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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P. 12, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-7,10,13,16-17,19, 21, 23, 24, 28 and 30-31 have been fully considered. However, the amendments raise new issues as shown in the rejection below. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7,10,13,16-17,19, 21, 23, 24, 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when the current loop antenna operates, a uniform magnetic field is distributed between a radiating element of the current loop antenna and a reference ground” and “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna operates, a uniform electric field is distributed between a radiating element of the magnetic loop antenna and the reference ground, wherein the uniform electric field comprises a closed magnetic loop formed adjacent to and around the radiating element of the magnetic loop antenna”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when”. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claim to instead utilize the term “generate” as recited throughout the specification. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when the first antenna operates…” and “wherein when the second antenna operates…”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when”. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claim to instead utilize the terms “generate” or “excite” as recited throughout the specification. Additionally, the claim recites the limitations “a ground plane current is excited…” twice which renders the claim indefinite. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claim to instead label each ground plane current with its corresponding antenna.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the limitations “a uniform magnetic field…” twice which renders the claim indefinite. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claim to instead label each uniform magnetic field with its corresponding antenna. Additionally, “a uniform magnetic field” was previously introduced in claim 1 and it is unclear if they are the same or different magnetic fields.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites the limitations “a uniform electric field…” twice which renders the claim indefinite. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claim to instead label each uniform electric field with its corresponding antenna. Additionally, “a uniform electric field” was previously introduced in claim 1 and it is unclear if they are the same or different electric fields.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when the current loop antenna is a current loop monopole antenna or a current loop dipole antenna”, and “wherein when the current loop antenna is a current loop aperture antenna or a current loop left-hand antenna”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when” and because it is unclear which antenna is the current loop antenna from “a current loop monopole antenna or a current loop dipole antenna, or a current loop aperture antenna or a current loop left-hand antenna”. Additionally, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when an operating frequency band of the current loop antenna…” and “wherein when the operating frequency band of the current loop antenna…” twice, and the limitations “wherein when an operating frequency band of the magnetic loop antenna…” and “wherein when the operating frequency band of the magnetic loop antenna…” twice, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when”. Furthermore, claim recites the limitation “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna operates…” and “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna is a magnetic loop monopole antenna or a magnetic loop dipole antenna” and “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna is a magnetic loop aperture antenna or a magnetic loop left-hand antenna”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when” and because it is unclear which antenna is the magnetic loop antenna from “a magnetic loop monopole antenna or a magnetic loop dipole antenna or magnetic loop aperture antenna or a magnetic loop left-hand antenna”. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when the current loop antenna operates, a uniform magnetic field is distributed between a radiating element of the current loop antenna and a reference ground” and “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna operates, a uniform electric field is distributed between a radiating element of the magnetic loop antenna and the reference ground, wherein the uniform electric field comprises a closed magnetic loop formed adjacent to and around the radiating element of the magnetic loop antenna”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when”. In order to overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending the claim to instead utilize the term “generate” as recited throughout the specification. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when the current loop antenna is a current loop monopole antenna or a current loop dipole antenna”, and “wherein when the current loop antenna is a current loop aperture antenna or a current loop left-hand antenna”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when” and because it is unclear which antenna is the current loop antenna from “a current loop monopole antenna or a current loop dipole antenna, or a current loop aperture antenna or a current loop left-hand antenna”. Additionally, the claim recites the limitations “wherein when an operating frequency band of the current loop antenna…” and “wherein when the operating frequency band of the current loop antenna…” twice, and the limitations “wherein when an operating frequency band of the magnetic loop antenna…” and “wherein when the operating frequency band of the magnetic loop antenna…” twice, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when”. Furthermore, claim recites the limitation “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna operates…” and “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna is a magnetic loop monopole antenna or a magnetic loop dipole antenna” and “wherein when the magnetic loop antenna is a magnetic loop aperture antenna or a magnetic loop left-hand antenna”, however, they render the claim indefinite because of the conditional “when” and because it is unclear which antenna is the magnetic loop antenna from “a magnetic loop monopole antenna or a magnetic loop dipole antenna or magnetic loop aperture antenna or a magnetic loop left-hand antenna”.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights