desired frequency band (LTE, para [0046]); and
a third antenna (104) accommodated in the accommodation space, the third antenna performing at least one of transmitting or receiving radio waves in a frequency band (GNSS, para [0047]), wherein
at least a portion of the first antenna (105) is arranged at a first proximate position close to the case (110),
at least a portion of the second antenna (103) is arranged at a second proximate position close to the case (110),
the first antenna is a monopole antenna corresponding to vertical polarization or a patch antenna corresponding to vertical polarization (130/105, fig. 2A, para [0080]), and
the third antenna (104) is a patch antenna (para [0048]) positioned between the first antenna (105) and the second antenna (103) that receives satellite signals (para [0047]).
Although Yun does not explicitly disclose the frequency band of the third antenna different from the desired frequency band, Yun discloses the third antenna operates in GNSS frequency (para [0047]) and the desired frequency band is LTE (para [0046]-[0047]) and LTE frequency is 3G, 4G, or 700 MHz (para [0033]).
GIS Resources applied as a teaching reference discloses the GNSS/GPS frequencies are 1575.42 MHz, 1227.60 MHz, and 1176.45 MHz (page 1, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frequency band of the third antenna taught in Yun to be different from the desired frequency band as taught in GIS Resources as claimed for the purpose of designing an antenna being able to operate in different frequencies in order to wireless communicate with different devices at the same time.
Yun does not disclose the second antenna is a collinear antenna array corresponding to vertical polarization and comprising a first linear portion having a feeding point, an annular portion connected to the first linear portion, and a second linear portion extending from the annular portion.
However, Yun discloses the second antenna is a monopole antenna (fig. 1, para [0046]).
Sone suggests the monopole antenna should be replaced with a collinear antenna array (para [0003], [0080]) and the collinear antenna array (95, fig. 29) corresponding to vertical polarization (para [0103]) and comprising a first linear portion (951) having a feeding point (para[0104]), an annular portion (952) connected to the first linear portion (951), and a second linear portion (953) extending from the annular portion (952).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second antenna taught in Yun to be a collinear antenna array as suggested in Sone as claimed for the purpose of increasing the gain of the antenna (Sone, para [0080]) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 15, Yun does not disclose the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one parasitic element arranged proximate to the first antenna, wherein the at least one parasitic element operates as a reflector to increase an antenna gain of the first antenna in a first direction.
Sone suggests the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one parasitic element (60A, fig. 29) arranged proximate to an antenna (95), wherein the at least one parasitic element operates as a reflector (para [0107]) to increase an antenna gain of the first antenna in a first direction (para [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a parasitic element as suggested in Sone to the vehicular antenna device taught in Yun as claimed for the purpose of increasing the gain of the antenna (Sone, para [0082]) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 16, Yun does not disclose the annular portion adjusts a phase of radio waves between the first and second linear portions.
Sone suggests the annular portion (952, fig. 29) adjusts a phase of radio waves between the first and second linear portions (para [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the annular portion to adjust a phase of radio waves between the first and second linear portions as suggested in Sone to the vehicular antenna device taught in Yun as claimed for the purpose of increasing the gain of the antenna (Sone, para [0080]) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 19, Yun does not disclose wherein the second linear portion is inclined with respect to the first linear portion.
Sone suggests wherein the second linear portion (953, fig. 29) is inclined with respect to the first linear portion (951).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second linear portion being inclined with respect to the first linear portion as suggested in Sone to the vehicular antenna device taught in Yun as claimed for the purpose of fitting the second antenna in a limited space without affecting the antenna’s performance (Sone, para [0104]).
Regarding claim 20, Yun discloses the following:
a vehicular antenna device comprising:
a base (111, fig. 1);
a case (110) forming an accommodation space with the base;
a first antenna (105) accommodated in the accommodation space, the first antenna supporting radio waves in a desired frequency band (LTE, para [0047]);
a second antenna accommodated in the accommodation space, the second antenna supporting radio waves in the same frequency band as the desired frequency band (LTE, para [0046]); and
a third antenna (104) accommodated in the accommodation space, the third antenna performing at least one of transmitting or receiving radio waves in a frequency band (GNSS, para [0047]), wherein
at least a portion of the first antenna (105) is arranged at a first proximate position close to the case (110),
at least a portion of the second antenna (103) is arranged at a second proximate position close to the case (110),
the first antenna is a monopole antenna corresponding to vertical polarization or a patch antenna corresponding to vertical polarization (130/105, fig. 2A, para [0080]),
the second antenna (103) is a monopole antenna (para [0046], fig. 1), and
the third antenna (104) is a patch antenna (para [0048]) positioned between the first antenna (105) and the second antenna (103) that receives satellite signals (para [0047]).
