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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umehara et al (US 2003/0052827).
Regarding claim 1, Umehara discloses in Figure 7 and pars. 0063-0064, a metal plate antenna
arranged on a substrate, the metal plate antenna comprising:
a parallel part (1a) arranged in substantially parallel to the substrate (7);
a power feeding point contact part (1d) extended from the parallel part (1a) substantially perpendicularly to the parallel part (1a), and provided in contact with a power feeding point (9) arranged on the substrate (7); and
a GND contact part (11b) formed separately from the power feeding point contact part (1d), extended from the parallel part (1a) substantially perpendicularly to the parallel part (1a), and provided
in contact with a GND (8) arranged on the substrate (7), wherein a contact area of the power feeding point contact part (1d) and the power feeding point (9) is narrower than a contact area of the GND contact part (11b) and the GND (8), and
wherein the metal plate antenna is a branched power feeding transmission line antenna.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Umehara discloses in Figure 7, wherein an antenna length defined by lengths of the parallel part (1a) and the GND contact part (11b) is determined based on a wavelength of a wireless signal that conforms to specific communication standards.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Umehara discloses in Figure 7 and par. 0064,
wherein the metal plate antenna is formed by one metal plate.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Umehara discloses in Figure 11,
wherein at least one of the parallel part (61a), the power feeding point contact part, and the
GND contact part includes a slit (16) or an opening part.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 Umehara discloses in Figure 11,
wherein a width of a lower end (21e) of the power feeding point contact part (21d) is formed
shorter than a width of an upper end of the power feeding point contact part.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Umehara discloses in Figure 7,
wherein an insulation material (6) is filled in at least one of between the parallel part (1a) , the
power feeding point contact part (1d), and the GND contact part (11b).
Regarding claim 12, Umehara discloses in Figure 7 an par. 0063-0064, an antenna device
comprising:
a substrate (7); and
a metal plate antenna arranged on the substrate (7), wherein the metal plate antenna includes:
a parallel part (1a) arranged in substantially parallel to the substrate (7);
a power feeding point contact part (1d) extended from the parallel part (1a) substantially perpendicularly to the parallel part (1a), and provided in contact with a power feeding point (9)
arranged on the substrate (7); and
a GND contact part (11b) formed separately from the power feeding point contact part (1d), extended from the parallel part (1a) substantially perpendicularly to the parallel part (1a), and provided
in contact with a GND (8) arranged on the substrate (7), and
a contact area of the power feeding point contact part (1d) and the power feeding point (9) is
narrower than a contact area of the GND contact part (11b) and the GND (8), and
wherein the metal plate antenna is a branched power feeding transmission line antenna.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umehara et al (US
2003/0052827) in view of Kadambi et al (US 6,714,162 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Umehara discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in
claim 1, except for wherein at least one of the parallel part, the power feeding point contact part, and the GND contact part includes a stab.
Kadambi discloses in Figure 3a, wherein at least one of the parallel part (11), the power feeding
point contact part, and the GND contact part includes a stab (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the parallel part of Umehara with the parallel part having a stab as
taught by Kadambi to control the antenna bandwidth. Therefore, to employ having the stab as claimed
invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umehara et al (US
2003/0052827) in view of Hagiwaga et al (US 5,767,810).
Regarding claim 10, Umehara discloses in Figure 7, wherein the metal plate antenna is formed by a plurality of metal plates, in which a first metal plate of the plurality of metal plates includes at least the parallel part (1a) and the power feeding point contact part (1d), and second metal plate of the plurality of metal plates, includes at least the GND contact part (11b).
Umehara does not disclose the first metal plate is not contact with the second metal plate.
Hagiwara discloses in Figure 4, the first metal plate (11) is not contact with the second metal plate (21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the first and second metal plates of Umehara with the first and second metal plates as taught by Hagiwara to add capacitance to antenna and reduce antenna length.
Therefore, to employ having the metal plate antenna as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umehara et al (US 2003/0052827).
Regarding claim 11, Umehara discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in
claim 2, except for wherein the specific communication standards include ultra-wide band wireless
communication. However, such difference is not patentable merit. It is a common practice and well
known in the art the size of the antenna designed to support operation in a band covering a frequency
range assigned to the antenna. Therefore, to employ having the ultra-wide band wireless
communication as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/25 have been fully considered:
Claim Objection:
Amended claims 8 and 12 have overcome the claim objections and the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. 112(b):
Amended claim 10 has overcome and the claim rejection 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejection-35 USC § 102:
Regarding amended claims 1 and 12, the applicant argues that Reference Umehara fails to teach or suggest every limitation of the amended claims 1 and 12 because the term “a branched power feeding transmission line antenna” as used by applicant entirely silent in the reference (Remarks, pages 7-8). However, while elements must be arranged as required by the claim, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. (MPEP 2131). There is no requirement that the reference use the same term as applicant. The metal plate antenna or inverted-F antenna of reference meets all structural requirements and arranged exactly the same way as required by the amended claim 1. Therefore, the metal plate antenna or inverted-F antenna of the reference is a branched power feeding transmission line antenna of the amended claims 1 and 12. Applicant’s specification does not rebut the presumption that the term “a branched power feeding transmission line antenna” is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term. The specification provides examples of a branched power feeding transmission line antenna. However, the antennas in these examples are also inverted-F antennas. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the term “branched power feeding transmission line antenna” are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 2, 5-6 and 8, no arguments specific to these claims are provided since applicant defers to arguments concerning claim 1 instead.
Regarding claim 9, Reference Umehara clearly discloses in Figure 7 that an insulation material (6) is filled in between the parallel part (1a) and the GND contact part (11b). Therefore, Umehara clearly discloses wherein an insulation material is filled in at least one of between the parallel part, the
power feeding point contact part, and the GND contact part.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. 103:
No arguments specific to these claims 7 and 10-11 are provided since applicant defers to arguments concerning claim 1 instead.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, DIMARY CRUZ LOPEZ can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845