Although Yun does not explicitly disclose the frequency band of the third antenna different from the desired frequency band, Yun discloses the third antenna operates in GNSS frequency (para [0047]) and the desired frequency band is LTE (para [0046]-[0047]) and LTE frequency is 3G, 4G, or 700 MHz (para [0033]).
GIS Resources applied as a teaching reference discloses the GNSS/GPS frequencies are 1575.42 MHz, 1227.60 MHz, and 1176.45 MHz (page 1, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frequency band of the third antenna taught in Yun to be different from the desired frequency band as taught in GIS Resources as claimed for the purpose of designing an antenna being able to operate in different frequencies in order to wireless communicate with different devices at the same time.
Although Yun does not explicitly disclose the second antenna is corresponding to vertical polarization, Yun discloses vertical polarization in a vertical plane is also orthogonal to a circular polarization in a horizontal plane (para 0080]) and the second antenna (103) is a monopole antenna (para [0046]) being orthogonal to a horizontal plane (fig. 1).
Sone suggests the monopole antenna corresponding to vertical polarization (para [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second antenna taught in Yun to be corresponding to vertical polarization as suggested in Sone as claimed for the purpose of designing an antenna being able to provide vertically polarized signal depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 21, Yun does not disclose the vehicular antenna device according to claim 20, further comprising at least one parasitic element arranged proximate to the first antenna, wherein the at least one parasitic element operates as a reflector to increase an antenna gain of the first antenna in a first direction.
Sone suggests the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one parasitic element (60A, fig. 29) arranged proximate to an antenna (95), wherein the at least one parasitic element operates as a reflector (para [0107]) to increase an antenna gain of the first antenna in a first direction (para [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a parasitic element as suggested in Sone to the vehicular antenna device taught in Yun as claimed for the purpose of increasing the gain of the antenna (Sone, para [0082]) in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Sone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sclafani, US-20180331424-A1.
Regarding claim 2, Yun discloses wherein the first proximate position is a position at which at least the portion of the first antenna (105, fig. 1 reproduced below) is separated, by a predetermined distance along a plane of the base (111), from a first contact position at which at least the portion of the first antenna contacts the case (fig. 1).
The combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose the predetermined distance is equal to or less than three-halves of a wavelength of the desired frequency band, but Yun discloses the desired frequency is LTE (para [0047]) which has a wavelength.
Sclafani does not explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is equal to or less than three-halves of a wavelength of the desired frequency band, Sclafani suggests the minimum distance from the antenna to the case has to be at least 0.5 inches (para [0037]).
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 of the first antenna taught in Yun, Sone and Sclafani to be equal to or less than three-halves of a wavelength 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 fit a plurality of antennas inside a limited space of the case and still avoid interference between the antennas.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose wherein the predetermined distance is equal to or less than one wavelength of the desired frequency band, but Yun discloses the desired frequency is LTE (para [0047]) which has a wavelength.
Sclafani does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined distance is equal to or less than one wavelength of the desired frequency band, Sclafani suggests the minimum distance from the antenna to the case has to be at least 0.5 inches (para [0037]).
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 of the first antenna taught in Yun, Sone and Sclafani to be equal to or less than one wavelength 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 fit a plurality of antennas inside a limited space of the case and still avoid interference between the antennas.
Regarding claim 5, Yun discloses wherein the first proximate position is a position at which at least the portion of the first antenna (105, fig. 1 reproduced below) is separated, by a predetermined distance along a plane of the base (111), from a first contact position at which at least the portion of the first antenna contacts the case (fig. 1),
the second proximate position is a position at which at least the portion of the second antenna (103) is separated, by the predetermined distance along the plane of the base (11), from a second contact position at which at least the second antenna contacts the case (fig. 1).
The combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose the predetermined distance is equal to or less than three-halves of a wavelength of the desired frequency band, but Yun discloses the desired frequency is LTE (para [0047]) which has a wavelength.
Sclafani does not explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is equal to or less than three-halves of a wavelength of the desired frequency band, Sclafani suggests the minimum distance from the antenna to the case has to be at least 0.5 inches (para [0037]).
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 of the antennas taught in Yun, Sone and Sclafani to be equal to or less than three-halves of a wavelength 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 fit a plurality of antennas inside a limited space of the case and still avoid interference between the antennas.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose wherein the predetermined distance is equal to or less than one wavelength of the desired frequency band, but Yun discloses the desired frequency is LTE (para [0047]) which has a wavelength.
Sclafani does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined distance is equal to or less than one wavelength of the desired frequency band, Sclafani suggests the minimum distance from the antenna to the case has to be at least 0.5 inches (para [0037]).
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 of the first antenna taught in Yun, Sone and Sclafani to be equal to or less than one wavelength 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 fit a plurality of antennas inside a limited space of the case and still avoid interference between the antennas.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Sone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiina et al, JP-2019068280-A (hereinafter Shiina).
Regarding claim 7, although Yun does not explicitly disclose wherein a direction in which an antenna gain of the first antenna is high is different from a direction in which an antenna gain of the second antenna is high, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand that the first antenna is located toward the front direction so the gain of the first antenna would be high in the front direction and the second antenna is located toward the rear direction so the gain of the first antenna would be high in the rear direction.
Shiina applied as a teaching reference suggests the gain of the antennas depending on the directions of the antennas (last para , page 4 – page 5, para 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gain of the second antenna taught by Yun and Sone increasing compared to the gain of the first antenna as suggested in Shiina as claimed for the purpose of achieving the desired radiating characteristics and providing radiating toward the desired direction.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Sone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terashita et al, US-20190280372-A1 (hereinafter Terashita).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1,further comprising: a plurality of substrates at which the first antenna and the second antenna are arranged, the plurality of substrates being arranged at the base.
Terashita suggests the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of substrates (144, 18, 19, fig. 2) at which the antennas (143, 15, 17) are arranged, the plurality of substrates being arranged at the base (23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of substrates as suggested in Terashita to the vehicular antenna device taught in Yun and Sone as claimed for the purpose of mounting the first and second antennas separately in order to simplifying the process of replacing or relocating the antennas.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of substrates is mounted within a recessed receiving portion of the base such that an upper surface of the at least one substrate is flush with an upper surface of the base.
Terashita suggests wherein at least one of the plurality of substrates (144, 18, 19, fig. 2) is mounted within a recessed receiving portion of the base (233 of base 23, 211, 212 of base 21) such that an upper surface of the at least one substrate is flush with an upper surface of the base (figs. 7, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount at least one of the plurality of substrates taught in Yun and Sone within a recessed receiving portion of the base as suggested in Terashita as claimed for the purpose of being able to mount the substrate on the base to support the antenna and preventing the substrate from moving.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun and Sone as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakano et al, US-20180241420-A1 (hereinafter Nakano).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yun and Sone does not disclose wherein the first antenna includes a circuit that suppresses signals in the frequency band supported by the third antenna.
Nakano suggests the first antenna (12a, 12b, fig. 2) includes a circuit (15a, 15b) configured to suppress signals in the frequency band supported by an antenna (11a, 11, para [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a circuit as suggested in Nakano to the antenna device taught in Yun and Sone as claimed for the purpose of blocking the radio signals from the third antenna in order to prevent interference between the first, second antennas and the third antenna (Nakano, para [0030]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun, Sone and Terashita as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Thier et al, CN-106663861-A (hereinafter Thier).
Regarding claim 18, Yun discloses that wherein the vehicular antenna device according to claim 8, further comprising a cable (communication line, para [0050]) connected to at least one of the plurality of substrates (180, fig. 1).
The combination of Yun, Sone and Terashita does not disclose the cable is a coaxial cable, wherein the base includes a recessed cable accommodating portion configured to hold the coaxial cable such that the coaxial cable is positioned below an upper surface of the base.
Thier suggests the cable is a coaxial cable, wherein the base (3, fig. 4) includes a recessed cable accommodating portion (10) configured to hold the coaxial cable (31) such that the coaxial cable is positioned below an upper surface of the base (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide hold the cable taught in Yun, Sone and Terashita in a recessed cable accommodating portion as suggested in Thier as claimed for the purpose of routing the cable along desired direction and providing protection to the cable (Thier, page 6, para 2).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Yang et al, WO-2016019784-A1, fig. 2 (cited in IDS dated 04/30/2025) could read on claim 20
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